Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-17 Leeward Exh A (Item 1 Cravalho REZ 21-000248) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 17, 2022 A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of DWAYNE CRAVALHO (REZ 21-000248) was called to order at 9:40 a.m. via live stream online meeting, with Chairman Michael Vitousek presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Michael Vitousek, Barbara DeFranco, Clement"CJ" Kanuha III, and Mahina Paishon-Duarte ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Faith"Faye" Yates ALSO IN ATTENDANCE: Malia Kekai, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow (Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Tracie-Lee Camero (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) APPLICANT: DWAYNE CRAVALHO (REZ 21-000248) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to a Village Commercial-7,500 square feet(CV-7.5) zoning district for approximately 7,544 square feet of land. The subject property is located at 55-479 Hoea Road, at the northeast corner of the Hoea Road/Akoni Pule Highway intersection, Ka`auhuhu, North Kohala, Hawaii, TMK: 5-5-009:019. VITOUSEK: This is a continued hearing. Initial hearing on December 16, 2021, the commission voted to defer its decision in order to give the applicant the opportunity to submit a, to revise their plans. The commissioner has the commission has received a revised preliminary site plan and supplemental information from the applicant through its consultant by letter dated February 7, 2022. Is there any updates that you would give, Tracie, on this agenda item? CAMERO: Sorry. Not at this moment. I do have the updated site plan in my presentation if you guys want me to put it up on the screen, and if Daryn would like to kind of discuss it further. VITOUSEK: Okay. Applicant's consultant,please raise your hand so I can swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on the matter now before the Leeward Planning Commission? ARAI: I do. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Please state you name and the town that you live in. 1 EXHIBIT A ARAI: My name is Daryn Arai. I reside in Hilo. I'm assisting the applicant, Dwayne Cravalho with this Change of Zone application. Dwayne is sitting next to me. He resides in North Kohala. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. Would you like to give us any further information? ARAI: Sure. I'll try to be brief. Everything, we've tried to address the commissioner's concerns as well as those concerns expressed by the community and that was outlined in our February 7h letter to you. The applicant does appreciate the Commission's time and thoughtful approach to Mr. Cravalho's request. He takes the concerns very seriously. The concerns from the Commission as well as those from the community. And in doing so, he tried to reach out to the community members to have those concerns in hopes of finding a mutual acceptable solution. He also tried to be proactive to the various concerns that were expressed as, you know, as shown in our February 7 letter as well as the revised site plan that was presented. I should note that the revised, the site plan was prepared by the engineer and so it does have the proper consideration for things like turning movement, back up aisle space, they even recommended a five-foot buffer from that, from the encroaching structure next door. So, a lot of thought was put behind in coming up with the revised site plan. The revised site plan will also show additional landscaping opportunities that may be required by the Planning Department, even though not specifically required by Rule 17. The removal of the porta potties that were a concern to community members, as well as a 10-foot future road widening that was recommended by the Planning Department in its recommendation. We also provided an analysis, a feasibility analysis, so to speak, in hopes of demonstrating the many constraints that applies to this particular property, and to hopefully counter some of the misinformation that has been expressed by some in the community about potential uses that could occur on the property. In the end, the applicant continues that this request for a CV-7.5 zoning is proper for this particular property that is an extension of existing commercial zone lands right next door, and that the proposed food truck operation in particular, and as revised by the applicant is a reasonable use of land in this particular area of North Kohala. So, you know, we stand ready to answer any additional questions that you may have. We hope that we really addressed the many points that were raised in the prior meeting. VITOUSEK: Thank you. Commissioners, are there any questions for the applicant or County Planning Department? Comm--Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: I think I can, this isn't a question. I'm trying to get on my computer, but if she'll let me in I, again, I think I'll be on my computer. I'd like to get off my phone, so can she let me in again? I'm-- JACKSON: Barbara-- DEFRANCO: --waiting room. 2 EXHIBIT A JACKSON: Commissioner DeFranco, I don't see that you're in the waiting room. DEFRANCO: Okay. JACKSON: I don't have you in the waiting room. DEFRANCO: Okay. JACKSON: Can you try to click the link again? DEFRANCO: It says, I'm on the link. Okay. Let me try join meeting, so maybe—saying enter an ID. I'm sorry to interrupt the meeting and do this. It's so hard to—okay. I'll go back. Maybe I should get off and then go back on. We can do it when we have a break. I'll just stay on my phone and when we have a break VITOUSEK: We can take DEFRANCO: --then I'll do this. VITOUSEK: We can take a five-minute recess for you to try to get on. JACKSON: Oh, I just saw you. Yes. Okay. DEFRANCO: Okay, it's doing something. JACKSON: I just let you in. DEFRANCO: So, then I'll just—there we go. JACKSON: Great. There you are. DEFRANCO: Okay let me get--. Thank you everyone. JACKSON: Great. VITOUSEK: Okay, I guess we'll come back to order. Okay, terrific. Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, you got your hand up. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Arai, for providing additional information. Just,just one, well I guess it's one and a half questions. My question is, do you, you mentioned that you attempted to talk with various community members, you know, in response to our last conversation at our last meeting, commission meeting. My question is, were you able to have a conversation with any of the North Kohala Action Committee members that, you know, have been working on the North Kohala Community Development Plan? And if so, what 3 EXHIBIT A was the result of those conversations, and then part and parcel to the first question is, have you looked at the, the existing North Kohala CDP and look for possible alignment to that plan and, and if so, how is your proposal in alignment with the North Kohala CDP? Thank you. ARAI: Thank you for the question, Commissioner Duarte-Paish--[sic]. I didn't speak to any specific members of the Action Committee, and I'm not sure if Mr. Cravalho actually encountered or had discussions with any of the members. So, that's answering one part of your question. The other part is that in the application that we presented, the, it did include a discussion about the compliance or consistency with the North Kohala CDP, and that's in, that should be part of the background report that we presented, or that the Department has presented to you as well. So, you know, we, I've read through the Kohala CDP, I, you know, I've looked at the land use guide plan map. I do find those alignments. I do not see anything in particular that speaks directly of this property being an inappropriate use for commercial type of activities. I just couldn't find any statements specific within the CDP. I'm not aware of any, and if you are, I would really appreciate if you could let me know. That would be helpful. VITOUSEK: Any further questions, commissioners? Commissioner Kanuha. KANUHA: I have a question for, for the applicant. Just looking at it, looking at the paperwork right now. I see, I like the site plan that you guys did, how you guys left in, you know, for the future roadway widening that's there. Are you guys gonna have restroom facilities on, on this property? At all? Any type of wastewater treatment? CRAVALHO: We're not required to have that. ARAI: Maybe I can clarify. You know, that's the very reason why porta potty was being contemplated. Because of the concerns, we elected to remove them. We did check with the Department of Health to determine if it was a requirement, and the Department of Health confirmed that it is not required. Because none of the food establishments contemplated serves liquor. Once you serve liquor, you must have a restroom facility. KANUHA: Yeah, and that's ARAI: And I can totally understand why. But, as far as right now, no. Because of the community's concerns, no wastewater facilities are being provided. KANUHA: Okay. So, it's going to be more of a grab-and-go type of, type of food truck? ARAI: Yeah, that is exactly why the tables and the chairs were being removed. KANUHA: Yeah, I'm looking at your site plan now. ARAI: Yeah, so, we really, based on the traffic concerns, the ability to turn around, parking within the facility as quick as possible and not have people lingering on the property. Those are 4 EXHIBIT A some of the things that we really tried to present in the hopes of saying, you know, it is a responsive—responsible response by the applicant to address the many concerns that KANUHA: And we appreciate that. We appreciate that. That was my only questions for you guys. ARAI: Thank you. VITOUSEK: Commissioners, any, any further questions? Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. Sorry, so, I wanted to address this question to the applicant. So, if you have not had conversations; you said you attempted to have further conversations with community and it was not with the committee, the Action Committee, might you share who you had conversations with, within the community. (Brief inaudible discussion between Mr. Arai and Mr. Cravalho.) CRAVALHO: Oh no, I mean, I haven't had any conversations with North Kohala Resource Center after this meeting. ARAI: If I could clarify, when we first received concerns expressed in writing from the North Kohala Community Resource Center, we did reach out to them specifically and made arrangements through their president to have a meeting. We also understood at the time that one of the adjoining neighbor, Mr.--I just lost his name. Mr. Fukada would also be in attendance. Mr. Fukada not only owns the property immediately adjacent to the project site, but he's also the owner of that structure that encroaches onto Mr. Cravalho's property as well as he leases, to my understanding, he leases use of the building to the North Kohala Resource Center. So, we thought there was going to be this really great dialogue where we really could try to find ways to find common ground, but it was, in the end it was pretty much just one-sided. It was just us presenting the proposal, there was very little, if any, feedback on how we can be constructive in addressing the concerns. And the last we heard, and Mr. Fukada was not in attendance, disappointingly, and they said they would go back to their board members, discuss it, and get back to us with their decision, and nothing ever happened. So, that was the extent of our reach out. And as letters came in, we did like the Palau family for example, we did try to reach out and you do have copies of that dialogue. Again, maybe not necessarily going to the community and talking to a whole bunch of people, but as we became aware of those concerns, we definitely tried to reach out as best as we could. I'm sorry, did I address your question? PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. VITOUSEK: If there are no further questions, can we have a motion? Commissioner DeFranco. 