Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-01-05 tginger PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 5, 2007 GINGER PATCH DP, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 06-000052) was called to order at 10:17 a.m.in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman William R. Graham presiding. Kimo Alameda PRESENT: C. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones Allen Salavea Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho QdmdlRhq`btr` Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 11 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: GINGER PATCH DP, LLC (REZ 06-000052) Change of Zone for 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) district. The property is located along the north side of Puainako Street, between Kilauea Avenue and Kekela Street, across from the KTA Super Stores complex, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-39:31, 57, 68 and 69. GRAHAM: Next item on our agenda is also a rezoning application. The applicant is Ginger Patch DP, LLC. This is a Change of Zone application for 88,317 square feet of land from a Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet to a Neighborhood Commercial. The location of the property is along the north side of Puainako Street, between Kilauea Avenue and Kekela Street, across from the KTA Super Stores complex. Norman? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Since you just received the background and recommendation I’m going to go in a little bit more detail than normal. GRAHAM: Thank you, that would be appreciated. HAYASHI: Okay, first of all, the subject property is indicated by this red dot. It is situated at the corner of Puainako, and this would be Puainako, and Kilauea Avenue, also EXHIBIT B 1 bordered by Kekela Street; and that’s this road between the current Ginger Patch Market and the subject property. The colors on the map indicate the various zoning districts. The yellow areas are currently zoned for Single Family Residential. We have existing Neighborhood-Commercial zoning at this particular location. It’s where the Ginger Patch Market is situated. We also have areas here, this would be the KTA Super Store complex, as well as the Puainako Town Center Complex at this location. The darker, I guess it’s red or maroon colored area, this is where the Plaza is located, the Prince Kuhio Shopping Center. And this particular property was rezoned several years ago, that’s the Matsuno property. It is situated at the corner of Puainako and Kanoelehua Avenue. This would be the Volcano Highway running towards Puna and this would be going towards the Hamakua direction. Again, this is Puainako Street going to the west. This section of Puainako Street is owned by the State, and it currently has a 120- to 150-foot right-of-way at this particular section between Kilauea Avenue and Kanoelehua Avenue. It’s two lanes on both sides and with additional turning lanes. There is a median strip in certain locations fronting the subject property. There are couple of breaks in the area. One would be at this particular location where Kekela Street is located. In this particular section of Kekela Street there are approximately 30 single-family homes utilizing Kekela Street. Adjacent to the property are also existing single-family dwellings. The applicant intends to construct two commercial buildings on the property in this general configuration. Again, this is a conceptual plan for rezoning purposes. The buildings would be one story in height; and there are some photographic renderings that were distributed to all of you that were submitted by the applicant. The parking would be located in this general configuration. Again, access, there will be two accesses to the property. One would be from Kekela Street. This would be Puainako Street. Kekela Street and the Kanoelehua Avenue would be at this location here. Again, this is Kilauea Avenue. One driveway access would be from Kekela Street at this particular location. The other would be a right-turn in/right-turn out off Puainako Street. So basically two driveway accesses. The buildings would be, again, one story in height. The maximum allowable height limit within the Neighborhood Commercial zoned district is 40 feet. The anticipated construction timetable would take, would be one to two years. Kekela Street is a County road which at this particular location has a 60-foot, from Puainako Street to this particular section has a 60-foot right-of-way with a 42-foot pavement with curb, gutter and sidewalk. Again, Puainako Street is a State highway which has a 25-foot pavement on each side of the median strip. Water is available. There are two lines, one on Kekela Street which is a 12-inch waterline, and also an 8-inch line along Puainako Street. According to the applicant, the wastewater treatment system would be an individual wastewater treatment. There are two existing single-family dwellings on the property at this particular location, which would be the western portion of the property which the applicant intends to demolish. And the current, the remainder of the property was being conducted as a red ginger farm, that’s why this particular area is called the Red Ginger Patch. EXHIBIT B 2 The General Plan for this particular property, this section of the property in the General Plan is High Density Urban development; and the western portion of the property is Medium Density Urban. The Department of Transportation, their comments were that a traffic impact report be submitted and approved by the Department of Transportation, access to the project be approved by DOT, and all parking for this project be on-site and not be allowed on Puainako Street. The Department of Public Works indicated that the drainage study shall be prepared and improvements be approved by the Department of Public Works; also, access from Kekela Street, and that’s this driveway access, comply with the County Code, Chapter 22. As I noted earlier water is available as indicated by the Department of Water Supply. The Police Department had concerns regarding traffic in this particular area; and they indicated that any left-turn movements into the property from Puainako Street as well as out of Kekela Street be prohibited. And they indicated also that the signage and median barrier or island should be installed to restrict vehicular traffic entering Puainako Street at this particular location. Now as far as the recommendations, the Planning Department is recommending approval; and I’ll just highlight some of the conditions. Condition D relates to consolidation of the property; and basically we’re stating that the four lots be consolidated into one in order to allow the development. Condition E as recommended by the Department of Transportation is that a TIAR be submitted prior to issuance of final plan approval by the Planning Director. Condition F, driveway access from Kekela Street meet with the requirements of Chapter 22. Condition G, access to Puainako Street meet with the approval of DOT and any construction be approved by the Department of Transportation as required by them. Condition H, it’s basically a standard drainage condition, including the preparation of a drainage study.Condition L is the affordable housing policy condition, if its applicable for this particular project. And Condition M is basically a fair share contribution condition, if its applicable to this particular project. So basically those are the major conditions that we’re recommending. There are other standard conditions that are being also recommended for consideration. Are there any questions? GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: On this map that I have in front of me it shows arrows with an entrance on Puainako Street. It shows arrows going in and out. So that is both an ingress and an egress according to this map -? HAYASHI: That’s correct. SIRACUSA: And the letter from the Police Department it seems a little bit unclear. They’re talking about left-turn at Kekela Street. Are they talking about turns at Kekela coming out or going into, or off of Puainako onto Kekela? HAYASHI: I believe they meant both, to prevent a left-turn from Puainako into Kekela as well as a left-turn from Kekela onto Puainako. So that would mean to prevent traffic from going this way, as well as this way. EXHIBIT B 3 SIRACUSA: But if they’re allowing traffic to turn into the Puainako entry, then that will also cross the line of traffic. HAYASHI: No, as far as -. SIRACUSA: If they’re coming down say from Kilauea. HAYASHI: As far as Kilauea they would not be able to turn in at this particular driveway. SIRACUSA: But they will be able to turn in at Kekela? HAYASHI: That is correct, yes. And the reason why we don’t have any conditions preventing a left turn into Kekela as well as from Kekela onto Puainako is that there are many residents in the area that are currently utilizing that particular intersection. So I think for this purpose, we’re basically stating that they would have to comply with DOT requirements as far as any improvements. SIRACUSA: See the reason I’m very concerned about this though is yesterday I was right there, I was coming down from the highway, and I turned right at the Ginger Patch so that I could make a left into the KTA complex; and at the same time there was a bunch of traffic coming down from Kilauea and they were all jockeying for different lanes so that when they got to the light this one could turn left, and that one could go right, and the other could go straight; and, of course, none of them were signaling. So it was a really dangerous situation. I sat there not knowing what to do until, you know, they had passed, and the cars behind me were getting angry. And so I said, my God, if we had some more lane turns crossing into traffic when people are still trying to jockey for lanes before they get to the light and the line becomes solid, I can see it as a real nightmare. And I don’t see that the comments from the Police or the Transportation Departments really addressing that concern; and to me it’s a nightmare right now. HAYASHI: Yes. We’re aware of that situation at that particular junction. However, I think the condition that we’re recommending that they comply with any improvements the Department of Transportation would require, that may also include provision of additional lanes by the Department of Transportation. At this point in time, I’m not too sure as to that’s what they want. But they would have to comply with any kind of improvement requirements that DOT would impose upon them when they come in for approval. SIRACUSA: My big concern at this point is that it was the Department of Transportation that approved that nightmare situation in the first place. I don’t have a lot of faith in them. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Yeah, I have a question about the traffic impact analysis report and DOT’s involvement. Norman, so what can DOT tell us that we don’t already know in that particular EXHIBIT B 4 area? I mean, cause we don’t have the report in front of us, we don’t have that analysis in front of us. But what could we suspect or how can we, I mean, I would like to put some of that in the mix cause that’s going to be a condition on the traffic. HAYASHI: I can’t speak for the Department of Transportation so I wouldn’t be able to answer that question. ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you. GRAHAM: My concern very much relates, I think, with what Commissioner Alameda is saying, is we get lots of applications before us that have traffic issues and generally we try to deal with traffic issues. And so it’s almost like a timeliness thing. If we come to a situation and there’s a lot of traffic issues but we’re not sure how they’re going to get dealt with so we just say, well, maybe we’ll approve the rezoning and whatever the Department of Transportation says that’s how it’s going to be dealt with, somehow that feels a little bit like punting the ball and we should be involved. And perhaps the Department of Transportation has different concerns, they’re concerned about the road. So if their recommendation says do this and this and do that, some of those things may be prejudicial to the public or to other users but that’s not their concern, yet it is our concern. So, again, my concern is just the timeliness thing. If these issues are not kind of crisp before us to decide on and evaluate, I don’t feel so comfortable just sort of putting them off in the future and saying do a TIAR and let the Department of Transportation deal with them. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: A lot of times when we’re doing these permits and traffic is a big issue we already have the TIAR submitted to us. And considering the problems there already, I would feel much more comfortable if we had the TIAR first before making any decisions. And I’m wondering if that could be done, and if not why not. GRAHAM: Well, I’m sure we’ll hear from the applicant about that in a short while but we’re just putting forth our thoughts to Norman here. Mr. Yuen, did you have any comments to make right now? YUEN: Well, I mean, I’ve had similar thoughts. And I think it would be, it’s possibly something that we should talk about with both the Department of Public Works and the Department of Transportation. Because if are, it would be useful to look at the whole picture before you rezone the property. We’re in the situation where we take an application, we send it to the Department of Transportation for comment, we just recently got the comment, their comment was we want to see a TIAR and then we’ll decide what we want to see in the improvements. And so we moved it ahead with that recommendation. There are jurisdictions that have standard requirements of when they’re going to call for a TIAR. They will say there are expected more than “x” number of trips for a location. I’ve done some EXHIBIT B 5 research on this. In California, for example, if you’re going to use one of the State highways when you’re looking for a rezoning they have a standard. And so if you’re coming in for an application then they’ll -. Somebody has to make a decision is it going to generate more than “x” number of trips. But that’s a fairly simple analysis to make. There’s a handbook that people work from for that. And then if you’re going to go over it then they want to see, they’ll notice that they’re going to ask for it. And as far as I know we don’t have a standard thing from either our Public Works Department or DOT as to when they’ll ask for the TIAR. And what happened, you know, I’ll just leave it at that. I’m not sure, Commissioner Alameda asked what kinds of things you might see, what the analysis will show with a TIAR. Typically say you have an existing intersection, they’ll analyze if you have a convenience store, gas station type of development, which I think is the general idea here, how many trips are anticipated; then they’ll look at the traffic on the road and they’ll look at what the delays are, typical delays that would be expected at an unsignalized intersection, they would tell you that. They would look at, you would have a cue, and say, take that -. There is an existing left-turn lane on Puainako Street to turn into Kekela. They’ll look at the cue by how many cars are going to line up on that and if it looks like too many cars will want to line up on that then the TIAR, if the people that are doing it are straight they will say, well, we recommend lengthening the left-turn lane. What I mean when I say that people doing it are straight, they will, you know, the engineers are supposed look at the TIAR, the engineer preparing the TIAR is also supposed to look at the analysis and recommend things that should be done to solve the problems. So that’s the kind of thing you might get. It might also be a signalization. But, you know, in defense of the way we’re processing this and the condition that we have -. If the system works, and I don’t know if Chair Graham meant it to sound this way, but the DOT is supposed to be looking at the public interest in say traffic flow along Puainako Street. I mean, they are the people that are supposed to be looking at that as their priority. And so the way that the condition is intended to work is that when the TIAR is done and the DOT looks at it, just to give a couple of examples, if you need a longer left-turn lane on Puainako Street DOT is supposed to say do it, and our condition says if DOT says to do it you must do it. If it says you need to signalize Kekela Street and DOT thinks that’s a good idea, then they will say Ginger Patch signalize Kekela Street intersection, and our condition says that you have to do it. So if we proceed with it on this basis, that’s the way it would work. If we have the TIAR in hand we would have a better idea of what kinds of things would possibly be called for. GRAHAM: If I may, just in my own personal response to what Mr. Yuen said about what my intention was with my comment is that, you know, let’s say DOT says given the volumes that are expected it is unsafe to have any left-turn lane going into Kekela Street anymore so you guys have to blot out the left-turn lane and then this project is okay. But there may be a lot of people that are using the left-turn lane and those people would say gee, we shouldn’t approve this project if you’re taking away our left-turn lane. But the DOT is not in a position to say, well, you can’t do the project because you shouldn’t take away the left-turn lane. That’s really more the County Council and our responsibility. So I’m not faulting the DOT on looking out for the public interest. It’s just that we will have gone too far downstream to deal with some issues that may arise as a result of what the DOT wants. Any other comments/questions from the Commissioners before I bring up the applicant? Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. EXHIBIT B 6 IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I agree that a TIAR will be helpful for us to evaluate this matter and that should be, in this particular case it just seems to me because of the already challenging situations that occur there on a regular basis that that’s something that we should consider requiring before proceeding with this particular application. GRAHAM: Thank you. If that’s all, I’ll call the applicant forward. Thank you. I believe I have one person signed up for public testimony. So when I swear in the applicant now if anyone who’s going to give public testimony will stand in place, and I’ll ask you to raise your hand too to do it all together. Okay, so would you all please raise your right hand. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. At this point we’ll take a presentation from the applicant and have questions, and thereafter we’ll take public testimony. LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Steven Lim with Carlsmith at PO Box 686 in Hilo. To my left is Mr. Jon Gomes who’s the manager of the applicant, Ginger Patch DP, LLC. We’d also like to thank and acknowledge the presence of the Shiroma family and the Miyashiro family seated to the rear of the room who are some of the, the Shiroma family is the owner of the property and the Miyashiro family are adjoining property owners. As you’ve seen from some of the materials that we submitted, the neighboring property owners who would be the Kouchi family located right in the notch there of the project and the Miyashiro family to the north expressed some concerns over screening the potential commercial uses from the residential uses that they’ve had for years. And so the applicant and those families have agreed to construct a 6-foot high stone wall/rock wall buffer along the northern property boundary. And so we’ve received approval from them to represent that they have no problems with the application. We have not received any other comments on the application from the other surrounding owners. We’ve reviewed the background report and recommendation by the Planning Department and the conditions proposed for approval; and we have no objections to those. I think the issue on this project has always been the traffic issue at that Kekela Street intersection. As you were going through your discussion I was talking to Mr. Gomes and I think we understand the issue. We would like the rezoning to proceed in an expeditious fashion to go forward to the County Council. I think as you can see from our project proposal there the Prince Kuhio Mall side entrance along Kekela Street is the one that would generate the left-turn movements potentially towards Puainako, towards the Mall. I think that that’s what’s happening, I know that that’s what happening already from the existing residents out there. I think in our discussions we believe that, well, one thing that hasn’t happened is we have had no objections, no comments about the entrance to the project along Puainako Street. It would basically be as you’re coming from the mall towards the project, it will be a right-turn in and a right-turn out only. We think that the project entrance at that site would be designed such that EXHIBIT B 7 people cannot make left-turns coming out of the project and going back towards KTA or the mall. So it’d be limited to a right-turn in and a right-turn out. I think in light of the concerns raised we believe that we would like to propose that the Kekela Street entrance be closed off, that we only have a right-turn in and a right-turn out. What we think that does is it gets rid of at least an exacerbation of the existing issues at the Kekela Street intersection. And that probably at least we would request that the requirement that a traffic impact analysis report then be dropped. At that point I don’t know what else we can do in terms of access to the project. I’d defer to the Planning Director’s recommendation on this. But I think that at that point there’s probably very little to study in terms of the traffic movements along that area. But that’s our offer. I think it addresses a lot of the significant issues on the traffic and we ask for your support. GRAHAM: For clarification you’re suggesting that both the entrance and exit on Kekela Street be dropped from the project; and you’re asking that since that would reduce traffic issues that the TIAR requirement also be dropped from the Planning Department’s recommendations; and also you’d like us to proceed today even with our concerns, at least? LIM: That’s correct. We still have to comply with the State Department of Transportation’s requirements, whatever those might be for the right-in and right-out. But, you know, if they make us do a traffic impact analysis report, then we’ve got to do one. But I think at least having it as a formal condition coming out of the County’s side that that’s probably, in light of our amendment, would probably be unnecessary. GOMES: I’d like to say something. It wouldn’t add anything to that intersection of Kekela. GRAHAM: Excuse me, I really should take your name and address. GOMES: Jon Gomes, 900 Alewa Drive, Honolulu. GRAHAM: Okay, go ahead. GOMES: If we move the ingress and egress on Kekela Street it wouldn’t have any impact at all on that left turn out of Kekela Street at least from the project. It would still be the normal residents coming out and making that left turn. Nobody from the project would be making a left turn there from Kekela. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Commissioner Siracusa, any questions? SIRACUSA: Well, yeah. But before that question, you were speaking rather softly and you weren’t close enough to these new mikes so I missed what you were saying about Kekela Street. Because I did have a question there, if you were going to close off the entrance from the complex to Kekela Street, or if you would close off Kekela Street itself? LIM: No. That’s a County road so we couldn’t close it off. But we’re going to close off -. SIRACUSA: Well, sometimes there are private roads so I wasn’t sure what the situation was there. EXHIBIT B 8 LIM: Kekela Street is a County road and it services other residents inside. So we would be basically deleting the Kekela Street entry and exit from the project. SIRACUSA: So the only way that people could enter that complex then would be from Puainako, and it would be a right-turn in? LIM: And a right-turn out. SIRACUSA: And a right turn-out. So we wouldn’t have any of the issues about crossing lines of traffic? GOMES: Right. SIRACUSA: That was my biggest concern here. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. I’m afraid that I would not recommend doing what Mr. Lim is saying. If they are going to make a proposal that they don’t have any access from Kekela Street, they come in and out from Puainako Street only as a right-in/right-out, at the very least I would want to send that to the Department of Transportation which controls Puainako Street and ask them for their comment on that, and see if they still want a TIAR. Because, you know, where Puainako Street is a major street now it’s going to be more and more important over time. Because it’s on, you know, you have the upper section that is now the access to Saddle Road, and you have the middle section which isn’t very good but it’s suppose to be realigned some day and become a major path. This section I’m talking about is this middle section from Kinoole Street to Komohana. It’s supposed to be realigned and become a major access to Komohana and possibly the community college that’s located up there as well. And so we want to hear what the DOT has to say about the intersection. So if they came back and said oh, that’s fine, now we don’t need the TIAR anymore, okay, that’s fine. But I’m not going to just say we drop that as a condition because I don’t know what they have to say. I don’t know, it may be better to come in and out of Puainako Street as a right-in/right-out only than coming off Kekela Street. A lot of it depends on how attractive the destination is to people. Because say somebody happens to be going makai down Puainako Street and they really want to go to this development, there’s nothing to prevent them from turning left on Kekela Street, turn into the existing Ginger Patch commercial area, turn around and come back out. So you can’t simply assume that because you can’t turn, you know, they don’t have an access on Kekela Street that people are not going to make left-turns and try to get to this commercial area who happen to be going makai on Puainako Street. So that’s, you know, it’s a change in a proposal. I’m not trying to tie things up, but I certainly am not, you know, I can’t recommend moving it to Council with a right-in/right-out and drop the requirement of a TIAR. We have to send the new proposal to the DOT. LIM: You know, I think that the existing Condition E requires that a TIAR shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation Highways Division prior to the issuance of final plan approval and a copy of the TIAR shall be submitted to the Planning Director; and all we’re saying is, you know, we’ll comply with the Department of Transportation Highways’ requirement; and then if required by them we would submit the TIAR and also submit it to the County Planning Department. So I think that our only suggested recommendation would be the modification to Condition E that says if required a TIAR shall be submitted. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT B 9 SIRACUSA: As Director Yuen was beginning to respond, I also thought about if we close off the Kekela Street entry onto the parcel, then that might create a problem for the Fire Department should there be a fire in the complex. There would be people trying to drive out from one entrance and therefore make it harder for the fire engines to get in because there would not be a secondary access onto the property. So I think that’s one thing that should also be considered. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lim, just for my own orientation you can just kind of help me with this. So, you know, on the Kekela, kind of going up, you know, on the left turn, on the right of it, I just want to make sure, is that the Fire Stone, the gas station/tire -? LIM: Yes, that’s on the corner. ALAMEDA: Okay, that’s on the corner. And this is like where the ginger patch was? LIM: Yes. ALAMEDA: Okay, all right. So people, I’m just curious, are there residents, like if you keep going past Firestone, how long does that road go? I cannot see where it connects. Is that like a dead end or -? No? It’s just for my own -. HAYASHI: Are you referring to Kekela Street? ALAMEDA: Right. You keep going on Kekela Street -. I’ve forgotten if it’s a dead end or not. HAYASHI: Okay, Kekela Street, this is Puainako Street here.This is Kekela Street. It goes all the way to this particular location. The last count was about 30 plus homes utilizing Kekela Street. ALAMEDA: Oh, okay, 30 plus. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any other questions from Commissioners? No? While you’re right there, I noticed on the prior application you had a connection to the sewage treatment plant; and that’s a mile or so away. And here we’re talking about an individual wastewater system. Can you give me any feel from where the County sewer system runs? HAYASHI: I’m not too sure where it actually runs. I don’t think it comes to this particular location. As far as the Prince Kuhio Plaza, they have their own system. GRAHAM: I see. Thank you. Mr. Lim? LIM: I believe the closest system is running down the street right where the Walmart and Hopaco Store is. That was the last sewer extension in that area. GRAHAM: Thank you. Any other Commissioners? All right, thank you both. You may be seated back. Now we’ll take public testimony. And I have two gentlemen who stood up before. If both of you could come forward and sit in front of the microphones. You can both come forward now and then speak one at a time. Sir, you can begin, and would you give your name and address when -. EXHIBIT B 10 MIYASHIRO: Sure, and I promise to make it short. I’m Dwayne Miyashiro. My parents are one of the four property owners adjoining the property, they’ve been living there since 1948, and along with Don Kouchi, another adjoining property owner, and the Yamamotos who are immediate neighbors of my parents. You know, in discussing this proposed project our primary concern was security and, two, noise. So there’s nothing that, we’re not against the property in concept, but those are the two issues that we wanted to address. And, thankfully, I must say, you know, the developer through Steve Lim’s office has been receptive to our concerns. We had asked for a minimum 8-foot wall and I understand there are some building requirements that they have to address in order to get an 8-foot wall.They’ve already concurred to put a 6-foot wall, so we’re glad for that. One other thing, you know, the traffic issue did come up, which I face with almost on a daily basis, several times a day when I go to my parents’ home. The left turn from Puainako into Kekela is not as major an issue. I think the general backup you see on Puainako is trying to get across Kanoelehua. Getting out of Kekela left turn onto Puainako definitely is an issue. So it’s just a personal, personal perspective from someone who uses that entrance point frequently. One other consideration, too, is that where it would be a concern for us is that we, there are three property owners that have a private road connecting Kilauea Avenue to Kekela Street; and I’m the primary person responsible for maintenance of that road. And what happens is sometimes when you have traffic congestion the residents of Kekela Street are aware that this private road connects and they’ve been using it too, so from that standpoint it could be a concern. But then again it’s, I think it’s our responsibility to work some things out to prevent people from using it. GRAHAM: Hold on a second. MIYASHIRO: Sure. GRAHAM: Mrs. Siracusa, do you have any comments, questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. Thank you for coming in Mr. Miyashiro. From the map that I have here it’s sort of your property is up at the top and then the page ends. And I cannot tell, how do you get in and out? You look landlocked from this map. MIYASHIRO: Yeah, that private road I was talking about is the one from Kilauea Avenue. Norman, if you can point it out on the map. It’s a gravel road, single road. If you drive on Kilauea Avenue, you’ll notice that there’s about four mail boxes right at that entrance; and the Shiromas were kind enough to put a stop sign facing people coming out, but we put up a private roadway sign on it, too. SIRACUSA: So you can go both in and out along that road, is that right? MIYASHIRO: Correct. SIRACUSA: You’re not, so there’s no way from your property onto Kekela? EXHIBIT B 11 MIYASHIRO: There is. It connects, yeah. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: So, Mr. Miyashiro, you represent your family and also the Shiroma’s, too, or -? MIYASHIRO: No. My parents, I represent my parents who are one of the four owners. The Shiroma’s also own the property next, one of the four adjoining properties. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you. MIYASHIRO: You’re welcome. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I just wanted, you’re not a part-owner of the proposed commercial property, right? MIYASHIRO: No, none at all. GRAHAM: Any other Commissioners? Thank you, Mr. Miyashiro. MIYASHIRO: Thank you. GRAHAM: Sir. If you can give us your name and address and start your testimony. LEAVY: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Shawn James Leavy. I’m a liberal studies student at UHH. And I’d just like to make a testimony about, well, most everyone is focusing on the traffic side of this issue. I’d like to comment on the parking. And now this area, I know KTA and then Puainako Plaza, and then Walmart and Home Depot are major parking lots all through here. And I see this, it seems to be the same density parking lot. And what I would like to recommend or see happen is some way of mitigating the detriment of having these big expanses of asphalt, mostly when it rains heavy and all that storm water runoff with all the oil and antifreeze, and all of this, and all of the opala and rubbish goes -. Where does it go? I don’t know. Into private wastewater treatment at the Puainako Plaza or just where, where does it go? And what I’ve heard of is these ways of mitigating of having infiltration patches, you know. Basically, yes, where the storm water goes you have buffers of grass or other kind of vegetative something, it just goes right inside, and all the opala goes right there. The maintenance guys can pick it up and it mitigates some of this, all this effluent, or whatever it is that goes into the ground or into the sewage system. So I would like to see that considered, or examined, or just making it more nice, more trees, a little more softer and more beautiful in this area because we’ve seen so much of that already in this corridor, doing it a little differently and making it better. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thanks for your thoughts. We understand. Commissioner Siracusa? EXHIBIT B 12 SIRACUSA: Yes. First of all, I want to point out that Condition H deals with development-generated runoff; and there are methods such as drywells that can be used to dispose of runoff from the site so it shouldn’t go on to other properties. And the drainage study according to this will be prepared as in the recommendations by that engineer’s follow-up, that’s regarding drainage; and that’s a standard provision. Another standard provision we have is landscaping which is our Department’s Rule No. 17, landscaping requirements. They’re always required. And I don’t suppose you saw this (Exhibits D, E and F), but I’d be happy to share it with you. GRAHAM: Is that all you have, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, maybe the testifier would like a minute to look at that and maybe make any other comments, to bring him into the loop on that. GRAHAM: Okay. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Maybe just for the public if Mr. Yuen could answer this one. So, you know, with the amount of traffic stalls, seeing on how, just maybe you can share how that was calculated and if there is room for more discussion then what would call for that. YUEN: The Zoning Code specifies the number of traffic stalls required for retail development based on the number of square feet in the development. I think it’s either one stall per 300 or one stall for 400 square feet. That’s a minimum. The developer can put in more if they want. Then there’s another Code that specifies landscaping; and there’s some landscaping that has to go to the parking lot, some landscaping that has to go around the perimeter of the building. It’s not a huge amount but there are overall rules that call for this. ALAMEDA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. I was going to say on the map where the north arrow is, and generally speaking I found that parking lots, that the designers of the landscaping pay no attention to the path of the sun and where it will throw shade. They’ll put the trees in such a way that they don’t provide any shade at all for the cars. And, you know, they’ll line them up say on an east-west access. And I notice that over here the little bit of trees that are showing in the middle of the parking lot that are lined up on the north to south access, and also the perimeter planting on Kekela Street, so that there would be some mitigation from the sun on the parking lot. It would be very nice, however, if, let’s see, in front of the, I think there’s one place in the parking lot closest to the building closer to Kilauea Avenue where there are only 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 stalls between the roundness of trees that are planted. But then the next longer stretches of parking it doesn’t get broken up at all. I think it would be really nice if the applicant would consider putting in some more trees there to provide some shade in the middle of those long stretches of parking stalls. And I’m not going to make that part of the recommendation, you EXHIBIT B 13 know, official recommendation, but -. One thing I’ve noticed that, and what I’ve heard a lot of people comment about is that, I mean, you could let your bread rise in your car when you’re parked in some of these stalls, because they’ve taken out all of the shade trees, you know, and the trees that are left aren’t really doing their job. And people come back to a really hot car, and it’s uncomfortable. And so it would be really, I would really like to see parking lots planned to maximize the amount of shade for the cars. And this is the point where it can be done very easily if you’ve laid out the parking lot in such a way with some of your plantings on the north/south access, then putting it in two more sets of trees on the north-south. Breaking up the longer parking areas would do a nice job of that. And I strongly urge you for the sake of the public. There are lots of places I won’t go and shop anymore because it too much stuck out like a concrete desert; and there are other people who feel that way, too. So I think you’d make it a lot more consumer friendly. GRAHAM: Thank you. We have two more testifiers that have signed up, Brian Shiroma and Thomas Shiroma. If you’d both come forward. Could you raise your right hand. Let me swear you in. Do you now swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. GRAHAM: Thank you. Sir, you may begin, and if you would give your name and address at the start of your testimony. T. SHIROMA: Yes. My name is Tom Shiroma, my address is 99-2A Puainako. I want to thank the Chairman and Members of the Board that we are able to be here speaking on behalf of the development. Let me give you a little bit brief background on Mr. Jon Gomes. Maybe you folks are not aware but Mr. Jon Gomes spent $640,000 for the improvement of Puainako Street. It’s not for the grading of the land, nothing for the building, but he brought that improvement. And it might be through the Planning Department and Department of Transportation through their recommendation that things might change, which KTA did through the years to accommodate the community. Just one example is that if you look at the Tesoro and Firestone, I think Mr. Jon Gomes put a quality building. One is to serve the community, one is creating employment, third most highly is the property tax from agricultural to business have brought a lot of revenue and income to the County. And I’m pretty sure that Mr. Jon Gomes will also follow the recommendation as the changes come by, which we have seen through the Planning Department and Department of Transportation, to accommodate the community. So I want to thank that Mr. Jon Gomes who will also pursue a quality development on the upper area. Now if you look at Tesoro and Firestone, I think if you look at it environmentally, it’s beautiful. It’s not a cluster of buildings, but I think it’s a quality building. And, also, speaking to both of the occupants, they’re doing better than expected. So just to say that, I want to say thank you very much; and I’m pretty sure that Mr. Jon Gomes will put further improvement to accommodate the community and for this body to consider. Thank you very much. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Shiroma. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners for you? EXHIBIT B 14 B. SHIROMA: Hi. GRAHAM: Your name address first please. B. SHIROMA: Okay. My name is Brian Shiroma. My address is 1340 Kilikina Street, Hilo, Hawaii. I ask the Commission for the approval of this project. One comment about Commissioner Siracusa, she’s not the only one that looks for shade in a parking lot. I look for trees, too. And as my father was saying, Jon Gomes in the first part of the development on the east side I believe he did mitigate a lot of problems with the neighbors and traffic problems. And I believe in this next project he will do the same. So I ask for your approval. Thank you. GRAHAM: Thank you for testifying. Commissioners? Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: It’s a comment but I’ll phrase it as a question. I used to really love that ginger patch driving past there. It was so beautiful And when they put in the gas station I missed it. And just having a name Ginger Patch isn’t quite as nice as a real ginger patch. But I noticed they did plant some red ginger around that property and I’m hoping that red ginger will also be used as, say, the theme plant in some of the plantings on this new development. Do you have any idea if that was part of the design plan? T. SHIROMA: Ma’am, I think this question I think Mr. Jon Gomes or the representative can answer you better. Thank you very much. SIRACUSA: Okay, I’ll hold that question for him when he comes back up. Thank you very much. GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Mr. Shiroma, thank you for your testimony that you shared. I’ve got a question. What’s your thought about the traffic situation? You heard the discussion there a little about the left turn, and Kekela, and all. Do you have any -? B. SHIROMA: Yeah. I realize there is a traffic impact problem there. It’s a very highly used intersection, both north, south, east, west. But I think in Mr. Lim’s proposal, the current proposal about closing off that entrance, I think that will mitigate some of the problems. T. SHIROMA: Yes. As I mentioned, I think Mr. Jon Gomes is very open to any improvement. As the years go by I noticed that it’s not only that shopping mall that changes. KTA traffic has been changing. As soon as the recommendation comes from the Department of Transportation and Mr. Yuen from the Planning Department, if they make any recommendation I’m pretty sure that they will follow that recommendation and put the improvement and the cost; and they have done that so far. Thank you very much. GRAHAM: Any other questions from Commissioners? Thank you both for your testimony. EXHIBIT B 15 T. SHIROMA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Would Mr. Lim and/or Mr. Gomes care to come back and -? This is where your opportunity is to make any comments based on the testimony you’ve just heard or on any of the responses from the Commissioners to that testimony. LIM: Thank you. And we would like to thank the families from the area for coming out and spending their time today to support the project. The proposal by the applicant to delete the access to the site from Kekela Street I think can be handled in an amendment of the existing conditions. We looked at the traffic impact analysis report condition, we’re willing to accept it as is. And if the State Department of Transportation requires it, then we’ll do it. So, you know, we would propose that the Conditions F and G be modified under our proposal. Condition F would state that there shall be no access to the project site from Kekela Street. And Condition G would state that access to the project site shall be limited to Puainako Street, shall be a right-turn in and right-turn out only and meet with the approval of the Department of Transportation, and the applicant shall construct any improvements on Puainako Street as required by the Department of Transportation. So these are relatively minor amendments. I think that the modification of the access to the project we believe solves as much as you can the traffic issues in the Kekela Street area. You know, but I know the DOT might want to do something different, but I think it’s a done deal. They’ve got maybe 30 some residences, as Mr. Hayashi pointed out, back in there. So I don’t know that they’re going to be able to do anything significant to change the existing traffic patterns; and, hopefully, they can figure something out better than we can. But I think for us to close off the Kekela Street access and entry to the project will at least not make the situation worse. GRAHAM: Thank you. Mr.Yuen, I know when that proposal first came forth you made some comments. Do you care to update them or want to say anything additional on that? YUEN: Well, I still oppose to changing conditions in this instance. We got a rezoning application which has a site plan that includes access from Kekela Street. We send it to Public Works, Police Department, DOT, they make comments based on that. We would be shooting from the hip to say that the access should only be from Puainako, now that the access should only be from Puainako Street and that that’s better. It may be the best thing, I don’t know. I’d like to hear a review by the other agencies of this different concept. None of them, you know, it’d be different if one of them suggested this and then we put it in a condition. But I don’t see that any of the commenting agencies have suggested this as a condition. And so if we’re going to limit, if the proposal is that we limit access from Kekela Street, I would want to recirculate that and have the comments from DOT. If they say they don’t want a TIAR anymore, then that’s fine, then we can process it like that. But I don’t want to move this forward saying that access should only be from Puainako Street. I just cannot sit here and say that that’s necessarily better. EXHIBIT B 16 GRAHAM: So if we were to follow what you’re thinking, then what we’d do is we’d continue this hearing, and then we would maybe send out kind of revised plans to these Departments, and then reschedule, and we can bring it back? YUEN: There are two possibilities. One is to do that and the other is to move ahead with our present recommendation. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, actually, indirectly the Kekela Street problem is already addressed in the Police Department’s letter here when they say that the project will significantly increase the volume of traffic entering Puainako from Kekela; and it wouldn’t do that if the Kekela entrance was closed. And then they also say to mitigate this problem left turns at Kekela Steet should be prohibited; and if that entrance was closed there would be no need to make left turns at Kekela. Do you follow what I’m trying to say? It’s sort of incorporated indirectly by inference in the Police Department’s letter referring to the problem at Kekela; and closing that entrance would be, it would seem to me to resolve those issues. However, it does not resolve my concern about having only one way in and out of a large project in case there were a fire; and so maybe something can be done where that Kekela Street entrance would be allowed but only for emergency vehicles. Is that a possibility? I’m looking for a win- win here. YUEN: Well, it’s a possibility but I’m just uncomfortable with, you know -. Well, the proposal is that we send it up to the Council with an access only from Puainako Street. I’m uncomfortable with recommending that on the lot. Yes, you can create an emergency access to Kekela Street, some kind of, you know, barrier, you know, pop-up, I don’t know exactly what you do. But we’re making a decision that the right-in/right-out is better is really on the fly and by the seat of our pants here. If you pass this out, then there’s no other option and there’s no opportunity for it. So at the very least if we were going to do that, then as I say I would want to recirculate the proposal. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: I’m just looking at the map again and maybe for Mr.Yuen, there’s no possible way of having an entry from Kilauea Avenue and maybe closer to Don Kouchi’s property? YUEN: I don’t think so. But, again, that’s another proposal. You know, if they were to make a road to Kilauea I think then there’s some people that would be certainly affected by this on Kilauea Street and aren’t here to talk about it. I don’t think there’s a feasible way of doing that though. ALAMEDA: Thank you. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: It’s called a round-about. EXHIBIT B 17 GRAHAM: Round-about. IWASHITA: At Kilauea/Puainako intersection. GRAHAM: I see. So then do you have any comments from what Director Yuen said a few minutes ago or -? LIM: All the comments that we got on the Puainako Street access from the Department of Transportation is, you know, submit the traffic report and we’ll tell you later. We were assuming that that’s going to be significantly less complicated than trying to make any proposal for a project access at Kekela Street; and that’s why we suggested the deletion at that point, just to alleviate the concerns both for the Commission and for the DOT. I understand Director Yuen’s hesitancy to say, okay, we’ll just make the decision here. But I think in part what else can we do? I agree with him that any access onto Kilauea Avenue is going to be less than the 1,000-foot distance of intersections that they usually want to see. So there’s going to be an access on Puainako Street; and it’s either going to be a right-turn in and right-turn out which prevents left turns going back to the mall, which is what we’re proposing, or it’s going to be a full access intersection which, you know, I don’t know what DOT is going to say about that. We feel like, you know, we want to move the project forward. You know, time, of course, means money to us; and we feel that we picked the least onerous access alternative and are willing to live with that to move forward. GRAHAM: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: I like to make timely decisions. I think we all do. But the building is going to be there a long time. And I like to be, you know, have some sense of where we’re going at the end of the Planning Commission and not have everything just completely open ended. So, you know, you change the proposal, send it to the Department of Transportation and the Department of Transportation says, oh, yeah, we think that’s a good idea, we don’t need a TIAR, fine. And if the Police Department and our Department of Public Works also looking at this have no additional complaints, then I’m fine with it. But for us to just sit here because of some desire that this be passed in a month, you know, two months, whatever, I cannot see making a decision on really the crucial aspect of the project for the sake of making a decision at this meeting in a compressed timeframe. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Can I float a suggestion here? Why don’t we try to float a motion based on the existing recommendation and see where we go from there? Because it’s my belief that the applicant is suggesting a change that the Director is less comfortable with based on the assumption that there may not be support for this. And I don’t know if requiring a TIAR is another motivating factor, but certainly given the circumstance I think our requiring the TIAR is justified. And so I would suggest that we entertain a motion to approve the, oh, favorable recommendation based on the current or the existing proposal from the Director. EXHIBIT B 18 GRAHAM: We are still at this juncture with the applicant in front of us and I’m asking for questions or whatever with regard to the application, so we ought to finish that up first. And then when we get sort of into decision time then I think we should deal with your suggestion and go that direction, or go some other direction. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Lim, my assessment of your amendment is to address the concern that was raised by some of the Commissioners; and that is why you are proposing this amendment. My question to you, is the conditions of approval submitted, as is unamended, is that acceptable by you and your client? LIM: That’s correct. GALDONES: All right, thank you. GRAHAM: Do we have any other questions for the applicant while he’s here before us? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I just wanted to say that I think that if the applicant is going to enter this proposal then I too agree with the Director that it should be reviewed by the appropriate agencies before we go forward. So if that’s the position of the applicant, then we should continue this matter and that there be a review by the agencies. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Mr. Chair, if there’s no further discussion, if a motion is in order -. GRAHAM: Not yet. We would need to finish up with the applicant here first and then we could go into our decision making. GALDONES: Thank you. GRAHAM: Mr. Lim, do you have any final comments you’d like to make before we close down this part of the hearing and go into our decision? LIM: No. We just ask for your support. Thank you. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. You may be seated. All right, well, we have the information before us, we had a discussion. We’ve heard from most of the Commissioners, but I don’t think we’ve heard from Commissioner Rho yet. Would you have any commentary you’d like to make at this time before someone makes a motion one way or the other? I think Commissioner Watanabe has a direction he would like to follow-up. RHO: No. GRAHAM: No. Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe, would you like to -? Would you defer to Commissioner Galdones? EXHIBIT B 19 WATANABE: Yeah, I’ll defer to Mr. Galdones. GRAHAM: Okay. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Watanabe. Thank you, Mr. Chair. In the Ginger Patch DP, LLC change of zone application (REZ 06-000052), I move that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request be forwarded to the County Council, along with the background report and the recommendations as submitted. WATANABE: Second. GRAHAM: All right. We have a motion for a favorable recommendation and a second. Do we have any comments or discussion by the Commissioners? ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I know that the Miyashiro’s and the Shiroma’s are in support of this project and trust Mr. Gomes in his development. But how I look at this project is this doesn’t only affect the Miyashiro’s and the Shiroma’s. This affects all of Hilo, people who live above the project, to the side, to the other side. And that whole traffic situation right here is already an issue without this project. And I’m just concerned, I mean my primary concern is the whole traffic issue. So I just wanted to put it on the table. I’m not sure yet where I’m leaning, but I have reservations on this project. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Galdones? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I share Commissioner Alameda’s concerns; and as a deliberative body I think we should be deliberative about this and have the necessary information so that, you know, a TIAR should be provided. And it should be done and provided to the Commissioners so that we can have the information and decide whether or not in the big picture, you know, that these traffic concerns would not be an overriding factor in terms of whether it should go forward or not. So I’ll be voting against the motion. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The reason I’m supporting the conditions of approval as submitted, especially in Conditions E, F and G, is because I’m no expert in traffic studies and there is an agency that deals with that, and that is the Department of Transportation, Highways Division. And the conditions of approval state that a TIAR has to be submitted to the Department of Transportation for review. Now I’m not certain if there is a process in which the public can give some kind of input to the Department of Transportation through the process when they make a final approval of what the traffic should look like after the study is made. But I would have to leave it up to that agency who has the expertise in dealing with these situations. EXHIBIT B 20 And in these conditions of approval, there is the TIAR. The Kekela Street and the Puainako Street also will be encompassed as stated in the conditions of approval of the Department of Transportation to take a look at.And so I have a comfort level that the concerns that were raised by the Commissioners would be addressed; and that is why I am in support of the change of zone as submitted by the Department. GRAHAM: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: You know, there is, in rereading this one more time, the E, there is a slight wording change that I think just for clarity sake, it says that a TIAR shall be submitted to the Department of Transportation, Highways Division, through the Hawaii District Office, for review prior to the issuance of final plan approval. And I want to change that to say “for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of final plan approval,” so as to make it clear that you don’t just submit it, that the DOT has to approve it before the County issues final plan approval for the project. Otherwise, I suppose anyone could argue that the language means simply that you have to have submitted it. GALDONES: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Mr. Galdones. GALDONES: As amended by the Director, I would incorporate that into the motion that I had made. WATANABE: I would second that. GRAHAM: All right, thank you. Any other comments from the Commissioners? Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Well, I just want to say that I too am torn because I like the idea of, you know, in general it’s a good area to put in commercial development because we do need more of that sort of thing and the area is already largely commercial. It’s not being stuck out in the middle of a residential area, and it will create new jobs. So I approve of it on those grounds. My concerns as you know are about the traffic, and I have some questions a lot of times that the State Department of Transportation makes decision that I see the results of as being pretty nightmarish. And so I’m wondering, you know, how much trust we should give them in this. But at the same time I would like to see the project go forward, but with a minimum amount of negative impact on the community. I mean the whole idea is to provide something positive to the community. And so I don’t think I know how I’m going to vote on this until the last minute, frankly. GRAHAM: Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE: Mr. Chair, my only comment to this is, you know, judging from the traffic on Puainako and all that, I think in the end the only way you’re going to resolve that is through signalization; and I don’t think that, you know, it has to go through the Department of EXHIBIT B 21 Transportation before they’re going to approve anything like that. I think requiring the TIAR is about all that we can do; and, hopefully, the TIAR will tell them that, you know, you’ve reached such a volume that you’re going to have to add additional signals. That’s the only way you’re going to make it truly safer; but it’s not really for us to decide, in my opinion. And that’s why I’m in favor of this. GRAHAM: Thank you. Yes, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I just got a question for the Director. Condition E, the last sentence, requires a copy of the TIAR to be provided to the Director. I was wondering if that’s just for informational purposes? I noticed Planning Department really doesn’t have a substantive, anything substantive to do with that. YUEN: No. But one of the, you know, the people looking at plan approval are supposed to look at the circulation. So they should look at it to see that the circulation plan for the parking lot itself is consistent. It’s mostly for informational purposes. IWASHITA: Because, well, I guess my impression in that round is that the TIAR addresses the impact along the State Highway of Puainako basically, right? And so the Planning Department doesn’t really have jurisdiction or any authority for a decision on the part about what to do with whatever the recommendations in the TIAR may have? YUEN: No. GRAHAM: Any other Commissioners have comments to make before we take a vote on the motion that’s before us? I’d just like to say personally, you know, as I stated early on, is that this is the public hearing process of the rezoning and, you know, I feel like we should have the whole plate in front of us to share with the public, to share with each other, as to how it’s going to transpire. And I’m willing to put off issues like traffic and ingress/egress issues if it’s a very minor part of the project and say that it can be decided later. But here I think as we’ve seen are really key elements. So, you know, I think we’re all okay with the land use element. I don’t think we have infrastructure problems other than the highway. But for me because that’s such a big issue, I think I can’t support it at this time. But I have to wait until we got specific information from the TIAR and the other Departments based on that before I feel comfortable passing this out on to the Council for final action. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Yes. I just want to say that on this tree issue, I avoid that. I go shopping at night. RHO: I have a comment. GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Rho. RHO: This is not the first or the last project that has infrastructure, well, not infrastructure, but traffic problems. So I guess it’s more of a question just in general, and I don’t really expect an answer right now. But this traffic problem at that intersection on that street is EXHIBIT B 22 not new. So as this project unfolds I guess my question really is why is it that we don’t require the TIAR prior to our Commission meeting? You know, I mean, if it was a project where we really don’t know that traffic would be a problem, I could see it coming to us and I could see a recommendation or the Condition E listed as is. But sitting here for the last hour and a half, my question is why isn’t it that all of this stuff isn’t address prior to the Commission meeting so that at the Commission meeting we can have the materials so that a judgment can be made or a decision can be made and the developer can either proceed or stop? I mean, this whole discussion for an hour and half is traffic. It has nothing to do with whether or not it’s a good project, it’s beneficial to the community, etc. It’s just a right-turn/left-turn. Excuse me, but I just don’t get it. And we’re going, I mean, I guess the Council has its own thing about West Hawaii and Kohala. So is everything going to stop really truly on traffic? Cause we have that in West Hawaii; and I guess in Kohala, I don’t know, I don’t live there. Anyway, that’s just a comment and I really don’t expect an answer. But I guess I needed to say that because it seemed like we’re spending an inordinate amount of time on this project that I think we all kind of agree that we want it to go except for traffic. Thank you. YUEN: I think that there was a comment like this right at the beginning of the discussion. Given, I understand the discomfort of the Commissioners. I think that what we need to do as a Department is to try to flag this sort of thing, you know, up front and try to develop our own radar as to when we should tell an applicant that -. You know, we typically, sometimes the applicant will discuss things with us beforehand. Typically though we get an application over the counter and it has usually, as in this case for example, it has the elements that you normally expect to see in an application; and then we process it along. We send it to the Department of Transportation and they would say they want a TIAR. And at that point we’re well along in the processing. We have a certain time to bring it to the Commission; and if the applicant does not voluntarily extend the time, you know, we’re obligated to bring it to the Commission. But we could try, you know, I think we should try to, at an early stage when it’s clear that traffic is going to be a major consideration, try to determine whether we’re going to say that you need to provide additional traffic studies before we send your application along.I mean, we could do that. And this is a level of prescreening that we will need to do in the Department. As I say there are places where they have, you know, a set criteria. You know, if you’re going to generate “x” number of trips you do a TIAR. And we would look at doing that. You know, being a small county we’ve tended to do things on a case-by-base basis; and whereas, you know, I did some research and I