Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-21 TShockley PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 21, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of THOMAS SHOCKLEY (REZ 06-000033) was called to order at 11:17 a.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: William R. GrahamJeffrey McCall Rodney H. Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Fred Galdones Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: THOMAS SHOCKLEY (REZ 06-000033) Change of Zone from Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to Agricultural 10-acre (A-10a) for approximately 21.389 acres of land. The property is located on the northwest corner of the intersection of Huehue Street and Kaloko Drive, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-3-48: 5. ALAMEDA:Agendaitemnumber3movingrightalong.ThomasShockley,Rezoning 06-000033. This is a Change of Zone request. Staff take it from there, Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you Mr. Chair. This is another rezoning application within the KalokoMaukaSubdivision.Allofyouarefamiliarwiththegenerallocation.Thisisthe Kaloko Mauka Subdivision running mauka and this would be in the makai direction. This is Highway190alsoreferredtotheHawaiiBeltRoad.KalokoDriveintersectswithHighway190 and provides access to the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. The property is indicated by this orange dotandisintheuppermostportionoftheKalokoMaukaSubdivisionattheelevationof approximately 4,600 feet. The applicant intends to subdivide the property into 2 lots. One wouldbe10acreinsizeandtheotherwouldbe11.3.SoagainthisisKalokoDriveandthis would be going towards makai or to Highway 190 and this is Huehue Street. The property is situated at the corner of Kaloko Drive and Huehue Street. As I indicated earlier the applicant intends to subdivide the property into 2 lots in this general configuration. One lot would be at the intersection of Kaloko Drive and Huehue Street and the other would be along Huehue Street. There is an existing dwelling on the lot that has access off Huehue Street and that€s indicated by EXHIBIT C 1 this green dot on this particular map. The applicant does not, the owners do not intend to sell the property or any of the lots. They intend to construct another single family dwelling on the front lot or the lot that is at the corner of Kaloko Drive and Huehue Street. The existing roadway in that area Kaloko Mauka Drive as well as Huehue Street has a right of way width of 80[-]feet with a 22-foot pavement with grass shoulders. Just as a matter of information we showed this information to the County Council and at their request they wanted to know the number of dwellings that currently use the Kaloko Drive, Highway 190 intersection. Based on our count from information received from the Real Property Tax Office records approximately 290 dwellings currently use this particular intersection and that would be the Kaloko Drive and Highway 190 intersection. Of that approximately 270 dwellings are situated or have been constructed within the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. Based on previous rezoning application we have since collected, and based on the conditions imposed on previous rezoning we have collected and have cash on hand approximately, slightly over $400,000 for the intersection improvement. We also received as part of a previous rezoning application there€s a condition that required the applicant to do a, basically a cost estimate for the intersection improvement. That was completed back in December 15, 2005 and submitted to our office as well as the Department of Public Works as to proposing the improvements at this particular intersection. This report is currently, has been transmitted to the State Department of Transportation for their inputandcomment.So,weareawaitingwordfromtheDepartmentofTransportationasto whether they agree with these improvements proposed by one of the applicants in its study. With that the Planning Director€s recommending approval of this particular request and the conditions that are proposed are similar to those that were previously granted for those properties that were requesting rezoning to an Agricultural 10-acre zoning. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:For clarification Norman. It€s my understanding that then the design is complete for that but it€s subject to approval by the State? It has been submitted to the State Department of Transportation? HAYASHI:This is a design study that was submitted by one of the applicants that we received the rezoning application for that area and that was a requirement of the zone change. Now basically they had spelled out what their engineer had indicated as to the type of improvements that would be required for this intersection. And that is what is being reviewed now by the State Department of Transportation to determine whether these improvements are feasible or not. WATANABE:Okay. Thank you but that also included an estimate at that time yeah? HAYASHI:Yes. The estimate that they had provided in their study was approximately $300,000 +. So technically based on the