Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2007-03-02 TGINGER02 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT MARCH 2, 2007 GINGER PATCH DP, LLC A regularly advertised hearing on the application of (REZ 06-000052) was called to order at 9:05 a.m. in the County of Hawaii, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman William Graham presiding. PRESENT:William Graham ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Alvin Rho Rene Siracusa RodneyWatanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, 7Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager 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) Continued hearing on the application for a 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:The first item on our agenda is a change of zone for Ginger Patch, Ginger Patch DP LLC. The drawings are up on the Board. This is a continued hearing on a Change of Zone application 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 in question is located along the north side of Puainako Street, between Kilauea Avenue and Kekela Street. Its across from the KTA complex in South Hilo. Jeff? DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. This is a continued hearing for Ginger Patch DP, LLC. At our last hearing in Hilo on January 5, 2007 a motion was made by Commissioner Siracusa and seconded by Commissioner Watanabe to continue this matter to allow the applicant to be able to submit revised site plans deleting the Kekela project access and to distribute this revised site plan to the different governmental agencies for revised comments. EXHIBIT A The applicant has submitted a letter dated January 10, 2007 with the amended site plan deleting the Kekela access and showing only a single access point on Puainako with a right-in and a right- out access. This letter was distributed to the different agencies for revised comments. The Planning Department has received revised comments from the Department of Environmental Management, from the Police Department, the Fire Department, the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands and, more recently, the Department of Health and yesterday we did receive a late comment from the Department of Transportation. The revised comments from Department of Transportation has been submitted to the Planning Commission this morning. So those should be in your packet. Additionally, we have received letters from Tom and Brian Shiroma, and this morning we have received as well proposed changes from the applicant, as well as just received an e-mail from J. Keliipio, and that has just been passed out to the Commissioners. Are there any questions? GRAHAM:Commissioners,anyquestionsofMr.Darrow?Allright,wouldthe applicant come forward please. I want to swear you in first and, also, anyone in the audience that is preparing to testify on this particular application. If you would raise your right hand and Ill swear you in right now. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS:I do. GRAHAM:Thank you. Go ahead, sir, and state your name and address when you begin your testimony, if you would. GOMES:My name is Jon Gomes. Im the developer and my address is 900 Alewa Drive, Honolulu. GRAHAM:Go right ahead. Thank you. GOMES:Thank you. What -? GRAHAM:Basically if you have some presentation youd like to make to the Commission about what has transpired since the last time or anything youd like to fill in as a background on the project, cause we do have two new Commissioners. GOMES:Okay. We were deferred at the last meeting and made a recommendation that we would remove the access to Kekela Street to help alleviate any congestion at Kekela and Puainako. We circulated the new site plan to the various agencies and we received comments from everybody, from all the different agencies; and were okay with all the comments and with the resolution as its written now, with a few changes that we had proposed this morning. GRAHAM:Thank you. We have questions? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. This morning, only this morning, just a little while ago we received the memo from the Department of Transportation. Have you had a chance to look that over yet? GOMES:Yes, I have, this morning also. 2EXHIBIT A SIRACUSA:And are there any surprises? GOMES:No. We anticipated doing that. We anticipated doing the Traffic Impact Analysis Report. We were going to address all those intersections anyway. So we dont have any surprises. Were okay with that. SIRACUSA:Okay, fine. And so is this, I dont have the old recommendations in front of us. But do we need to add this in when we make our conditions? GOMES:What we have -. SIRACUSA:Cause this came in after that new stuff came in. GRAHAM:Well,whatwehavefromthePlanningDepartmentisanew recommendation. SIRACUSA:I got that. GRAHAM:Okay. SIRACUSA:Yeah, so thats all included? GRAHAM:Yeah, let me ask Mr. Yuen. Mr. Yuen, anything additional as far as recommendations on the part of the Planning Department? You want to take a minute? YUEN:Were fine with this change here. GRAHAM:Okay, I do notice applying the revised plan to your original conditions of approval, I had hand-written in the number of things which kind of represent the fact that there will be no access from Kekela Street and things like that. I guess