HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-02-05 Windward Planning Commission Minutes
WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I
MINUTES
FEBRUARY 5, 2010
The Windward Planning Commission met in regular session at 9:06 a.m. in the Aupuni Center
Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Andrew
Iwashita, Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi.
STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd
(Planning Director), Norman Hayashi, (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff
Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner).
The Chair introduced the staff and Windward Planning Commissioners to the public and
described the procedures to be followed for today’s meeting.
The Commission took the following item up at 9:10 a.m. with 9 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANT: TIMOTHY & PATSY WITHERS (SPP 09-94)
Special Permit to allow the establishment of a visitor stand for the sale of novelty gift items,
fruits, smoothies and snacks on 0.66 acre of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District.
The area involved is located at 27-999 Old Mamalahoa Highway, Pepeekeo, South Hilo,
Hawaii, TMK: 2-7-11: portion of 6.
(SEE EXHIBIT A)
The Commission took the following item up at 10:23 a.m. with 21 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANT: T-MOBILE WEST CORPORATION (USE 09-17)
Use Permit to allow the construction of a 150-foot telecommunication tower and related
improvements on 2,500 square feet of land within the County’s Single-Family Residential (RS-
10) zoned district. The property is located at the northeast corner of the Kehau Road and Tutu
Lane intersection, Nanawale Estates Subdivision, Unit I, Puua, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-4-49:41.
Ms. Cottle oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the
location map and site plan, summarized the request, and noted the Planning Department
1
recommended the approval of the application, with conditions.
The applicant’s representatives, Laurie Chan and Kevin Kawabata, were in attendance.
With regard to proposed Condition No. 7, Commissioner Iwashita suggested the condition be
amended to state that T-Mobile or its successors or assigns place with the Planning Department a
bond, with the terms to be determined by the Director reasonable, so that the removal of the
antennae or the tower can be accomplished should T-Mobile, its successor or assign go bankrupt.
In response to Commissioner Iwashita’s concern, Mr. Kawabata said being that towers are co-
locatable it would be in the other company’s interest, should a company go bankrupt, to acquire
those assets, which is quite common place in the market. Commissioner Iwashita clarified his
concern of a situation where all the cell companies located on the tower would go into
bankruptcy and then the County really has no recourse on getting the tower removed.
Mr. Kawabata then stated they have no objection to discussing with the Planning Department
about securing a bond to resolve this concern.
Maddie Greene, representing the Nanawale Community Association and testifying in support of
the application, expressed their concern of the senior citizens in the area needing to obtain
medical help but are unable to go out onto the roadway to make the emergency calls.
It was moved by Commissioner Iwashita and seconded by Commissioner Kern that the
application be approved with Condition 7 amended to read, “The applicant shall provide a bond
with conditions determined by the Director sufficient to effect the removal of the tower as
required by this paragraph.” Commissioner Domingo said it is a known fact that he has been
against communication towers in residential areas; however, given the reasons presented today
and the support of the community, he will support the motion. In response to Commissioner
Au’s inquiry, staff stated that notice of today’s hearing was given to the public. Ms. Cottle
stated that the Department does not support the amended condition as it would set precedence for
other developments. Director Leithead Todd said she would like to have some flexibility in
requiring a bond as she did not know whether it was doable to obtain a bond for the life of a
tower, whatever it may be, noting an insurance company only gives a bond for a particular
period of time and then it has to be renewed periodically. The Chair questioned whether the
amendment to Condition 7 was necessary in light of the testimony presented, and it was
questionable whether a bond could be obtained. Commissioner Iwashita stated his preference is
to give the Director the authority to determine the terms of a bond and if it is determined that a
bond is an impossibility, then so be it.
The Chair suggested language to the effect that if the Department feels a bond is required for
removal that that be secured; and Director Leithead Todd suggested something to the effect that
the Department would inquire into the possibility of acquiring such a bond and giving her the
discretion whether a bond would be required, noting she would also have to take into
consideration the cost of acquiring a bond. Commissioner Iwashita then agreed with the Chair’s
suggested wording that at the discretion of the Director a bond may be required for removal.