amount of monies that we€ve already collected and have in our account if those improvements are in fact what would be required then perhaps we would have enough money to cover those improvements. However there were some questions brought up at the County Council level that perhaps there should be some signalization also at that particular intersection. So based on that you can see that additional will be required. EXHIBIT C 2 WATANABE:Yeah. Exactly but that signalization would be up to the State no one else right? HAYASHI:Well that would be based on what the State would determine whether that€s necessary or not I guess, yes. WATANABE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman on the recommendations on page 4 about 60% of the way down the page its mentioned about Office of State Planning and their 5 year State Land Use District Boundary Review. Where the Water Resources Research Center, which I presume is part of OSP recommends that the high rainfall area mauka of 2,000 feet be redesignated into the conservationdistrict.Iguessifyoucouldgiveusjustalittlemore,youorMr.Yuengiveusa little more background on that. What€s the timeline of that? Is that the sort of thing-. I guess the only thing that comes into my mind as maybe a possible concern is that if it did get moved into the conservation district then these kind of rezonings you know would not be allowed to happen. So, is this something that€s kind of getting in ahead of the timeline there? Just give me a little background on that since I€m not aware of it. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Thank you. Well this was an initiative of the Office of State Planning in the last 5-year boundary review, which was done at that time in €94. They recommended-, they had a lot of recommendations. I€m pretty familiar with it. My sister actually was a, the effort. These recommendations were vigorously opposed by the mauka Kona-, this particular set of recommendations were opposed by the mauka Kona landowners and did not go through. In other words there is no pending initiative to do this. The follow-up to it was really the Kona- Kohala Watershed Roundtable, which then produced a document of policy recommendations for handling the upper areas. Then-, and this-, the actual effort to reclassify the mauka lands into the conservation district was basically given up by mid-1990€s. And then on the County level what happened was 2 Council resolutions that we€ve generally been following in the Kaloko rezoning, which was a- we should, in the upper elevations we should allow rezoning to Ag-10 to then create 2 lots out of one but there would be conditions requiring a preservation of forest in connection with that. And at the lower elevations you would allow the Ag-3 rezonings with similar kinds of forest preservation conditions. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question for the Director. You know, I read in the West Hawaii Today that on a similar rezoning the Council had suggested that an additional condition, which EXHIBIT C 3 essentially said the final subdivision approvalwould not be granted until either the passage of 2 years or the completion of improvements to Kaloko Drive intersection with Mamalahoa Highway. You care to comment on that? ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:I had to miss that meeting so I don€t-, Mr. Hayashi do you want to talk about what the Council did on that? I think they actually had a negative, in the end a negative recommendation. HAYASHI:At the Planning Committee meeting they voted not to recommend approval. However I just read in the paper that the Council meeting was on Wednesday and I believe based on the-, I only read the paper and based on what I read it says that the County Council had recommended or had voted on first reading for a favorable, I mean to approve it. AndIthinkoneoftheconditionsthattheyamendedwasCondition-,dealingwiththe intersection improvement. I don€t know exactly what the wording was on the proposed change but I think they said something to the effect that the applicant cannot receive final subdivision approval until-, for a period of 3 years or until the intersection has been improved. I don€t know whether it is or you know the timing as far as-. WATANABE:I believe it was earlier of. HAYASHI:So that€s my understanding based on the newspaper article but other than that I can€t confirm what exactly they recommended. YUEN:Yeah maybe Mr. Mooers might have a better idea cause I think he did go to the Council meeting yeah? ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners for questions for Mr. Hayashi? Seeing none will the applicant or his representative please come forward? Let me just ask, will you be speaking today? SHOCKLEY:I€m sorry? ALAMEDA:Will you be speaking? SHOCKLEY:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay I€m going to swear you in then. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? SHOCKLEY:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you sir. Could you please state your name and address for the record? EXHIBIT C 4 SHOCKLEY:My name is Tom Shockley andmy addressis 73-4370 Huehue Street, Kaloko Mauka. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Shockley. SHOCKLEY:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Mooers I already swore you in and your name and address is already on the record. You heard what Mr. Hayashi presented. If you€d like to add anything or if you missed anything. You also got the Department€s recommendation with the conditions. Do you have any thoughts or comments? MOOERS:Yes. Obviously it€s a pretty standard application for the Kaloko Mauka. The conditions are standard. To address Commissioner Watanabe€s question regarding the actionbytheCouncil.TheCouncildidvotetosend,onfirstreading,tosupporttheChangeof Zone with a condition that final subdivision approval not be granted until the intersection was improved. But there was a 2-year limit and if a 2-year period passed and improvements were not made then they could be granted final subdivision approval. There was some question about it. I suspect the language will be modified again. As you know trying to draft language in a meeting like this sometimes you don€t get the clearest read on it. I think sometimes what we€re trying to say and what actually happens may not be the same thing. But the intent is clearly that the Council is anxious to put pressure on the Department of Transportation to make the improvements. It appears if not a total amount of funds available there€s a substantial amount of money available to make improvements to the intersection. My understanding is that to this date DOT has not accepted a particular design of improvements and until they do that then the improvements can€t be made. The applicants who were present which was the Gesling and Totah applications. The five families who were involved in those applications testified before the Council and they accepted that condition with the stipulation that it not run indefinitely. My feelings in general are, is I don€t normally advise clients to accept conditions that they can€t control. So in other words if you require the applicant to make an improvement or to do something in order to make the zoning in effect, the subdivision in effect, that€s not a problem because clearly they€re controllable in destiny. But in a case where you put a condition on which you€re asking for a third party to perform is problematic. But in this case they agreed to accept it because they recognized that this is an issue and they will be working diligently on their behalf to try to get Department of Transportation to agree to what those improvements might be and then to work with the Council to transfer the funds from the County to the State in order to pay for those improvements. ALAMEDA:Follow up Mr. Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah. So with that in mind would a revision or an additional condition similar to that be acceptable? MOOERS:Yes it would. The concern I had with the language that the Council started inserting this is that they were trying to specify what the improvements would be. And, I had a problem with that because it€s, the Council doesn€t get to decide what the improvements EXHIBIT C 5 will be it should be the Department of Transportation. And so the language I suggested was that these improvements may include the sight line improvements, turn pockets, signalization, illumination at the intersection. Now it may include all of those, it may include some. The Department of Transportation in the past in my discussions with them have not supported signalization at that intersection. So I didn€t want to have language written so that the way it was written the applicant, the intersection would be improved to DOT standards but the applicant still couldn€t get final subdivision approved because there was no signal placed there. So my suggestion was that the language say that the applicant, yeah the applicants cannot get final subdivision approval until the improvements are made to the intersection. That DOT determine what those improvements are and they may include, and the reason by putting may include so that the applicant come back later say oh gee well I would have never agreed if you told me it had to be this or this or this. Unfortunately the way the language was written by the Council is they have too many mays and not enough shalls and I know that that€s created some consternation and I know Mr. Gimpel€s going to testify that he€s not happy with that. And I wouldsaythatwewouldaccepttheconditionprovidedit€sclear,twothings,1isthatthe improvements shall be made but 2 that the determination of how those improvements are made and what those improvements consist of is determined by the Department of Transportation. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Yeah I wasn€t implying that we should try to dictate what improvements would be just that the improvements would be made to the intersection of Kaloko Drive but that said you know I think it would be appropriate for the Director to comment on that, whether it€s even appropriate for us to put that in. I€m just thinking that you know since the Council has already expressed an interest and this is really just a recommendation from this body it might help that we kind of show them that we can appreciate the thought they€ve put into it? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director do you care to comment? YUEN:I€m neutral on the additional condition. Let me just, for point of clarification, the cost estimate, the design that was done is not a full-blown design. But basically a conceptual design for the Kaloko intersection involved shaving back the lava banks on either side to improve the sight distance, widening the pavement, which would be possible because of shaving the banks down creating turn pockets and I believe in both directions so that you would have a- what we call refuge lane when you come out on the left turn and as well as a left turn pocket. I€m not a 100% sure of that but, and then that the intersection itself having a clear right turn and left turn lane out of Kaloko. It does not include signalization. The cost estimate was to- the instructions were to try to come in within what€s been collected already in Kaloko which is about $440,000 in cost so we€re a little bit below $400,000 for what I just described, something like $400,000. So it€s doable with what has already been collected. The signalization, ballpark would be another 4 or $500,000, which would translate to another 40 lots, 40 or 50 lots being subdivided. The difficulty with the Council condition is that the payment of fair share is triggered by final subdivision approval. So, if you need another, you need a little more money. Now, there are lots in Kaloko that have rezoning conditions that make them pay this fair share fee and have not gone to subdivision yet. So there will be some more money coming in. But, if you do start tying this payment, tying final subdivision approval to the construction of the EXHIBIT C 6 improvements then for these lots there€s a little bit of a dilemma in that if you do need their money to do the improvement they don€t have to pay it and they can€t, becausethey€re not getting final subdivision approval. That€s the one concern that I€d have there. ALAMEDA:CommissionerWatanabe any follow-up on that? WATANABE:No, let me ponder on that. I understand what you€re saying. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners any thoughts? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I-. We€ve discussed this a lot in the 3 years I€ve been on the Commission as these things come up and you know and I first started voting in support of such rezonings you know I did understanding that there was a lot more parcels on the map that would be coming and knowing that the intersection problem would worsen. And you know as Mr. Mooers says conditionsareoutofcontrol.TheapplicantwhenthatmoneygetsspentandIdon€tparticularly feel like I feel, I don€t feel obligated to run piggy back with what the Council is proposing as a way to sort of push the Department of Public Works. I think we just can indicate that you know we€d support Council efforts to get improvements made but I don€t feel like we need to throw that in as what they€re choosing to do as an additional condition of the ordinance that we are recommending to them they will certainly deal with it as they wish at their time. But I don€t want to particularly piggy back onto their way of dealing with it. ALAMEDA:Any questions for our applicants? We€re not in discussion yet but I just wanted to, before we go there. All right, seeing no further questions for our applicants or staff we do have one testifier. Could you please be seated at this time and we€ll call you back? And Mr. Joel Gimpel? Please come forward. Mr. Gimpel could you please raise your right hand? Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? GIMPEL:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record? GIMPEL:Yes my name is Joel Gimpel. I live at 73-4686 Hina Lani Street in Kailua Kona. I€m here representing the Kona Traffic Safety Committee. ALAMEDA:Proceed. GIMPEL:Thank you. Good morning. It still is morning and aloha. This application to permit subdivision in Kaloko Mauka, is yet another in that series of Kaloko Mauka rezonings that have to be considered in isolation because that must not be considered in isolation because they have a cumulative effect on traffic conditions. And as we noted in other rezoning applications for property in Kaloko Mauka, including those filed by Grover, Totah, Gesling, and Smith, which together account for at least 11 additional lots, each would probably have only minimal effect on traffic in the area, but when added to the lots already approved and lots sure to be added in the future, the traffic volume and safety at the Kaloko Drive/Hwy 190 intersection EXHIBIT C 7 will be severely affected. We continue to urge, therefore,that you carefully consider the cumulative effect of these rezoning applications on traffic volume and safety in evaluating this and other Kaloko Mauka applications. And we were pleased that the Council€s Planning Committee, at its April 4 meeting, agreed with the concerns we expressed in our testimony and voted decisively to send the Totah and Gesling rezoning applications to the Council with negative recommendations. But we were dismayed to learn