we need to somehow, when we come time for a motion, we need to some how deal with that; but I think thats not here at the moment. YUEN:Well, its true that the current Planning Departments recommendation leaves open the possibility of access from Kekela Street. I just dont know that we should decide that its better to only come in and out of Puainako Street in advance of the actual traffic impact analysis report. I mean, they would do a traffic impact analysis report with a right-in/right-out only as their proposed site plan. And as long as that didnt cause excessive congestion problems on Puainako Street then DOT would accept that. What Im looking down the road at though is, you know, absent that study Im not comfortable sitting here and saying that its better to just come in and out of Puainako Street. GRAHAM:I understand. Any other comments from the Commissioners? DOMING:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Commissioner Domingo? 3EXHIBIT A DOMINGO:Since this is my first meeting I just want to know if there was opposition from the residents in that particular area withregards to Kekela Street being open to the development? GRAHAM:I believe we had some public testimony from the Shiromas at the last meeting. I think theyrehere again today. But Im not aware of any opposition that weve received from people on Kekela Street. If theres anyone here that knows differently? Mr. Gomes? GOMES:I can answer. We got no response from anybody from Kekela Street. We had from the neighbors regarding a screening of fence, which we agreed to do, but nothing from any resident on Kekela. DOMINGO:Okay.Sowhattheindicationhereisthatthereisntanyoppositionfrom the neighborhood? GOMES:Not that came forward, no. DOMINGO:Yeah. I remember years ago when the first project across from this development was being considered there were a lot of concerns with regards to traffic in that particular area. And I would assume by the comments from the Police Department that there has not been many accidents or major accidents from that time till the present. But I note that the Police Department has recommended that Kekela Street be omitted in their remarks to the Planning Commission. GRAHAM:Thats correct. Mr. Yuen? YUEN:We looked at that Police Department recommendation and didnt think it was practical. Whats the recommendation now of the Police Department, Jeff? DARROW:This is Exhibit 4 within the original background. They said that ‚The project will significantly increase the volume of traffic entering Puainako Street from Kekela Street. Current westbound traffic levels and congestion at this intersection already make a left turn from Kekela onto Puainako Street both difficult and hazardous. The potential for traffic casualties resulting from vehicles making left turn movements is a significant traffic safety concern. To mitigate this problem left turns on Kekela Street should be prohibited.ƒ YUEN:Yeah, we do not recommend that because of the residents that do now use Kekela Street; and as part of their regular traffic circulation they would take a left turn into from Puainako to go into Kekela Street. And so that would, this would inconvenience them in having to come around from Kanoelehua to get home. DOMINGO:So for the convenience of the people living in the neighborhood that has been one of the reasons for not including entry through Kekela Street, is that right? YUEN:Well, thats right, to keep the existing left turn. But I think the reason why Mr. Gomes has come up with this alternative of just coming in right in/right out from Puainako 4EXHIBIT A Street is that if you dont, if the customers cant come in from Kekela Street its true then people are not going to turn left off Puainako Street and go into Kekela Street. You can get people that will make a u-turn, etc. It really depends on how attractive the particular, what is developed on the site. But thats the idea behind it, you know, is that people will come up, that the customers, if you dont have access on Kekela Street you wont turn left across Puainako Street to get to this project. People will just come up Kanoelehua. Otherwise, yeah, they will have the opportunity to turn left and then come into the Kekela Street intersection. A u-turn would not be legal at the Kekela Street-Puainako Street intersection DOMING:I can see the rationale, Mr. Yuen. And I think probably living in there, you know, if Kekela Street is blocked then theyll be hardly any traffic or any increase of traffic within that street going to their subdivision; and I think thats one of the, perhaps, reasons why -. YUEN:I should also mention though that the existing, there is a commercial area acrossthestreet,onKekelaStreet.Andsopeoplegoingtherearegoingtoturnleftacross,you know, as they do now, turn left across Puainako and go in there. And that you could, if you really wanted to get to this new commercial area when you are already heading down makai down Puainako Street, you could turn left on Kekela Street, go into the Firestone and come back out. You know, theres only so far you can go with this. GOMES:Can I -? GRAHAM:Mr. Gomes, go ahead. GOMES:I think the Polices concern was the left turn off of Kekela Street onto Puainako, is that correct? Not left turn off PuainakoStreet onto Kekela? DARROW:It just mentions already, lets see, ‚Congestion at this intersection already make a left turn from Kekela Street onto Puainako both difficult and hazardous.