2
Commissioner Iwashita reiterated his concern that the application is by a licensee of the owner
of the land and the owner of the land is not the applicant. Commissioner Domingo understood
Commissioner Iwashita’s concern and said as the Commission cannot foresee the future of when
a company may go bankrupt or with new technology the tower would no longer be needed, a
condition should be that the last remaining cell tower company be responsible for taking the
tower down.
A roll call vote was taken at this time on the motion to approve as recommended by the
Department with an amendment to Condition No. 7, that a bond for removal of the tower be
required at the discretion of the Planning Director. Commissioner Domingo expressed his
concern of requiring a bond from the applicant and felt the tower should be removed by the last
user of the cell tower, noting his other concern of this amendment being imposed as a standard
condition. Commissioner Iwashita felt the Association needed to protect itself so it would not be
the one responsible to have the tower removed, noting this is why he was recommending
Condition 7 be amended.
The Chair felt the amendment to Condition 7 was not necessary as the scrap metal value from the
tower would be worth the cost to remove it. The Chair agreed with Commissioner Domingo’s
comment and said he would vote against the motion as it exists now as and he did not wish to set
precedence for other cell phone operators if the Commission is not sure it is the best thing to be
done. A roll call vote was taken and motion did not carry with three ayes (Iwashita, Kern, and
Au) and three noes (Domingo, Ishibashi and Woodward).
RECESSED – At the request of Commissioner Domingo the Chair called a short recess at
10:40 a.m.
RECONVENED - The meeting reconvened at 10:45 a.m.
It was then moved by Commissioner Domingo and seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi that the
application be approved as recommended by the Planning Director. Upon Mr. Kawabata’s
inquiry, Commissioner Iwashita clarified that his concern is based upon the Association being
stuck at the end to remove the tower because T-Mobile, or any successor, or assign is not able to.
Ms. Greene at this time said T-Mobile has guaranteed the Association that they would be
responsible for the removal of the tower. Mr. Kawabata said historically towers are viewed
more as an asset rather than just an individual structure by a Community Association as it is
revenue producing, noting when it goes into co-location there is also rent revenue that they share
with the Association. Mr. Kawabata added that he has not seen any of these types of towers in
the wireless industry that have been abandoned or have not been bought out by other companies
that do specialize in tower management. In response to Ms. Leithead Todd’s inquiry, Mr.
Kawabata said in the lease agreement with the Community Association there is a provision that
T-Mobile, its successor or assign would be responsible for the removal, noting that there would
be a right for the Community Association to enforce that provision if the company should go
bankrupt. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Domingo, Ishibashi, Au,
Kern, Iwashita and Woodward, with Commissioner Iwashita voting kanalua twice.)
3
The Commission took the following item up at 10:50 a.m. with 14 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANT: GREGORY R. MOOERS (SPP 09-95)
Special Permit to allow the establishment of a country market and occasional special events for
non-profit agencies within an existing covered equestrian arena on approximately 2.3 acres of
land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located along the
north (makai) side of Highway 19 and east of the Waimea Country Club golf course near the 51-
mile marker, Waikoekoe, Hamakua, Hawaii, TMK: 4-7-7: portion of 40.
(SEE EXHIBIT B)
The Commission took the following item up at 11:12 a.m. with 13 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANT: GREENHOUSE SPECIALISTS, INC. (SLU 09-24/REZ 09-110)
a.State Land Use boundary amendment for 1.646 acres from the Agricultural to the
Urban district.
b. Change of Zone for 1.646 acres from Agricultural – 20 acres (A-20a) to Limited
Industrial – 20,000 square feet (ML-20) district.
The property is located on the southeast corner of the Keaau Bypass Road and Milo Street
intersection, approximately 1 mile east of the Keaau Town Center, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK:
1-6-152:18.
Mr. Darrow oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the
location map and site plan, summarized the requests, and noted the Planning Director
recommended approval of the applications.
For Commissioner Iwashita’s information, Mr. Darrow agreed that the subject property is right
on the boundary, just outside or along the boundary of the Regional Town Center.
The applicant’s representatives, Thomas Yeh, Scott Seaton, and Don Seaton, were in attendance.