that last Wednesday, the Council, by vote of five to three, approved both applications at first reading with amendments providing that the applicants can€t receive final subdivision approval for two years or until the State and County improve the intersection, whichever is less, and that the improvements may include‚ restriping, channelization, improving sight lines and signalization, etc. Those conditions are unacceptable. First, because setting a two-year time limit for State and County action, without establishing any incentive for that action won€t accomplish anything. We believe that the way to get action is to remove the time limit, thereby giving the applicants an incentive to push for State and County action. And second, that the words may include‚ are permissive, not mandatory, and can be construedasmeaningmightnotincludeanyofthelistedtasks.Accordingly,weurgethatmay be changed to the mandatory shall so that the condition provides that final subdivision approval shall not be granted until the Kaloko Drive/Hwy 190 intersection is improved, and that such improvements shall include if approved by the Department of Transportation, restriping, channelization, improving sight lines, signalization, etc. We€ve also remarked, in commenting on prior applications for rezoning in the area, that the cumulative effect of these rezonings will alter watershed characteristics and affect runoff which, as recently experienced on other islands, can lead to traffic safety concerns such as road closures and washouts, along with long delays in traffic in impassible areas. We note that the Kona Soil and Water Conservation Service hasn€t mapped mauka flood areas in West Hawaii due to a lack of funding support. So, what to do? Should you conduct business as usual and recommend that the rezoning be approved in the face of the Council€s clear reluctance to do so until the traffic situation in West Hawaii improves, and in the hope that the County and State will, sometime within the next two years, perhaps after a fatal collision, decide that its time to do something? Or should we say, stop! No subdivision will be allowed or occupancy permits issued in Kaloko Mauka until the needed traffic signal is operating, and provisions for traffic signals, including conduits and footings, etc., are installed, or at least until the appropriate and needed improvements are scheduled or made as determined by the State Department of Transportation. We also recommend that no subdivision approvals be granted until the County Council enacts an ordinance to require payment of impact fees. The County is out of compliance with a Statute that€s required that ordinance for over 10 years. That, we believe, is the best way to assure that vital infrastructure improvements that promote safety will be funded and provided. Finally, we urge that you remember that rezoning is a privilege and not a right. Approvals that should be granted only if the benefit to the community outweighs the disadvantages. In this case, until the Kaloko Drive/Hwy 190 intersection is made safe, we fail to see the benefit of this and other Kaloko Mauka rezonings to the community. Thanks for the opportunity to comment and I€ll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Gimpel? Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony appreciate it. Will the applicant or representative please return? Mr. Mooers, Mr. Shockley you heard the testimony do you have any comment? EXHIBIT C 8 MOOERS:Just a couple of points I€d like to make. First of all in the action by the Council one of the issues was considered waswhat the real impacts of these rezonings are. And in that case it became very apparent after testimony from the applicants that there was no impact because there was going to be no increase in the number of cars that were going there. In one case it was a CPR that was being converted to sub-divided lots. And in the other case the applicant was desirous to build a house for his 87 year old father who neither has a driver€s license or an automobile. I think you do need to look at cumulative impacts. In this case the owners who are sitting next to me have a home at the top of Kaloko Mauka. They are now divorced and they would each like to have a house on each lot. The number of people going up and down Kaloko Mauka will not change. As far as Mr. Gimpel€s comments about the incentive for State and County action, my belief is that the incentive should be that they€re here to serve the public and that they have repeatedly noted that, that intersection is not safe and that, that incentive should be enough for them to take action. We shall see if these applicants have any influence on the bureaucracy of the Department of Transportation or not. I would suggest that eithertheCommissionortheDepartmentortheCouncilwouldhavefargreaterinfluencethana group of 4 or 5 random you know individuals from the community. Clearly the incentive is there for all of us, whether or not these rezonings are granted to have them make the improvements to that intersection. And I know I personally am making efforts to meet with representatives of the Department of Transportation