5 EXHIBIT A DEFRANCO: Yeah, I'd like to make a favorable recommendation to forward to County Council on the applicant's proposed Change of Zone, docket number 21-000248 based on the Planning Director's recommendations which shall be adopted. VITOUSEK: Okay. A motion, is there a second? KANUHA: Second. VITOUSEK: We have a motion on the table to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council. It's been seconded and we can open it up for discussion amongst the commissioners. Commissioner DeFranco—Vice Chair DeFranco DEFRANCO: Yeah, I thought it was good that you went back and you re-looked at everything and you came back to us with a new proposal and it seemed that you addressed some of the questions that was raised before. One was the porta potties, the parking, the roadside the expansion of the road. I think you guys have done that. I can see it's a very, sort of funny little triangular piece of land that you're trying to do something with. I also did call the Health Department and tried to understand what is required to have a porta potty or not a porta potty, and all of those things, and it is a bit confusing still when you talk to all of them about how it is all determined. But I'm sorry that Faye isn't here today to be here because she actually represents her area, and that gives us, you know, the ability to understand all the more what's happening in the neighborhood. And I'm a little disappointed that you didn't talk to any of the CDP members about this project. But I don't, I see that you need to, you're trying to go forward and do something and you've met us, and I'm just open to what the other commissioners are thinking so we can discuss it now. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, Vice Chair. Thank you for your thoughts. I am not in favor of the proposal, and the reason is, is I think there, I've been spending quite a bit of time in Kohala the past couple of months for other reasons, and folks have been, the common thread of conversation is the desire to keep agricultural lands in agriculture. And the desire to create more opportunities for sustainable food systems. And so, I, I think there's more, the reason why I'm not in favor is because I think more time might be helpful to the applicant to do another round of reach out to community members. I fear if this piece is not addressed, it will cause, it will cause unnecessary conflict and tension in the resident community. That's what I'd like to just offer for the conversation at hand. Thank you. KANUHA: Mahalo, Mahina. Thank you for that input. I, you know, I see it both, on both sides. My family's from Miloli`i. I have my property there. I was born and raised there. I have spoken with different community members up there, in Kohala as well, and there is mixed reviews about what's going on. That small area, kind of going back to food sustainability is such a small piece of the puzzle there that if you look at the Kohala Town, and you know, I did some research about Mr. Cravalho and their whole `ohana and everything that's been, what he's done, and everybody has—it's a small community, so everybody's going to have concerns on what's going on. To me, if you look in town, there's not a lot of local operators that have something to provide. Food, food-wise, there's not a lot of options. There's been kind of the same stuff that's been there in Kohala for a long time. And there's been other operators that have moved here and then gone 6 EXHIBIT A into a commercial space and opened up. So, you know, I wouldn't say I'm 50/50. I like when they came back with what they had in the presented plan just because it does give an option for a local vendor to be able to sustain themselves on that small property. Food, food sustainability is huge for us in our community. I'm very, very, you know, I'm active in that. We have a lot of family and friends that are right above Miloli`i, and you know them as well, that are farming. As of right now they are doing a lot to sustain our community. Hualalai, you know is, he's been very vocal and he's `ohana and he's a brother of mine, so. I wouldn't, you know, I know talking with the community members and reaching out and, I don't know how much these guys can actually keep reaching out. It sounds like they have tried. I would give the opportunity, you know, like I said, a favorable recommendation is coming from me just to see, I like seeing locals succeed. And that, that's something that that I've always been, you know, a part of and want to move forward. And this small piece of property, you know, I think with some stipulations on there, especially if they can have it and do something good for the community. But like you said, I think opening it up the conversation to the local members and just having a kukakuka,just having a conversation with everybody is greatly needed for, for you know, this project. Like I said, it's a small community and small town, so everybody's gonna want to know what's going on. You know, and moving forward, I like, like I said the food