Mr. Yeh gave some general background information of the business which involved the sale of
greenhouses and irrigation equipment basically to support farmers and said the applicants now
wish to expand their operation to allow retail sales of garden supplies more for the public. He
said the conditions proposed by staff were acceptable with the exceptions of: Condition E
(widening of Milo Street from 80 feet for an additional 40 feet) wherein they’re suggesting
instead of a 40-foot road widening setback it be a 20- or 22-foot road widening setback to make
that road boundary co-terminus with what is existing now, noting the County Code for industrial
roadways are 60 feet in width. Condition F (providing curbs, gutters and sidewalks) wherein
they’re requesting this condition to state that the applicant shall comply with the standards
outlined in Standard Details for Public Works Construction R-34 (revised) by providing
4
improvements consisting of shoulders and continued berm treatment to the property, which
would be consistent with the Hawaiian Rainforest 10-acre site that the Commission approved a
year ago
Commissioner Kern at this time stated that he does have an interest in the property across the
street, otherwise known as Ulupono Center, but that he has no interest with Greenhouse
Specialists whatsoever so it will not affect the outcome of his decision. He then indicated the
locations of the County- and State-owned portions of the roadways in the area.
Ms. Leithead Todd pointed out that the road on the Rain Forest application was going to remain
in private ownership, whereas, the portion of Milo Street fronting the subject parcel that is
privately owned is currently under consideration for dedication to the County; and she agreed
with Mr. Yeh that the portion of Milo Street fronting the property should be widened an
additional 20 to 22 feet to align with the approximately 80-foot wide State-owned portion of
Milo Street.
Mr. Hayashi stated for the record that proposed Condition E should be corrected to require a 20-
foot setback rather than a 40-foot setback. Mr.Yeh stated that instead of a 20-foot setback it
should actually be 22 feet.
Tim Rees spoke in support of the application, noting he is friends with the Seatons and have
done some business in the past with them as he does build greenhouses and shade houses. He
expressed his concern about the Keaau Bypass backing up and the general traffic congestion on
the main road servicing this project caused by the layout of the lanes on the Bypass Road. He
said the solution to this problem is to create a smooth merge of two lanes from Highway 11 onto
Keaau Bypass into one, noting there is approximately a mile and a half to do this merge from the
right to the left lane, suggesting the State Department of Transportation put up signs stating
“Single Lane Ahead, Pahoa Through Traffic Left Lane Only.” He noted this solution, although
several planners and engineers were interested, appears to have fallen through the cracks, noting
an instance of the County informally stating they have contracted with the State DOT to manage
the intersection lights but no contract can be found. He pointed out that the barricades in front
of the Keaau High School football field were installed because people were trying to pass on the
right of the three lanes in that area, adding an improper entry lane beyond the Old Keaau Village
Road intersection needed to be removed as it was adding to the traffic problem in the area.
There was no further public testimony offered at this time.
Regarding the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, it was moved by Commissioner Iwashita
and seconded by Commissioner Domingo to send a favorable recommendation to the County
Council. Commissioner Iwashita said it was his conviction that all community development
plans should have a designation of urbanized areas in the existing urban cores and that the
Commission should look at those designations in providing community guidance on where
rezonings such as these would be allowed, noting the property is on the urbanized area and
questioned why the community did not include these lands in the CDP. Commissioner Iwashita
5
said he hoped that future CDPs would include 10-year growth lines and viewed as hard lines,
adding there should be 5-year reviews of those lines for possible expansion. Director Leithead
Todd pointed out that the General Plan is the guiding document if there is any perceived conflict
between the Puna Community Development Plan and the General Plan, and the General Plan has
this area designated as Industrial, which is consistent with previously approved applications in
this area. Director Leithead Todd agreed that there is a certain amount of flexibility in
interpreting the CDP, but she felt because there was a rush to get the Puna CDP done it did not
include some of the areas that absolutely made sense to have the Industrial area included in the
urban town area, noting one would want some separation between the industrial and more
commercial/residential areas of an urban setting. Commissioner Domingo commented it has
never been on his mind to question this application, speaking highly of Dr. Don Seaton as a man
whose character and work to help farmers have been widely respected. A roll call vote was
taken and motion carried with six ayes (Iwashita, Domingo, Au, Ishibashi, Kern, and
Woodward).