ƒ GOMES:Yeah. Cause then youd be crossing two ways of traffic versus coming off Puainako. There are always breaks in that light and a stacking lane there now, which shouldnt impact too much. GRAHAM:Were going kind of free form with the talk here. Itd probably be better to try to go a little more formally so that the recording is more easy. Mr. Domingo, I might just toss in what I remember from the process so youd understand how we came to today. Previously the applicant had recommended those two intersections and the Planning Department had proposed the two intersections, one on Kekela and one on Puainako; and the Planning Department had recommended that we give a favorable recommendation when we send it to the Council, but that there would be a traffic impact analysis report prepared and that would be the basis for working out the traffic issues. And at that time in the January meeting the Commission was not comfortable, was not completely comfortable with having all the major issues worked out later through a Traffic Impact Analysis Report, so we were kind of wanting to know more about the traffic before we passed it on favorably. And then based on that the applicant agreed that, didnt agree, the applicant proposed that he remove the Kekela Street intersection to simplify it. And the Planning Director felt that if the project was changed in that way, rather than us just acting on it, he would recommended that he send up that information to the agencies, 5EXHIBIT A like Department of Transportation, to hear from them first before we take action on that revised plan. So thats kind of what brought us here today. Do we have any other questions for Mr. Gomes? All right, thank you. Mr. Gomes, you can be seated in the back; and Ill hear from the public testimony at this time. We do have several seats up here so would Mr. Thomas Shiroma and Brian Shiroma come forward. And if there was someone else in the audience that planned to testify please come forward at this time. Okay, you folks have been sworn in before so you can go ahead with your testimony. Sir, please give your name and address as you begin. T. SHIROMA:Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Tom Shiroma, I represent the H. Shiroma, Inc. Our address is 992A Puainako. Thats my personal address. Good morning. Thank you for this opportunity to speak. And I think that Mr. Jon Gomess proposal is another quality development like they did for Tesoro and Firestone. I believe this proposalwilladdtothegrowththatisgoingtogoaroundthere.IfyougoupPuainakoStreet and into the extension, you see the University of Hawaii, Imiola Astronomy Center, and a new development going out there. Besides what I just mentioned if you could allow me -. What is the scenario if we dont have traffic? What does that tell to the community? That means no jobs. If were going to expect traffic up there within the next ten years I think were going to have more than twice or three times more traffic. It shows the economy, job availability, tax revenue. Well, we have the university. You can see that the enrollment is really tremendously growing, the traffic there, and we have Imola Astronomy Center, the growth of Waiakea Intermediate and High School. So even like Honolulu they have a traffic rail system already. And if you would permit me, Mr. Chairman, I just was looking at something last night, if I can pass this around. Would you permit me? GRAHAM:Pass it around for the Commissioners to take a look, sure. Just give it to Jeff and he can do that. SHIROMA:Also, Im pretty sure -. GRAHAM:Hold on a second until you get the microphone if you would. T. SHIROMA:Also, Im pretty sure that Mr. Yuen and the State, Planning Department is aware of this development and that you would be looking at this Dubai development on the National Geographic Magazine that is being passed around (SEE ATTACHMENT l). Thank you very much. GRAHAM:Youre welcome, Mr. Shiroma. Do we have any questions from the Commissioners? Commissioner Domingo, did you have a question for Mr. Shiroma? DOMINGO:No, not any specific question to him. But just my own opinion, you know, I know as Ive been involved in other Commissions and other jobs, one of the many reasons they would encourage development is for jobs. Thats one of the primary reasons. And, of course, all the other benefits that does follow with jobs being created. But, you know, throughout the years I found that more important than anything else is the quality of life for those who live in the 6EXHIBIT A community and on this island. Now we can encourage development to unlimited dimensions; and what we find is the quality of life of the people who live here are being diminished. And that is one of my concerns that I will always be bearing in mind as I sit here and make decisions. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thank you for that comment, sir. Any other questions? Do we have any questions for Mr. Shiroma from the Commissioners? All right, thank you, Mr. Shiroma. Sir, you may also testify now and start with your name and address, please. B. SHIROMA:My name is Brian Shiroma. I live at 1340 Kilikina Street in Hilo. Im also asking the Commission for a favorable support of this project. I believe its a good project, its a quality project; and were willing to work with the State and County and the developer to make this project feasible. Thank you. GRAHAM:Thankyou,sir.AnyquestionsfromtheCommissioners?Allright,seeing none, you can go back. Thank you for your testimony today, both of you. Mr. Gomes, if you have anything youd like to add at this time youre welcome to come forward. Otherwise, well just go into our deliberations on this project. GOMES:None. GRAHAM:Thank you. So the public testimony is finished and its now up to the Commission to render a decision on this recommendation to the County Council. WATANABE:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Id just like some clarification from the Director then. So youre not recommending any revisions, basically, to the original recommendation as far as the conditions are concerned, except for possibly that I believe it was Condition E, that was submitted by the applicant, proposed new wording for Condition E? Thats it? There was some difference in the wording in Condition E, yeah? And I believe the one that you submitted indicated that you would want the TIAR to come back to the Planning Director for your review. YUEN:We had a slight change that we recommended the last time to E that would say, on the third line of, E instead of ‚review and approvalƒ, wed say ‚for review and shall be approved prior to the issuance of final plan approval.ƒ Thats just a clarification. I dont see -. DARROW:The word ‚Highwaysƒ has been deleted, Chris, on the second line in front of ‚Hawaii District Office.ƒ YUEN:Okay, thats fine. Its fine to take away, on the second line, just take away ‚Highways Hawaii District Office.ƒ The, I really dont see the difference between applicants G and our G. WATANABE:Yeah, actually the one in question would have been, should have been ‚Fƒ, Kekela; and your recommendation is to leave that in there subject to the TIAR. 7EXHIBIT A YUEN:Yeah. WATANABE:Okay. YUEN:I think it should say ‚Access to the project site, if any.ƒ WATANABE:‚If any from Kekela?ƒ GRAHAM:Hold a second. Could I just ask Mr. Yuen, Chris, since were only doing a recommendation, if we make a recommendation which is specific in some way more so maybe than you would like on traffic, when it goes to the Council, can the Council go ahead and make the conditions of the actual ordinance as they please, not as we recommend? YUEN:Yes. GRAHAM:Thankyou. YUEN:ThereallimitontheCouncilisthattheycantchangethetypeofzoning, you know, they cant change an RS to an RM. But, generally, yes, they can change any of the conditions without it being sent back to the Planning Commission. GRAHAM:Thank you. Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Okay, Im ready to make a motion if thats okay. GRAHAM:Yes. WATANABE:Okay, I move that a favorable recommendation on the Change of Zone request be forwarded to the County Council for Change of Zone Application (REZ 06-000052) based on the Directors recommendations and inclusive of the revisions to Conditions E and F as discussed earlier. DOMINGO:Second. GRAHAM:We have a motion. And who was the second, please? DOMINGO:Second. GRAHAM:Yes, Commissioner Domingo seconded. DOMINGO:Discussion. GRAHAM:Well have discussion now. Go ahead, sir. DOMINGO:Mr. Chair, I understand that there was a concern with regards to the North boundary between the development and the neighborhood that, it has been agreed that some kind 8EXHIBIT A of barrier will be put up so that it will deflect any noise coming from the development. Is that understood? GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yes. I believe we had that neighbor here the last time testifying; and an agreement was that they would put up, construct a 6-foot rockwall. DOMINGO:Okay. Then I understand that rather than putting that as a condition of approval that this perhaps could be taken up during the plan approval process and that item be addressed at that time. I just want that to be documented so that in the event its forgotten and put aside then whoever the neighbor may be or neighbors may be they have a recourse to reflect on that and hold the developer liable for that particular improvement. I just want that to be documented and officially understood. GRAHAM:Thank you, Mr. Domingo. Is that, are we handling that properly with the rockwall,Mr.Yuen,asfarasyouunderstand? YUEN:IftheCommissionwantstomakethataspecificcondition,Icertainly dont have a problem with that. My understanding right now its simply a private agreement between the two. And it is true that unless that it was a condition of the ordinance when the Department reviews the building plans we wouldnt know about it. I mean, the normal rules require a landscaping separation between a residential and a neighborhood commercial; but it wouldnt require something like the rockwall. So if its not in the ordinance the Planning Department wouldnt pick it up and wouldnt require it; and it would simply be up to the neighbor to enforce the conditions of their private agreement. DOMINGO:Okay. Yeah, thats right, Mr. Chairman, rather than inserting that as a condition of approval, just noting that it has been agreed by the developer and the neighbor that it will be done. I think mentioning of that in this meeting is just for the record that the discussion has taken place; and that in the event of the developer reneging on that commitment then there is some document that the neighbor can reflect upon that would hold them responsible for it. And Im not saying that the developer will be as scrupulous as to deny any conversation, but -. I know them, they have an excellent track record in their developments; but its just a precautionary measure that I feel should be done and would satisfy me. GRAHAM:Thank you. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Yes, its an interesting point that Commissioner Domingo brings up and since Mr. Yuen has indicated that the Planning Department would not know about that when it came to final plan approval about the agreement on the rockwall they would probably want to institute Rule 17 for landscaping along that line. Is that correct, Mr. Yuen? YUEN:Right. We would still -. I think Rule 17 would allow the rockwall to be substituted for a shrub layer. You know, if this condition is put in for the rockwall it would still require landscaping per Rule 17. I think, Id have to sit and look at the rule. I think that because the purpose of the rule is to provide a visual block at a low level between the residential and the commercial that you can substitute a rockwall for the lower level landscaping. I dont think you 9EXHIBIT A can substitute it for the upper level. As I recall the rule, theres two parts to it; and theres a lower level of shrubs and then theres an upper level of trees that are spaced. SIRACUSA:Canopy. YUEN:Yeah. So, you know, Id have to look at the rule but this would not replace the rule. SIRACUSA:Thank you for that clarification. GRAHAM:We are in deliberation right now. But, if I could, if theres no objection from any of the Commissioners, Id like to just invite Mr. Gomes to come back and just give us a few words on his understanding on this agreement and all. Would that be all right? WATANABE:Yeah. GOMES:Imnotsureifthisisnormallanguageforyouundertheseconditions, Condition C, as far as mitigating any potential adverse noise or visual impacts of adjoining parcels? YUEN:This is our standard condition; and we have this Rule 17 on landscaping and it just refers to that, for separation. So even if you didnt have any special agreement with the neighbors, we would put this in. GOMES:Okay. Can we expand that by maybe adding at the end of that sentence ‚including a rockwall or fence barrier between the residential district?ƒ GRAHAM:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:What area had you agreed to do this? GRAHAM:Mr. Gomes. GOMES:The portion that backs to the other residential lots -. I can go up there and show you. Im not sure what the lot -. YUEN:Yeah, would you, please. To the entire residential area, is that the entire agreement? GOMES:No. No, not the entire residential area; but Don Kouchis parcel and through the Miyashiros parcel was to put a rockwall or a fence of some sort. GRAHAM:Okay. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah, my gathering from what Mr. Domingo expresses, he just wanted to make sure it was clear on the record that there was a private agreement for the rockwall, not necessarily to add a condition. And unless there are other Commissioners who are very 10EXHIBIT A concerned about, you know, specifically adding the condition, it may not be necessary, at least thats my interpretation of what the opinion that Mr. Domingo expressed. GRAHAM:Okay. DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Also, hang on a second, please. Mr. Woodward had a question, I believe, or a comment. WOODWARD:No, I dont really have a question. Its just a comment. I think, it seems to me from having reviewed the written testimony and heard from the people today that the developer has bent over backwards to try and make everybody happy, has worked with the neighbors, has no real opposition from the neighborhood and has considerable neighborhood support.SoIthinkwiththeconditionsthatwevetalkedaboutandthefactthathehasbeen flexible, has changed his plans with regard to driveway access, worked with the neighbors, I see no reason not to approve his proposal. GRAHAM:Thank you. You may go back, please. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman, Im not trying tobe over-critical; but Ive had an experience in the past, where as a former Councilman having sat in the Council and having a similar kind of agreement made, but there was no record of that being in the record itself. And at a point in time after the development had been developed, I dont know if it was a store or some kind of a restaurant or whatever, and it was an agreement between the neighbor immediately adjacent to the property to put up a wall of some sort, whether it be a wooden wall extending ‚xƒ number of feet above or a brick wall, I dont know. But the fact of the matter was that if he had done that then that would mitigate the noise coming into his property and someone trespassing into this property. He had fruit trees and, you know, people would come in and help themselves; and even for that matter after dark, when it was dark, people would go into the parking lot, they would go on the side and pee on his property, you