option is always good. You know, growing up in Kohala and being born, I was born and raised up there in Miloli`i. You know, we've had our property for that came from my great, great, great, great grandfather that's been in Miloli`i. So, its nice, nice to see other options and nice to see locals going there and also not trying to build a condo or build a house or build some sort of rental attraction. But where I stand is, you know, I give that favorable approval just on those contexts, I guess you could say. Just seeing how small that piece of property is that, you know, if it was a big piece of property and was Ag land and vital Ag land, I could see why we would use it and save it for food production. But it's on the corner of the highway, so that, that's my only concern, is that I'm not sure how viable it would be. And even creating something with that food truck to be a farmer's market. You know, maybe allowing locals to be a part of that, to create something. And that's maybe the conversation and dialogue that Mr. Cravalho needs to take up with the community as moving forward with this food truck adventure. And those are just my thoughts. VITOUSEK: Mahalo, Commissioner Kanuha. Yeah, for me, I look at this as a Change of Zone application, not just the site plans for a food truck. Because once the zoning is changed, that opens it up to, you know, other possible uses. And, the question is to me, what's the most appropriate zoning for this parcel. And I don't think that's Ag-20 for a 7,500 square foot piece of property that cannot ever be 20 acres and cannot do agriculture at that level. You look at the surrounding zoning and the surrounding zoning is comparable to what's being proposed here. Basically, on the map it looks like this is the corner of a rectangle that was somehow excluded from the other parcel and excluded from that zoning for, really, an unknown reason. We don't know how this strange little 7,500 square foot parcel came to be, and why it's zoned Ag-20 when its neighbor has commercial zoning. 7 EXHIBIT A I agree with the Planning Department's recommendation for the zoning of this parcel, and I think that the particulars on the use of it can be worked out between the applicant and the community. It wouldn't—if they've got the zoning that they need to do the commercial activity, I think that Mr. Cravalho is a member of Kohala community, and that he can work with his neighbors to operate his business in a way that doesn't impact on the community. I think people who are from the community, like Mr. Cravalho who want to maintain the importance of the place that they're from will have that respect for their community members and those around them. So, I would support a favorable recommendation and I think that the opportunity still exists for community involvement to refine the process through both the actual hearings at the County Council. Because we're not issuing the Change of Zone here, we're just issuing a recommendation to the County Council. So, that opportunity still exists for continued collaboration. And, as I said, once, if the zoning is granted, then it doesn't end Mr. Cravalho's efforts to collaborate with the community to have a low-impact business. So, I would be in favor of it. I'll note that with only four members present, we would need all four Planning Commissioners to vote in favor of this to send a favorable recommendation. If not, it would go forward as an unfavorable recommendation to the County Council. But that would be something that the Council would have to consider in their independent review of this application. I'll ask Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, is there anything that you've heard that would change your perspective, or are you staying fast with your original presented belief? PAISHON-DUARTE: I appreciate and respect the prospective that has been shared, and they are all valid perspectives. However, I think, I do believe that the applicant would benefit from more time to do another round of, of community outreach and conversation. So, I will stand on my current perspective. VITOUSEK: Okay. Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Sorry, so then to do another round would mean we would have to withdraw the, we would have to withdraw the motion. Is that right? And then have him go back and do more community work, or would you allow it to go forward to the Council with the commitment and understanding that he would go back to his community and work with them? I mean, we're not the, we're not making a decision here, we're just making a recommendation. He still has a lot of opportunity to work with the community and to fulfillbecause, you know, my, again, my feeling is that he listened to us last time and he went and redid his plans because of our recommendation and, you know, he is making an effort to do something unique on a very funny little piece. And even though all of us are, you know, take serious note, this is in ag zoning and why this small piece got there and everybody else around is commercial is something for us to look at. I don't know, is there any words, Commissioner Duarte, that would--or things that we could tag onto this that would let this go forward? PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, Vice Chair. Perhaps I can ask support and advice from staff members, from the Planning Staff members, if there is a, do you have proposed language 8 EXHIBIT A whereby there would be a requirement that would go forth, that would carry over to do another round of community outreach and conversation? Is that possible? JACKSON: Typically, when we forward a letter up to Council, we forward what the vote