On the Change of Zone Application, it was moved by Commissioner Iwashita and seconded by
Commissioner Domingo to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the
reasons and with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Director, with Condition E
amended to widen Milo Street an additional 20 feet, to have the road boundary co-terminus with
the approximately 80-foot wide State-owned portion of Milo Street. Mr.Yeh at this time
reiterated their request to replace the curb, gutter, and sidewalk requirement in Condition F with
the applicant complying with the standards outlined in Standard Details for Public Works
Construction R-34 (revised). Commissioner Iwashita felt because Ulupono Center and this
whole area will have curbs, gutters and sidewalks, this area should not be any different.
Ms. Leithead Todd said she would prefer to leave the condition as requested by the Department
of Public Works, but the Commission could say the applicant shall provide improvements to the
Milo Street frontage meeting with the requirements of the Department of Public Works, and
leave it up to that Department. Commissioner Iwashita said he understood from the record that
the State portion at the beginning of Milo Street does not have the curb, gutter and sidewalk
requirement but his preference is to have that requirement. Commissioners Iwashita and
Domingo then stated leaving this determination of a curb, gutter and sidewalk requirement up to
the Department of Public Works was acceptable. Commissioner Iwashita then stated for the
record that the “20 feet” in Condition E should be changed to “22 feet,” and there was no
objection to this change. A roll call vote was taken and motion carried with six ayes (Iwashita,
Domingo, Au, Ishibashi, Kern, and Woodward).
The Commission took the following item up at 11:50 a.m. with 12 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANTS: WILLIAM & GLYNNIS DOLAN (REZ 09-111)
Change of Zone from Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to Neighborhood Commercial 20,000 square
feet (CN-20) for approximately 3.258 acres of land. The property is located off the south side of
Ponahawai Street, approximately 700 feet east of the Komohana Street - Ponahawai Street
6
intersection, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-37:14.
Ms. Cottle oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the
location map and site plan, summarized the request, and noted the Planning Director is
recommending a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council as recommended by
the Director.
The applicant’s representative, Lori Mikkelson, stated she has received the Department’s
recommendation and conditions and they are acceptable to her.
There was no one from the public wishing to testify on the application.
It was moved by Commissioner Kern and seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi to send a
favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director,
with conditions. Commissioner Iwashita spoke of the necessity of a CDP so that traffic
problems are not created in the area.
Ms. Leithead Todd noted many years ago the A-1a area was the subject of a rezoning application
to have it rezoned to RS-7.5; however the owners failed to finalize the required conditions of
approval of the rezoning, which is why Planning Department determined this area was basically
A-1a. She said the new owners then came in and utilized the A-1a zoning and carved these
properties up without any rezoning, which has created some issues as it was probably not the
appropriate use for this property and was not consistent with what was going on in the area. She
said she did have real concerns for access to the property, but having the Dolan and Silva
applications coming in at the same time and having these two pieces of property connect to each
other and sharing some connectivity so there is more than one way to go in and out of the
property made it a better project.
A roll call vote was taken at this time to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council
as recommended by the Director with conditions and motion carried with six ayes (Kern,
Ishibashi, Au, Domingo, Iwashita and Woodward, with Commissioner Iwashita voting kanalua
twice).
The Commission took the following item up at 12:01 p.m. with 10 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANTS: GILLIE & JANE SILVA (REZ 09-113)
Change of Zone from Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to Neighborhood Commercial – 20,000 square
feet (CN-20) for approximately 5.075 acres of land. The property is located approximately 130
feet south of the Komohana Street – Ponahawai Street intersection, Ponahawai, South Hilo,
Hawaii, TMK: 2-3-37:6.
Ms. Cottle oriented the Commission and public of the subject and surrounding properties on the
location map and site plan, summarized the request, and noted the Planning Director is
7
recommending a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council, with conditions.
The applicant’s representative, Lori Mikkelson, stated she has received the Department’s
recommendation and conditions and they are acceptable to her.
There was no one from the public wishing to testify on the application.
It was moved by Commissioner Kern and seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi to send a
favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director,
with conditions. Commissioner Iwashita stated his concerns expressed in the prior application
applies to this application also. A roll call vote was taken to and motion carried with five ayes
(Kern, Ishibashi, Domingo, Iwashita and Woodward, with Commissioner Iwashita voting
kanalua twice) and one recusal (Au).