see. And then the fact that there were no requirements for lighting standards in the parking lot that created quite a problem. And we tried to assist him in having some kind of remedial action taken, but to no avail because there wasnt anything in the record that this was agreed upon; and we had not made that as a condition of approval. But rather than making this as a condition of approval of this ordinance, and which I have no problem if we have it on record, then as I indicated the neighbors at a later time has some reflection on what was agreed upon. Now what if the developers by some change of mind decide to sell the project, you know, and sometimes some of them do that, now having taken out one of the principals in that agreement theres no other way that the neighbors can have their wall put up or anything, with the exception of plan approval purpose, you know, during the plan approval process when this can be considered. But since the developer himself indicated by agreement that he had done this, having this as a matter of record would certainly give me some comfort in knowing that it will take pace. GRAHAM:Thank you. 11EXHIBIT A YUEN:You know, if the Commission wants this to be something that is enforceable by the County and checked at the time the County reviews the building plans, then the Commission should put it in as a condition. As just to discuss the legality of this, I havent, you know, Im an attorney but I havent seen the agreement that exists. I dont know whether it is enforceable as a contract between the private parties; and its really not our job as a County Planning Department to check this kind of thing and to see if its enforceable as a contract. As to whether it runs with the land, if there is a contract between, for example, Mr. Gomes as a developer and the neighbors, it may not run with the land and be binding upon a subsequent owner unless certain legal formalities are met, such as recordation in the Bureau of Conveyances. You know, you can have a contract that binds you as an individual and he may still be bound by the contract. But as to whether the future developer is bound by it, theres this concept that when you make agreements that are meant to run with the land regardless of who owns it, that there are certainly formalities that you have to go through. So it is possible that they could have a contract thatwouldworkbetweenthem,butthatwouldnotnecessarilybebindingonafuturedeveloper. Whereas if the thing were put as a condition in the rezoning ordinance, it would run with the land and bind any future owner. And, finally, if we are going to put it as a condition, we need to be very specific about what is the agreement and what properties are covered by it. GRAHAM:Id like to if possible move the meeting along a little faster. It seems like were going a little long on one item and were only doing a recommendation to the Council. aand I think Commissioner Watanabe spoke to the fact that as far as we know the Commission is Anable to leaving it as an agreement on the record as we have so far, rather than writing a condition. Any other comments from Commissioners on this matter? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO:Mr. Chairman, in view of that fact, then I would like to make a friendly amendment to the motion that it will reflect as a condition of approval the agreement between the developer and the neighborhood to which they agreed to build a buffer or wall of some sort. I think that wording can be given by Mr. Gomes after this. GRAHAM:Is that all right with Commissioner Watanabe who made the motion? Would you like that as a friendly amendment? WATANABE:Ill accept the friendly amendment. I had assumed that the wall would be built. And, I guess, Mr. Gomes, you were proposing that amendment take place in Condition C? GRAHAM:Mr. Gomes, you can come forward and answer the question, please. GOMES:I believe Condition C would be the natural spot for it, instead of a stand- alone condition. WATANABE:Okay. Based on the Directors comment though, you know, he did also say that it should be specific; and were not familiar with the actual -. As I recall it was a 6-foot wall but I dont know which properties, etc. So you might for the record -. GOMES:I dont have the agreement that I made with the Miyashiros or the Kouchis with me. I dont mind putting that in as a condition. I just dont have the language for that now. 12EXHIBIT A YUEN:Why dont you submit it to the Department and then we can forward it up to the County Council, and we can be more specific at the time of County, we can have the County Council be more specific on the agreement. GOMES:And well do that. SIRACUSA:Question. GRAHAM:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Yes, question of Mr. Torigoe. Can we just add a phrase to Condition C that it also includes by reference the contract between Mr. Gomes and the affected residents by -. Whats the term? Im losing a word here that I want to use. GRAHAM:Go ahead, Mr. Torigoe. We catch the gist of your comment, thank you. TORIGOE:Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, you could throw in something like ‚Landscapingshallincluderockwallsorfencesonthenorthernboundariesasagreedupon between the applicant and owners of lands adjacent to the northern boundaries as may be evidenced by any written agreements in existence as of the effective date of this rezoning.