was. So, if the vote was 4-0 for a favorable recommendation, that's what the Council would see. We could put something in the letter saying that the commission has requested that the applicant do another round of collaboration and consultation with the community. But there's nothing, really hooking the applicant into doing that, that I'm aware of. KANUHA: Yeah, but Maija VITOUSEK: Deputy Director. Deputy Director Darrow, go ahead. DARROW: I'm sorry, Commissioner Kanuha. Just, I just wanted to offer this suggestion. We only have four commissioners today. It doesn't look like we're going to get, or we may not get a vote one way or another. It hasn't been voted on at this time. If the applicant is amenable to defer this application to allow more time to speak with members of the community that Commissioner Paishon-Duarte is asking, for that communication to be done before feeling comfortable making a decision, the Planning Director and, or the Planning Department is amenable to defer. And we can, there can be a request from the commission specifically as to what type of reach out there should be before they come back. Then from that point, we would be able to consider it again and there would be also the possibility of having, a good chance of having additional commissioners on the commission as well. So, that's a thought that can be considered. VITOUSEK: So, my understanding is that because this was deferred by the Planning Commission the last time, the obligation to notify the interested parties falls to the Planning Department? JACKSON: That's correct. VITOUSEK: Okay. So DARROW: Again, it, the applicant can request a deferral as well. So VITOUSEK: Well, I'm just speak—talking about the last round when, were we able to notify the interested parties about the date of today's hearing? JACKSON: Yes. Yes. VITOUSEK: Was there any indication from them about whether their concerns had been resolved? Just given the fact that there was so much public testimony last meeting, and then there's been some pretty substantial changes to the project and now there's no public testimony at this meeting. So, do we have any indication whether maybe they liked the changes and that's why they're not here today? We didn't get any letters, we didn't get any JACKSON: Tracie, do you want to respond to that? 9 EXHIBIT A CAMERO: Yes. So, up until today we haven't received any notifications from any of the surrounding property owners or any of the neighbors within the area of the proposed Change of Zone. VITOUSEK: You haven't heard from anybody? CAMERO: I haven't. I haven't gotten a phone call, I haven't gotten an email, or any letter of testimony. VITOUSEK: How was our notification done? CAMERO: It was VITOUSEK: How did we notify them? CAMERO: I gave our secretary the—what we do is we typically give them the list of the surrounding property owners and then, if I'm not mistaken, Noriko sent out the agenda item. She sends out the agenda packet to all of the list of property owners. VITOUSEK: So, it just went out generically to the list of the surrounding property owners? Did it, do we reconnect with those who testified last time and let them know the date of the new hearing? CAMERO: No, I didn't reconnect with them. VITOUSEK: Okay. And then procedurally, even if this goes to the Planning, or to the Planning Committee of the County Council with an unfavorable recommendation, the County Council can do whatever they want with it. They can say that they support it or don't support it. So, we're just making a recommendation. We're definitely not the final say. Can I ask the applicant if you would have a preference on our treatment of this? Would you like to have us make a vote on this today and forward it on to the Council, or would you, would you prefer more time to, to consult? ARAI: As far as—our preference would be to continue the meeting because you may have seen me trying—raising my hand when Commissioner Duarte was first beginning to speak and Commissioner DeFranco. One of the first things they said before they started to express their position was the need to reach out to the CDP action committee, or at least reach out to more members in the community. And the applicant is willing to find those pathways in order to have that further discussion. Something to consider is that we may want to find a way where we can actually have an actual meeting before the Action Committee during one of its formal meetings and do a presentation there. And for the staff's consideration and the Director's consideration as well, there have been conditions that we have suggested, or we've been thinking about when doing the plan approval 10 EXHIBIT A review process, which is where should the Change of Zone be approved, it does allow the possibility for a range of uses and facilities that there's this process called Plan Approval Review and we'd be willing or amenable to a condition that says that anything submitted for plan approval review, that opportunities for review by the action committee can be factored into that process as well. And that would give, again, another opportunity for the action committee to weigh in on any specific changes. So, again, continuing the meeting to a future meeting date would give us that opportunity to explore further with the Planning Department as well. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. Deputy Director Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Chairman Vitousek. I just wanted to, I was going to try to chime in on this earlier, but I didn't get an opportunity so, before we finish, I just wanted to touch on a few areas that we were discussing. Number one, Commissioner Kanuha brought up the fact that this is a very strange zoning for this particular property. Ag-20 on a 7,500 square foot lot in the middle of the urban core of Hawi, with the zoning being State Land Use Urban. So, it's, it's very unusual. I did take a look back at the original zone map that created the parcel created the zoning that was initially done in 1967, and it identifies the zoning of the properties along Haw! Road to the east as commercial, and the ones beyond Hoea Road to the west it identifies as residential. But this particular property does not identify a particular zone. I'm not sure if they just said because it wasn't identified that they just went with Ag-20, but I think that's something that we should at least look at. But regardless of that, the other issues that came up was the consistency of the CDP. The CDP, it's not very specific. There are CDPs that actually have maps of particular areas within the district that show what the community wanted for their future land use pattern. In this particular one they rely on the General Plan Land Use Pattern, but they do make a statement that the development of a commercial core within the towns of Haw! and Kapa`au shall be encouraged. And that's specifically where this is located, within that core of Hawi. And we see that by the commercial zoning that's moving along Hawi, the main Hawi Road. The other thing that comes up, is when we look at commeragriculture, a lot of times the Planning Department relies on several resources to be able to provide us what sort of quality is that agricultural land. In this particular case, we look to the land study bureau that identifies what type of land, that soil is. If it's good soil or poor soil, and we also look at the, what's called the ALISH, the Agricultural Lands in the State of Hawaii. In this particular case, there are areas around the island where because there was existing urban development, they do not identify it in those maps. They just call it out as U, which is identified as existing urban development. In this particular case, this core is identified as U. It's not identified with a soil class, and so I thought I'd bring that up as well that this was part of that urban, existing urban development area and not considered as lands of importance for agriculture. Anyways,just areas that I thought might bring some clarity to what we were discussing. Thank you. 11 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Okay. I agree with Deputy Director Darrow. To me it does seem like this parcel was intended to have an urban use judging from its size and location within Kohala's urban corridor. I think that the proposal that we're looking at for food trucks, yeah, that's a pretty limited use of an area, and you know, not a permanent impact. But again, we're not necessarily looking at the project, we're looking at the zoning. So, if nothing changes, I suppose the option on the table is, would be for us to withdraw the motion on the floor and then propose a new motion to defer this to allow consultation with the South Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. I'll leave that up to the motion- maker. DEFRANCO: I guess I'm the motion-maker. But again, I, you know, looking at all of these, I'm just trying to get us to give a favorable recommendation with the caveat of when we, if we can all agree to recommend it to go forward with the caveat that a continued level of outreach would be appreciated. I'm not really sure--anyway, so this was a question to Commissioner Duarte, if she's considering, if she would consider something here. If not, then I will withdraw the motion. VITOUSEK: Perhaps if Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, the possibility that Mr. Arai suggested including a condition wherein plan approval on the property would have to go through the Action Committee, that's a, that's a pretty direct community involvement. That's a condition that would tie anything that they do on the property to some pretty high-level scrutiny from the Action Committee about whether this is going to have an impact on Kohala. I think, we're fairly in agreement about the zoning being appropriate and there's still some concerns about the project, and this would really allow them to develop that project in real high-level consultation with the Action Committee. So, if we were to include a condition where plan approval would be required to have consultation with the Action Committee, is that something that you'd be in favor of? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yeah, thank you, Chair and Vice Chair for your suggestions and helping us move through this conversation. My understanding is that when I, Ms. Jackson had shared that it, this, we could, we could approve and make a recommendation for approval to the Council, however, it would be a suggestion. I did not hear that we could tie it to an actual condition. I might be misunderstanding. So, someone from the staff, can you please clarify if that is indeed tying a condition of, of a consultationI don't know exactly what the term is with the Action Committee members of the North Kohala CPD. Please help me understand. JACKSON: Yeah, so you, the commission can always add conditions to the, the draft ordinance to do some type of action further down the line. So, my response to you, Commissioner Paishon- Duarte was, it sounded like you wanted some kind of consultation to occur between Planning Commission and before it got to County Council, so that's why I was suggesting that there's, there's no method to do that other than just asking them to do that. But, but, you can always add a condition to the draft ordinance, and in the draft the condition would be implemented further down. So, as Mr. Arai had suggested, if you condition a trigger at plan approval to where they're required to do some type of consultation with the Action Committee, that could just be added as a condition to the ordinance. 