to try to find maybe other incentives for them to make these improvements. The last point I guess I would make when the, Mr. Gimpel indicated that there should be a public benefit and I think there are public benefits to this Change of Zone Application. The public benefits are those that are identified in the resolution and that is number 1, the preservation of 80% of the forest where there are no conditions presently. That preservation is not only for a watershed but also for a habitat for native species. And the second thing, which is what we€re talking about today, is the solution to correcting this intersection deficiency and that is that these rezonings are required to pay roughly $10,000 per lot toward that intersection improvement. While the State has consistently commented that the intersection is a problem they have never placed this project on their STIP, their State Transportation Improvement Project list. So, while it may be insufficient in design according to their comments, they have not chosen to place it anywhere on their improvement project list. So in other words they don€t have a project, they€re not funding it. So therefore the solution to this problem has been identified by the Council and by the Commission to be that we assess a fee of these rezonings and apply that fee toward making those improvements. So the benefits of this Change of Zone in addition to the preservation of 80% of the forest is to provide funding for this intersection improvement. ALAMEDA:Thank you Mr. Mooers. Any questions for our applicant or its representative Mr. Mooers before we go into a discussion mode? Seeing none. Pleasure of the Commissioners? Excuse me? I€m not sure what the protocol might be given that you came a little late so let me ask Mr. Torigoe. The applicant€s representative, actually the applicant would like to say a few words. Does that fit protocol or? TORIGOE:Yeah. Are what stage are we at? ALAMEDA:Actually we€re moving into discussion phase but I guess before then we could give her an opportunity to say something? Could you please raise your right hand? All EXHIBIT C 9 right do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? CHOQUETTE:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Go ahead you can comment on what you€ve been hearing so far before we-. CHOQUETTE:Thank you. Forgive my timing I had a doctor€s appointment I couldn€t cancel. My name is Lisa Choquette. And I think you probably, Tom and I were married for 17 years. We ran a business in Kona for 30 years. ALAMEDA:Could you please state your address as well for the record? CHOQUETTE:Okay.73-1097OluOluStreet,Kailua-Kona,Hawaii96740. ALAMEDA:Allright,goahead. CHOQUETTE:Whenwegotdivorcedwestillhadthebusinesstogether.Wecouldnot afford to split our finances as one short of the other. We were able to sell our business last fall and it is time for us to separate our finances. Our biggest asset is the Kaloko Mauka property and home. So we basically have 3 choices. I can legally build a farm dwelling on that and it would not change any density up there at all. I€m up and down there every day when I am here. I now have business interests in the Solomon Islands to help take care of our joint custody pets. So it wouldn€t change the traffic at all. Legally I can put another dwelling so it would not change any dwelling density and I-. And the other option if we cannot legally own one half each which at this point in our lives we have to think about Wills unfortunately. And to leave a property so encumbered to those who might come after us could cause just horrendous legal problems that neither one of us want to get into. So our only other choice is to sell the property outright, which would probably go to someone coming in from the mainland who would create far more traffic than we do. And at (inaudible), it would put Tom at the age of 71 out of his home. Luckily we are really good friends. Do we want to live together in the same house, not quite that good friends. But do we want be nearby and keep an eye on each other, yes we do. So what we€re asking is totally consistent with what has been done in the area in the past. So I just wanted to add my 10 cents worth for inflation and thank you very, very much for your attention. And I hope you€ll grant us our request. ALAMEDA:Thank you for coming. Thank you for sharing. Any questions? All right, fellow Commissioners we are in a discussion mode. Anybody would like to comment further or put your opinion on the table or potentially make a motion and then discuss. What€s your pleasure? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I move that a favorable recommendation for Change of Zone from Agricultural 20 acre to Agricultural 10 acre REZ 06-000033 be forwarded to the County Council based on the Director€s recommendations. EXHIBIT C 10 GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, Staff? HAYASHI:Motion is to recommend approval. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You€ll be informed in writing of this decision. Mahalo. SHOCKLEY:Thank you. This discussion ended at 11:54 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 11 EXHIBIT C 12