ƒ GRAHAM:Does that sound okay to you, Mr. Domingo and Mr. Watanabe? DOMINGO:Perfect. WATANABE:Sounds good to me. GRAHAM:Okay, is that all right, Mr. Gomes? GOMES:Im in agreement, right. GRAHAM:All right. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioner Watanabe, would you like to include that in your motion at this time then or -? WATANABE:I would accept that as a friendly agreement. Dont ask me to repeat it though. GRAHAM:We have it on paper so were all right. Commissioner Domingo, I believe you seconded it. Is that acceptable? DOMINGO:Yes, it is. GRAHAM:Thank you. I have a comment I wanted to make on Mr. Yuens recommendation that it revert back to what we initially started with. Somehow the applicant to me has come forward with a revised recommendation on his own behalf, I mean, on his instigation from our problems at the last meeting with traffic, and his revised proposal takes away the Kekela Street entrance and exit. And for me thats pretty key to reducing traffic 13EXHIBIT A problems which held up my vote last meeting. And we also have commentary or response from the Police Department which says ‚The deletion of the project access at Kekela Street should . mitigate the traffic safety concerns which were posed by the original site plan So from my own perspective, I would like to forward a, I would be in favor of a favorable recommendation here if it stipulated that there would not be access to Kekela Street in conformance with what the applicant is now presenting before us. But other than that I think I couldnt, rather, I dont feel comfortable just waiting on the whole program to see what comes from the Department of Transportation, in the same way myself and a few others didnt feel comfortable the last time. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:When I came to this meeting I assumed that we were going to eliminate, I think thats Condition F. Condition F was it? Yeah, I think thats Condition F. But based on what the Director indicated, you know, and hes concerned about whether its practical or not, but he also indicated that the Council has the ability to change conditions here except for the actualzoning.So,youknow,ifyoureinagreement,inmyopinion,ifyoureagreementwith the project itself, even if we eliminated it they could add it back in, etc. So Im not certain that we have full control over that or as much control as youd like to have over that. YUEN:Yeah. You know, I dont feel strongly about, you know, if the Commission wants to take out and say theres no access to Kekela Street. Its true that I hadnt really focused on the left-turn out on Kekela Street and its true that having no access to Kekela Street eliminates that as an issue from the project. There are still left turns from, you know, the other commercial areas. But this is actually a larger commercial area than the one that exists . nowSo, it is considerably larger. I dont have a big problem with it. Then if it turns out that the Puainako only access doesnt work, then they have to come in with an amendment to the rezoning ordinance. GRAHAM:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Yeah. However, rather than, you know, creating a situation where they may have to come back because we were so specific in our conditions, and especially since we dont presently have the TIAR, I think Id feel pretty comfortable going forward this way. And, you know, there already are people making a left turn from Kekela onto Puainako. Yeah, Im sure the residents are. This may increase it somewhat. But, on the other hand, people tend to avoid difficult left-turns. So it is more likely that they will make a right-turn out of Kekela so that they dont have to, you see what Im saying? The Police Department is concerned if someone is absolutely determined to make a left turn, which is very difficult cause it traverses two lanes; but most people are going to make a right turn because they dont want to be in that difficult situation. And so I think that the problem is going to resolve itself. GRAHAM:I might comment I do have a suggestion from Mr. Torigoe here to try to kind of breach the middle of our issue here in regard to No. F. He suggests perhaps we preface it by saying, ‚No project access from Kekela Street shall be allowed unless recommended by Department of Transportation.ƒ And then it continues, ‚Access from Kekela Street, if any, shall conform to Chapter 22,ƒ etc., as Condition F. WATANABE:I feel comfortable with that as a friendly amendment also. 14EXHIBIT A GRAHAM:Okay, thank you. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Commissioner Domingo, are you okay with that? DOMINGO:Yes, I agree with that. GRAHAM:Thank you. Anything further, Commissioners? Jeff. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council with amendments to Conditions C, E, and F of the ordinance. With that Ill take the roll call. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD:Aye. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes six to zero. GRAHAM:Thank you, Jeff. Thank you, Mr. Gomes. Youll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 9:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawai€i Secretary 15EXHIBIT A