12 EXHIBIT A So, let me look at the draft conditions and show you where that might be appropriate to add that language. Just give me one moment here. Okay, so, if you look at Condition C of the draft ordinance, we have our standard, "Construction shall be completed within five years. Prior to construction the applicant shall secure final plan approval for their proposed development."And that's where you can add in a statement that says that the plans submitted for final plan approval shall be reviewed by the North Kohala CDP Action Committee prior to the Planning Director issuing approval. Or some language like that. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. And a follow up question. So, in that language, shall and shall review by "X"party, what, help me walk through the steps. So, if they then, the Action Committee then after, as a scenario, does not support the application, what then happens? What are the next steps? JACKSON: I don't know that there would be a way to prevent the use from being established on the property because it's a permitted use based on the zoning. So, I don't think that the consultation input from the Action Committee could be a, you know, if we don't like it, it's not approved type of decision. It would be more of a consultation of, you know, we feel like you don't have enough parking spaces, or we don't like the design of the building or where you're placing the proposed food truck. Something to that extent. More, more design-related considerations rather than whether the use is approved or denied. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. Thank you, and I just want to, Chair, may I just, may I offer some of my thoughts to the applicant? Is that okay? Thank you. So, I'm, I'm not trying to be stubborn about this at all, however, with all of the comments and advice, and further information that's been shared particularly by Deputy Darrow, with that in mind applying that logic if you have all of the pieces in place with the correct, you know, with the information, I would think that the Action Committee would then, once consulted again with all the information that all of you have presented, I would think that they would, they would be in favor. So, I don't think this, this hurts your application. It will take more time, however, given all this conversation I just want to be upfront. I still will stand on not, I'm not in favor of the application at this point. VITOUSEK: Okay. With that, Commissioner DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Right. With that, thank you, Commissioner Duarte. So, I am going to make a motion to defer or I withdrawal first? VITOUSEK: Withdrawal the motion. DEFRANCO: So, I withdraw my present motion for a favorable recommendation. VITOUSEK: Okay, thank you. And Commissioner Paishon-Duarte, would you like to make the motion to defer? 13 EXHIBIT A PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, I'd like to make a motion to defer on this application. Did I say that correctly? VITOUSEK: Would you like to include the language about consultation with the Action Committee? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes. Can someone help me out with, with providing the correct information? I just want to say it correctly for the record. JACKSON: Ms. Kekai? I can try tooh, there you go. KEKAL Hi. We just want motion language? Is that what's going on? I mean, I think that it's clear on the record that she stated to consult with the CDP Action Committee. VITOUSEK: Okay, is that. I mean, would you like to include additional community consultation as well as the North Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee? Okay. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes. VITOUSEK: So, there's a motion on the floor to defer the application to allow additional time for consultation with the community and with the North Kohala Community Development Plan Action Committee. Is there a second? Commissioner DeFranco. Discussion. Is there any, before I go further I guess the applicant has already stated somewhat that their willingness to extend our statutory time periods to allow for this. Is that--do you say on the record that you're okay with that? ARAI: Yes, we are. Thank you very much. VITOUSEK: Okay, okay. So, the applicant has agreed to extend our statutory time period for review. We have a motion and a second. Any discussion? Seeing none, we'll do a roll call vote. CAMERO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. CAMERO: Vice Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. CAMERO: Commissioner Kanuha? KANUHA: Aye. CAMERO: Chair Vitousek? 14 EXHIBIT A VITOUSEK: Aye. CAMERO: The motion carries 4-0 with Commissioner Yates excused. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. You will be notified of the commission's decision in writing. Maija? JACKSON: Yes Chair, so the Department will go ahead and do that notification to surrounding property owners, and I just wanted to ask, Chair, do you want us to also notify everybody who provided testimony up to this point? VITOUSEK: I would appreciate that. Definitely. KANUHA: Yes. Yes, please. JACKSON: Okay, thank you. We will do that. ARAI: Thank you all for your very thoughtful consideration, always. Much appreciated. VITOUSEK: Aloha. Mahalo. The hearing ended at 10:33 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Kim Tanaka Secretary to Boards and Commissions 15 EXHIBIT A