see oh, you know, Santa Clara county for example, in California with a million, you know, couple of million people they have it really spelled out so that a shopping center “x” amount of size seeking a rezoning, they have a rule that you’re going to have to submit a TIAR. We haven’t done that in Hawaii County. All I can say is I think what you’re saying is valid, that if we feel that this is the kind of decision that should be done at the rezoning stage and not left to an administrative stage, you know, where you’re having the DOT make the decision on the access then, okay, let’s get everything out front; and then we’ll try to flag situations where it may be, where we would at least try to anticipate this level of discomfort and move on, and let the applicant know that they’re going to have to give us something more. EXHIBIT B 23 GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Thank you. I’m wondering in terms of the timeline and everything else, if this motion of Commissioner Galdones fails and if somebody were to make a motion, for example, to delay Commission action until a TIAR can be presented to us, how would that affect the timeline of this application? HAYASHI: If I may respond. Based on the Code requirement, once the application is filed with the Planning Commission you have 90 days in which to make a recommendation and forward that recommendation to the County Council, except that if agreed to by the applicant then it can be extended. GRAHAM: Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Commissioner Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don’t know if this appropriate but I wanted to just ask that when the TIAR is conducted that it is conducted during school because of that Waiakea Elementary and Intermediate School, it’s the whole artery there, that’s the issue, I think, and then during peak hours. Is that an appropriate request? YUEN: I wouldn’t put it in. These are the kinds of things that the DOT looks at; and sometimes I have seen rejection of a TIAR because it was not done in an appropriate timeframe. So rather than we trying to sit here and spell out the parameters this is what they need, they need to make sure that it’s done in the right way, and I wouldn’t get into that level of detail. Just to follow-up, when is the 90 days? I’m sorry, when is the -?. HAYASHI: It was filed actually today with the Planning Commission. YUEN: Oh, I’m sorry, right. The Planning Commission has 90 days. HAYASHI: Yes, they have 90 days from today. GRAHAM: I’d like to ask Mr. Torigoe a question, just procedurally. So before we take this vote, I mean, we have a current motion on the floor, we’re about ready to take a vote. The application before us is not finished once we take the vote, so that someone else can come up with another motion, maybe incorporating the suggestion made by the applicant. And if that fails, maybe we can make a motion to continue until something is done and see if the applicant agrees. Otherwise, if we don’t pass anything it just automatically continues to the next hearing. Is that all right, or do you have any direction as to how we are procedurally to go forward? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That’s basically correct, that if you cannot get five votes to do anything in particular today then it just goes on for another, until the 90-day period is over or, I guess, the applicant agrees to a longer period for whatever action the Commission proposes, that’s another possibility. The discussion with the TIAR that has been talked about the last couple of minutes I’m not sure how long it would take to get a TIAR and it may not be available in 90 days, so you may want to make sure that the applicant is agreeable to that. The applicant could also say, no, we don’t want to extend the time, you know, and just say EXHIBIT B 24 once the 90 days is up it just goes up with a negative recommendation, along with the entire recommendation and the recommendation that has been presented by the Director. GRAHAM: Thank you very much. If there are no more comments, I think Mr. Hayashi, if we can take a vote on the current motion before us, which is a motion for a favorable recommendation based on the conditions of approval given to us by the Planning Department with some small modifications. HAYASHI: Thank you. With that, I’ll call the roll call. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Abstain. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: No. HAYASHI: Chair Graham? GRAHAM: No. HAYASHI: Mr. Chairman, the vote was three ayes, three noes and one abstained. Motion does not carry. GRAHAM: All right. Then it would seem like at this point a possible route for us to take would be to have a motion from one of the Commissioners in line with what the applicant was proposing of removing the access from Kekela Street. But I’m not sure if that’s what the Commission wants, but that is another possibility. If not, we can do a motion for a continuation. We could ask the applicant if he would support that. What would you like, Commissioners? SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT B 25 GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I’m prepared to make a motion. GRAHAM: Yes. SIRACUSA: In the matter of change of zone application (REZ 06-000052), Ginger Patch, DP, LLC, I move that we defer decision on this application until such time as we have a chance to review a traffic impact analysis report on the subject matter. GRAHAM: Do we have a second? RHO: Second. GRAHAM: We have a second by Commissioner Rho. Thank you. If the Commission will allow me, I would feel like it would be appropriate to question Mr. Lim as to whether it’s okay with him that we take this, if, take this course where it involves a continuance for 90 days. SIRACUSA: Please do. GRAHAM: Mr. Lim, would you come forward, please. Do you have any comments on how you’d like to go forward here given what you’ve seen from the Commission? LIM: I think just overall the timing on getting a traffic impact analysis report is something in the neighborhood of four months, usually. In part it’s, you know, I have a personal issue about the traffic impact analysis report. It helps you, if you see the TIAR you see what the level of service is and you see the recommendations typically from the consultant, and then according to Commissioner Rho you would then input that into your decision and maybe make some of those recommendations conditions of approval of the rezoning.I guess the problem that I would have then is then what happens with the State Department of Transportation Highways people? You know, are they then foreclosed from doing what they want to do for whatever reasons? So there’s this tension between having the Commission act as traffic experts versus letting the people who are charged with the responsibility of handling it do their job. I know that there’s some hesitancy on the Commission Members’ parts that some of the agencies don’t do their job; and, of course, that’s true like anything else. But to some degree you’ve got to trust the system. So that’s why I say in terms of requiring a traffic impact analysis report for every single rezoning even if there are traffic issues, I think it helps you a little bit; but I don’t know how that actually plays into making a decision and putting those recommendations into a condition because it does to a large degree foreclose what the experts in the agencies can do. GRAHAM: Okay. I just wanted to also point out that although this is the motion we have on the table we did have an offer by you two to move the Kekela Street which the Planning Director wasn’t comfortable with unless he got commentary from the departments. So another EXHIBIT B 26 route for us to take would be to change the application some where and then send it out for comments. And if a TIAR is required, it’s required; if it’s not, it’s not. LIM: I think that would be our preference, is that we try to keep the application on track as is, and circulate the proposal to close off Kekela Street to the applicable agencies for comment, I think in particular Public Works, Department of Transportation, Highways, and the Fire Department, and see what they say. And I think after we receive those comments at least I believe the Director’s concerns would be addressed. We would, otherwise, and I guess we could work with him on revised conditions, if that’s appropriate. GRAHAM: I personally am comfortable with that. But Commissioner Watanabe, you’ve got a comment? WATNAABE: My question was then, Mr. Lim, it sounds to me like you’re agreeing to an extension of time for submittal then, because the recirculation certainly is going to take something in the neighborhood of 120 days anyway, right? LIM: No, we would hope -. We’re agreeing to a relative quick circulation. I think that they probably can get that done and we can come back to you guys at the next Hilo meeting, hopefully. WATANABE: Is that possible, Mr. Director? YUEN: I don’t think the next Hilo meeting. Norman, if we got a letter from them revising their application that said we now propose to come in with a right-in and right-out from Puainako Street only, we would send that out right away. And how much time would we be giving the various agencies? HAYASHI: Well, normally, we give the agencies 30 days to comment, except we give the State Department of Transportation 60 days in which to comment. But I think in this particular case it would be amendment to the application so we could ask the Department of Transportation to submit it, or all of the agencies to submit it within three to four weeks. YUEN: Yeah, I think we could do that, and then we would be looking at bringing this back for a meeting in Hilo in, skipping the next one and bringing it back at the next one, which is within the 90 days. Given the way, you know, frankly, Mr. Lim’s analysis, given the way that the Commission is split on this, it seems like unless something happens you’re looking at a split vote continuing onward, and so that you’d be here for 90 days, you know, best case scenario from today. So I think, as I said, you know, the right-in/right-out may be a great solution. I just don’t know as I sit here. So I think rather than a deferral for a TIAR specifically, you know, let’s try this later amendment, circulate it, and ask for 30 days, figure on coming back in 60 days. You know, as far as your situation, if the Department of Transportation comes back, I’ll have to be, you know, very candid about this, if they come back and say they still want a TIAR, then my conditions are still going to say you still do a TIAR. But I would still, like our present condition, I would not be holding, my idea is not to hold the application up but that there be a TIAR and that be a condition of approval. So that’s a little different than the motion that EXHIBIT B 27 you have on the table here. But that would be my suggestion as far as a plan to move this application forward. GRAHAM: Mr. Gomes, do you have a comment? GOMES: Yes, I do. I don’t have a problem recirculating, omitting the Kekela entrance. But I know that DOT is going to come back with a TIAR, a traffic request. So I don’t want to come back here again and say, well, we still don’t have a traffic study so we’re going to defer again. And I think that we’re trying to make a solution to that intersection which seems to be everybody’s concern. And, again, I don’t mind circulating it back to all the agencies for their comment; but I know DOT is going to come back and say they need a traffic study. Any time you go onto their highway you’re going to need a traffic study. But to come back and ask, and you guys defer it again for, because you don’t have a traffic study, I’m just, should I do a traffic study or should I recirculate for the no Kekela entrance, basically. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Yes, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. Well, I’d like to point out first of all Condition E already, you know, you’re already being required to do a TIAR. So basically what I, and this Commission is definitely not trying to promote itself as traffic experts which is why we want a TIAR. I believe that if we had a TIAR first, you know, and then it was circulated around the Departments that would have an interest so that we can get their comments on it, then we would have everything on the table in front of us to make the decision and, you know, they would be making, Traffic Department would be making its decision based upon the results of the TIAR. And we could have this project go forward with a traffic plan that would be safe and not cumbersome and one that everybody could agree was the best possible way of handling the situation. And whether they decide the Kekela Street closure is appropriate or not, I would leave that up to the TIAR to look at as one of the options that they consider. I would like to see this project go forward. But if there’s a delay by the way we want to handle this and delay results in more public safety, then I think that that’s more important than time constraints. GRAHAM: And just for clarity if, in fact, that’s the case, the applicant does the TIAR now and the applicant expresses that he’s willing to omit that entrance/egress on Kekela Street, then your preference is, and probably, my preference is that we don’t have to just look at this TIAR as a piece of raw document and decide what’s the best solution but that that TIAR is for DOT and Department of Public Works. And if they said this is what we think is required, then we take action, which makes the whole processing -. SIRACUSA: That’s exactly what my intent was. And if I didn’t express it clearly then I hope that I would, you know, restate the motion to make that clear and hope that Commissioner Rho will concur in his second. EXHIBIT B 28 GRAHAM: Okay. Do you concur? RHO: Yes. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I’d just like clarification from the applicant then. Is the applicant, obviously this motion is not going to go anywhere if the timeframe that Mr. Yuen expressed four months for the TIAR is not within 90 days. So it’s not the applicant’s agreement to go down this road? LIM: Right. I think that the concern that we have is that the preparation, it’s just a preparation, is maybe four months. The review and comment period from Public Works and the Department of Transportation I think is another 60 to 90 days after that. So we’re talking about not coming back here for 6 to 8 months. That’s our concern at the least. And so we would prefer to go the route that the Director has suggested, which is to essentially take what I think most people in their heart know probably the way to go is to close off Kekela Street and get the agencies’ comments on that, because I think that will give us the 99.9 percent solution. I don’t know that the TIAR study is going to, because that’s, a TIAR study at this stage is an estimation of what kinds of uses we’re going to have in these buildings; and we’re planning retail office and those types of general uses, but we don’t know for sure. So that’s still an estimate. GRAHAM: Can I try to restate the clarification. So let’s say, so you would expect to make this recommendation right now to close off Kekela Street, Mr. Yuen circulates that around, we come back in 60 days, and we’ll probably hear from the DOT that they still want a TIAR. We may say, well, that’s good enough for us and pass it to the Council, or we may say, well, we need to wait for the TIAR or more before we go on. And then probably you just want to run your 90 days with us and go up the Council. Is that kind of the preferred path? LIM: That’s correct. GRAHAM: Okay. Personally it seems like a reasonable path given how everybody feels on everything. But we do have a different motion on the floor, somewhat a different motion at this time. Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: I just need a clarification, I’m sorry I’m still -. So my understanding then is that the applicant is not agreeable to take steps to do the TIAR and have it presented to the Commission for its review in this application? LIM: Although we would like to I think the delay is unacceptable. You know, we’re looking at, like I said, six to eight months for the preparation and action on the TIAR by the agencies. EXHIBIT B 29 IWASHITA: So, basically, I guess if the Commission votes consistently as it previously has and it goes up on a negative recommendation you take your chances with the Council? LIM: That’s correct. What we intend to do is to file immediately by today or maybe Monday at the latest an amendment to delete the Kekela Street entrance and that would, hopefully, get circulated to the agencies relatively quickly. IWASHITA: I guess, you know, my concern is really as Commissioner Siracusa indicated that, you know, I certainly and I don’t think anyone on the Council, I don’t think even any of the new ones, are traffic experts. But, you know, this is, if the Department is going to create guidelines, you know, anything within, we can define this major intersection at Kanoelehua-Puainako, and obviously I can go on; and as far as, you know, I’m concerned any proposed development within 500 yards of that intersection a TIAR should be required before it comes before us. Because it’s going to have, you know, that traffic, you know, any kind, you guys are going to have an impact upon that intersection as well as the development. So, you know, I think I’m mirroring Commissioner Rho’s concerns that he expressed earlier in that since we’re asking the agencies now, you know, well, if they do right-turn in/right-turn out is that okay? That’s just not acceptable in terms of what I believe what I need in order to make an informed decision about this application. So, you know, I understand the applicant’s desire to moving forward and that you have the ability to do that. But, to me, that’s not, you know, in the community’s best interest, maybe in the developer’s best interest but it’s not in the community’s best interest. LIM: I think it’s unfair to characterize it that way. You know, we’re, I think in looking at, you know, listening to the concerns and the proposal to close off Kekela, I think most people know without a traffic report that that’s probably going to make the most sense. I’m not the agency so I don’t know for sure, but I’m pretty confident that’s the kind of responses we’re going to get. So for us to delay the six to eight months to get the traffic impact analysis report and the comments from the agencies on that report, in most instances I would agree with you guys. But in this particular instance, I think that we’re doing the thing that is probably going to be the recommendation from the report. I mean, none of us are experts but I think a lot of us know how to drive and what the issues are, and closing off access to Kekela Street is probably going to be the biggest single thing that we could do to mitigate the traffic impacts from the project. So I’m not trying to be difficult. I just have my client’s interest at heart. I, obviously the time is money. But we believe that we’re not just trying to ignore the Commission’s concerns, we’re trying to address the concerns by making that amendment to the proposal. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: You know, I don’t think Mr. Lim is holding himself out as a traffic expert either. So, you know, all the suggestions are basically speculation. We can always speculate. Without the information, without the report, all of us, including Mr. Lim, you know, are only speculating about the benefits or the lack of benefits of the suggested traffic flow through this project onto Puainako and/or Kekela Street. So, you know, that’s the bottom line. And as far as I’m concerned if it goes up that way to the Council the project ought to be denied. EXHIBIT B 30 GRAHAM: Any other -? GALDONES: Excuse me, Mr. Chair. GRAHAM: Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I would have to vote against the motion as is. The reason is because if you look at the layout of this application, there are not too many options. There’s not many, many options up there. There are a few options to be considered. And even after the Department of Transportation comes up with their recommendation, I’m sure all of us on the Commission here is not going to agree to everything that they came out with. We will have our own ideas of what they shouldn’t be doing. So I still believe that the condition as stated is a good one, leave it to the body who has the expertise to deal with it because the options are not that many for them to consider. And I’m sure they’re going to try to mitigate the concerns that we have been expressing here today. Now the problem I have with the motion is that it’s open-ended and it may go beyond the four months, beyond the 90 days. I’d rather, if we have a split in the Commission, what I’d rather see is no action taken by the Commissioners and after the 90 days submit it up to the County Council with no recommendation or no action by the Commissioners, instead of leaving it open ended and go beyond the 90 days just to get the TIAR which I feel because, as I stated, they don’t have a heck of a lot of options for consideration there. And I’m sure that we’re going to have to trust the process as Mr. Lim has stated; and I agree, in this particular case, I agree with his statement. And that is why I have a difficulty with the motion as stated. GRAHAM: I can personally just say, as far as how I feel, about the route we’re planning to take I think is great about resubmitting the different traffic, different ingress/egress option, if that goes around and we get comments. When we hear from DOT we don’t typically just hear, “Well, we don’t have any comment for the TIAR,” they’ll generally make a bunch of comments. So when it comes back to us my personal take will be given the comments given then the Police Department, Public Works, whatever, if it looks to me like the TIAR is more just technical issues like how long the left-turn lane should be or something like that, then I would feel comfortable supporting we go forward. But if I felt I would still be in the same position I am in right now, then I wouldn’t. So I just can’t say it at this point in time. Thank you. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just in response to Commissioner Galdones, I agree, I think the options are limited and then, therefore, to me it’s apparent to a nonprofessional, nonexpert; and that’s why I have a hard time voting in favor of this motion on the application. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa, I guess, should we carry forward with your motion at this time, your motion being one to require a TIAR before it comes back to us? Or, you know, the applicant had a different suggestion that I just spoke to. And what would you prefer? EXHIBIT B 31 SIRACUSA: The motion was to delay until a TIAR can be done and circulated to the relevant departments, which is Public Works, Police, Transportation, and then come back to us so that we have all the information on the table to move the project on. I did want to say that the State Department of Transportation’s letter on this matter, you know, is requiring a TIAR, wants to cover an analysis, not just traffic within the parking lot but an analysis of Puainako Street and its intersections at Kanoelehua Avenue, Kekela Street and Kilauea Avenue. The study should also address cueing impacts at the project access, driveways on Kekela Street, on Puainako Street, and with a scenario for a single access on Kekela Street. So I think, you know, for example, if we call the scenario that you were talking about doing a motion for closing off Kekela Street and then that came with the Transportation it would still require a TIAR. You’d still have all of that happening anyway. But by the time, you know, I don’t think it would make an appreciable difference time-wise. Whether you do it up front or whether you do it on the other end, it’s still going to have to happen. And I think it’s important that the departments that we were talking about have a chance to see the TIAR and make their decision or their recommendation based on that. And it may mean that you’re right. But it could also be, you know, yes, our options aren’t limited, maybe somebody can think outside the box and think of another option. Maybe the option will be turn down this application completely. You’re running that risk as well, Mr. Lim. And so I think that the only way I feel comfortable about making a decision is to have all the information in front of me and, because I know I’m not an expert. And I would defer to the experts to prepare that information and give it to me. So I’m ready for the question that we vote. GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. My main concern about the pending motion is that you cannot really, it’s not a practical solution because if the applicant doesn’t agree, and Mr. Lim has indicated the applicant doesn’t agree, we cannot exceed -. You know, what’s being proposed is going to exceed the 90 days and so in effect this -. My suggestion is that this particular motion be withdrawn and that what’s suggested and was acceptable to the applicant of the circulation of the written agreement to prevent any access on to Kekela Street from this development be added to this proposal and circulated to the departments, and then we have this matter reset for the meeting in March, I guess, in Hilo, and then we can proceed. At that point we’ll still have about 30 days left of the 90 days to consider this matter. But, you know, the study can be done within 90 days not to mention just circulating to the agencies for comments. But it’s impracticable to go forward without the applicant’s agreement, and the applicant hasn’t agreed. GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita, it sounds like you’re talking about like what I was doing, that you’re in favor of following this path with the applicant, we defer and therefore would not be supporting Commissioner Siracusa’s motion at this time? IWASHITA: Well, my suggestion, to me the motion should be withdrawn and then we can proceed with this other motion. GRAHAM: I see. EXHIBIT B 32 GALDONES: Mr. Chair? GRAHAM: Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: I would support Commissioner Iwashita’s idea. My concern is that have something be done within the 90 days, either we’re not going to act on it within the 90 days and submit it to the County Council or it comes back to the Commissioners within the 90 days. And as stated by Commissioner Iwashita that process that was acceptable by the applicant will bring it back to us within the 90 days. So I would be supportive where he’s, right now it’s not a motion, but his suggestion. But in order for that to be incorporated into a motion then Commissioner Siracusa would have to withdraw her motion that’s on the table at this time. GRAHAM: Could I ask Mr. Torigoe a question here. If we wind up, currently we’re still dealing with Commissioner Siracusa’s motion. But if we wind up having the Planning Director circulate a revised application and agendize this for our March meeting, does that mean at the March meeting if there’s no definitive action taken by the Commission then at the end of the 90- day period, it restarts at that point where it automatically goes to the Council or does the 90-day period go on from right now? TORIGOE: Well, it depends on whether the changes are substantial enough so that you would have to consider a new application. My tendency is to say it’s not that big a change that you have to consider a new application. GRAHAM: Okay, thanks. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: If I were to accept Commissioner Iwashita’s suggestion and withdraw the motion, I’m wondering if Commissioner Rho would agree to that as well. RHO: Yes, I will. SIRACUSA: In that case I will withdraw the motion; and perhaps Commissioner Iwashita would care to make the motion that he was suggesting. GRAHAM: We’ll go forward with that. Commissioner Iwashita, we have an opinion from Mr. Torigoe and I just want to have that sort of be on the record when you make your motion. Do you have any objection to the fact that the clock continues to run right now? IWASHITA: Well, I’m not going to make the motion. GRAHAM: Oh, okay. IWASHITA: Because that’s the procedure I perceive should be followed given everything I’ve heard, but I’ll be voting against this motion. GRAHAM: Oh, okay. Mr. Torigoe. EXHIBIT B 33 TORIGOE: Yes, just for the record, so Commissioner Siracusa has offered to withdraw the motion that is on the table at this point? SIRACUSA: I’ll offer to withdraw the motion with the concurrence of the seconder, Commissioner Rho. If someone would, if not Commissioner Iwashita, then someone else would make the motion that, maybe I should make that motion. GRAHAM: Wait a second. TORIGOE: But if you’re going to, wait, just for the record, if you’re going to withdraw and Mr. Rho will agree to that, then Mr. Chairman, you ought to ask if there’s any objections so that we can put it on the table at this point. GRAHAM: Fine. Are there any objections from any Commissioners to Commissioner Siracusa withdrawing her motion? COMMISSIONERS: No. GRAHAM: All right, so be it. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: And I take it that the Chair is not allowed to make the motion, is that correct? GRAHAM: Yes. SIRACUSA: Okay. So then I will make the motion that the application be resubmitted, including the change to the closure of the Kekela Street access onto the subject property, and resubmitted with the change being circulated to the various County departments and agencies. GRAHAM: Could I suggest that maybe that you revise the wording so that instead of saying “resubmitted” you say “amended and brought back to the Commission with that amendment? SIRACUSA: Okay. And I should start off saying “Change of zone application” blah, blah, blah. GRAHAM: Yes. Mr. Torigoe? TORIOGE: Yes, I’d just like to suggest that the motion not say that it be resubmitted basically but that you continue to allow the applicant to resubmit a revision to the application regarding the Kekela Street ingress/egress and then continue the matter until the March Hilo meeting. Is that what it is? HAYASHI: Yes. EXHIBIT B 34 TORIGOE: To allow for the matter to be brought back to the Commission with comments from the concerned agencies. SIRACUSA: Perhaps Norman can work up the wording for that for us. I would be appreciative, Norman, if I can throw it into your lap. GRAHAM: Norman, could you care to touch that or should I ask Commissioner Watanabe if he wants to -? HAYASHI: I think I can do that. The motion would be to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to submit revised plans by deleting the Kekela Street driveway entrance to the property and to have it show a driveway from Puainako Street, and that the plans be submitted to the appropriate agencies for their review and comment. GRAHAM: Thank you, Norman. That’s very well spoken. SIRACUSA: I agree, and that’s my motion. GRAHAM: Do I have a second? WATANABE: I second. GRAHAM: Commissioner Watanabe seconds and our expectation is that it will come back in March but we have to wait for the agencies. Okay, Commissioner Galdones. GALDONES: That is the concern I was going to raise, which you had mentioned, that it be agendized in March. GRAHAM: Thank you. WATANABE: That, however, was not part of the motion, yeah? Was that part of the motion? HAYASHI: I believe that’s the intent. I’m sorry, I omitted that part and I believe Commissioner Siracusa did indicate that it be placed on the March Hilo agenda. SIRACUSA: May I just -? GRAHAM: Yes. SIRACUSA: Take it aside here to ask Mr. Lim. If it turns out that it takes longer than that, are you willing on the basis of this motion to agree to a little extra time? LIM: I think we’re going to try to push it so it happens in that time; and I don’t know if I want to make any commitments at this point in time cause -. EXHIBIT B 35 SIRACUSA: All right, I’ve got another question because you want to move forward. I’m just asking if there were extenuating circumstances, for example, because your agreement seems to be one of the things we have to look, one of the concerns we have to look at here. LIM: Thank you. I think that we would consider that favorably. We’d have to see, you know, what will it turn out to be, but I’m anticipating we can get that done anyway. SIRACUSA: Okay, does that assuage your concerns, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Okay, well, then we can leave it at March then. Because at that point if we do not have the materials by March then hopefully they will be amendable to an April meeting if things just don’t work out. Hopefully it’ll work out well. We’ll all discuss it in March and everything will move on then, yeah. So I think including March is fine. SIRACUSA: So are we ready for the vote then? GRAHAM: Well, let’s see if anybody else has any other commentary. Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Just a commentary from my part. I just wanted to acknowledge that I think the application is a good one, I like the support that Mr. Gomes has gotten from the Miyashiro’s and the Shiroma’s, the design looks good, the vegetation. I mean the whole thing looks okay to me. The only issue to me, again, is the whole, the cumulative effect that’s already on that area by the traffic situation. That’s my only problem. So I just want to acknowledge that to the applicant and to the supporters. GRAHAM: Thank you. Commissioner Rho? RHO: I’m not sure if I’m understanding this but in the March meeting in Hilo is it the expectation that we’ll have a TIAR? No, right? LIM: No. RHO: Okay, so my understanding is correct. So basically what we’re doing is recirculating the amended or the changed proposal to the departments for comment, is that not right? SIRACUSA: Yes. GRAHAM: That’s correct. RHO: And so we argued for now going on 2 hours about a TAIR (sic) and we’re not going to require a TAIR (sic). I’d be the first one to say that I would want a TAIR (sic). But in this case for whatever reason I don’t feel a need for it because it would have been required by the Transportation Department and they would have to do it anyway, or whatever, or bypass us and go to the Council, or however this procedure works. So instead of keeping our standard at EXHIBIT B 36 this level we’re now going to this level. I don’t get it. I just don’t understand how this process that we’re running is going and where we’re going with all of this.I mean, if we really need this information then we should stick to the guns and say we need it. If we don’t, then if we had passed the first motion it would have required that they do the thing and submit it; and then it’s up to the client or the developer to bypass us and just go directly the Council, or however that process works. Okay, thank you. GRAHAM: Just in my direct sense of what you’re saying is, you know, it’s certainly correct what you’re saying. But I think what the applicant has indicated is that if we require the TIAR to proceed, the 90 days will run up before it’s done, and it will go, he will take it forward to the Council. RHO: No, I understand that. But it’s not, in my view, it’s not what the developer wants at this point, it’s what the Commission requires or wants. And my impression at the beginning or through the discussion was that the Commission wanted a TIAR no matter what they did. Whether they blocked off that road and created another road going out the other side, we would have still, this is my impression, we would have required a TIAR. Now if it turns out we don’t need a TIAR, we just want them to circulate this stuff within the various departments, get a comment, we’ll come back in March and probably approve it, delaying them another 60 days at least. That’s my calculation, but I could be wrong, 90 days. You understand what I’m saying? GRAHAM: Yes. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Maybe I can share with you. I’m equally frustrated. If you recall I made the initial motion to pass it on. We were one of three, we needed five. What that shows you is that the Commission doesn’t know what it wants, not that it wants a TIAR. It just shows you that the Commission is divided; and that’s why it took 2, or 2 ½ hours, or however long it took to get to this point. And it seems like this is the closest compromise to get anything done; and that’s why we’re at this juncture. By the way, this is, in my experience, relatively short yet. We’ve spent four or five hours to do nothing. So welcome to the club. GRAHAM: Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I think that one important thing has been accomplished, however, and that is that the Director has admitted that when a project comes forward that it looks like traffic would be of major concern that the Department should red flag it and request a TIAR ahead of time; and possibly we might be doing a little precedent setting here. I certainly hope that we will not have to go through this in the future if, you know, we ask the Department to do that, to keep an eye open for these kind of situations so that we can have all the information, including the TIAR and the comments from the various Departments and agencies based on that, ahead of time and save everyone a lot of frustration and delay. I agree with Commissioner Watanabe this is certainly a compromise, strictly for me it is. And I feel frustrated also.But without the approval of the applicant for the time extension it would just, we wouldn’t see the TIAR anyway. It would just go past us and on up to Council, so we still wouldn’t see the TIAR. EXHIBIT B 37 GRAHAM: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. For the reasons Mr. Rho mentioned in large part that’s why I’ll be voting against this motion. Cause in my mind, in my view, the TIAR is important. And I really appreciate the Director’s prior comments about looking into in cases, hopefully, like this in the future that a TIAR would be required by the Department before the application is presented to the Commission.Because as Commissioner Alameda said it is obvious, we all know that the proximity of this project to the Kanoelehua-Puainako intersection raises red flags all over the place. And, in my mind, that’s sufficient enough to say that I cannot go forward and send this project up without getting that basic information. And so the project should not be approved by this Commission or by the Hawaii County Council unless and until that’s done. But it’s not in our power to do that, not the way decisions come up. It would be up to the Council ultimately to decide whether or not it’s going to require a TIAR before this project is approved. Thank you. WATANABE: Mr. Chair, may I? GALDONES: I was just going ask for the question. WATANABE: I was about there, too. I think the only thing we’re sure of is we’re not going to do anything today, so let’s ask for the question. GRAHAM: If there are no further comments, then Mr. Hayashi, will you take the roll call. HAYASHI: Thank you, Commissioners. GRAHAM: Can you just restate that motion that you read before? HAYASHI: Yes. The motion is to continue the hearing to allow the applicant to submit revised plans which would delete the Kekela Street access for review and comment by the appropriate agencies and it be placed back on the March Hilo agenda. With that I’ll call the roll call. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? EXHIBIT B 38 GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries five to two. LIM: Thank you. We’ll try our best. Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 12:31 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura East Hawai‘i Secretary EXHIBIT B 39