The Commission took the following item up at 12:05 p.m. with 8 people from the public in
attendance:
APPLICANT: VINCENT T.C. TAI (REZ 09-114)
Change of Zone from a Single-Family Residential – 7,500 square feet (RS-7.5) to a Multiple-
Family Residential – 2,500 square feet (RM-2.5) district for approximately 3.292 acres of land.
The property is located at the end of Hualalai Street, west of the Hualalai Street – Hale Nani
Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii,
TMK: 2-4-28:9.
(SEE EXHIBIT C)
The Commission took the following items up simultaneously at 2:10 p.m. with two people from
the public in attendance:
APPLICANT: MICHAEL D. TUTTLE (USE 165)
Amendment to Use Permit No. 165 by reducing the land area for the permit and also to change
the location of the five bedrooms that will be used for the bed and breakfast operation. Use
Permit No. 165 originally allowed the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation
(Hale Ohia Cottages) within an existing dwelling and a guest house on 34,163 square feet of land
within the Single-Family Residential (RS-20) zoned district. The property involved is located
along Hale Ohia Road approximately 65 feet south of its intersection with Highway 11 (Volcano
Highway), Hale Ohia Tract Subdivision, Volcano, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-5:19.
APPLICANT: HALE OHIA LLC (USE 09-16)
Use Permit to allow the establishment of a 5-bedroom bed and breakfast operation within an
existing dwelling and a detached bedroom situated on approximately 14,961 square feet of land
within the Single-Family Residential (RS-20) zoned district. The property is located along Hale
Ohia Road approximately 65 feet south of its intersection with Highway 11 (Volcano Highway),
Hale Ohia Tract Subdivision, Volcano, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-1-5:46.
8
(SEE EXHIBIT D)
The Commission took the following item up at 3:26 p.m. with 2 people from the public in
attendance:
INITATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO. 125, DRAFT 3)
Amendment to Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Article 2, Division 1, Section 25-2-4, Hawaii County
Code, 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to notification of surrounding property owners
and lessees of record for change of zone applications.
(SEE EXHIBIT E)
The Commission took up the following minutes at this time, 3:34 p.m., with two people from the
public in attendance.
MINUTES OF JANUARY 8, 2010
The Chair stated approval of the minutes will be deferred to the next meeting so that the
Bnllhrrhnmlr Rdbqds`qx b`m qduhdv sgd s`odr adenqd hsr `cnoshnm-
Tim Rees noted there were procedural errors made regarding the County of Hawaii
Cdo`qsldms ne O`qjr `mc Qdbqd`shnmlr SMA Use Permit 09-000036 and requested the
Commission reconsider its action of January 8, 2010. He noted that a motion was made by
Commissioner Iwashita and seconded Commissinmdq Jdqm sn `ooqnud sgd Chqdbsnqlr
recommendation and amendments were made during the deliberations. He said when the first
amendment was made Deputy Director Masunaga stated it was a friendly amendment;
however, his understanding of Robeqslr Qtkdr ne Nqcdq hr sg`s hs v`r `bst`kkx ` rdbnmc`qx
amendment which take precedence over a main motion and requires a full vote of the body,
which was not taken and therefnqd qdmcdqr sgd Bnllhrrhnmlr `btion invalid. He said although
the community felt they were fairly heard by the Commission and the Commission discussed
all the issues, and deliberated, he strongly advised the Commiss
Mr. Rees pointed out that another reason the Commission should reconsider its action is
because the applicant brought forward the financial issue about the loss of HUD money but
according to Noel Fujimoto who contacted the Honolulu HUD office, there is a one-year
grace period that has been verified on this project.
Mr. Rees said if there is a legal challenge, the courts generally defer to deliberative bodies;
gnvdudq+ sgd Bnllhrrhnmlr `bshnm rgntkc mns g`ud been based on false financial information.
He reiterated the solution is for the Commission to reconsider its action today, noting the
Commission can deliberate the merits of reconsidering but cannot go in depth into the issues of
the application, and the motion for reconsideration must be done today.
9
Mr. Gonzalez agreed with Ms. Leithead Todd that a reconsideratio
agendized, and as it is not agendized for today, this matter cannot be addressed. Ms.Leithead
Todd referred to a Council situation where the Council could not reconsider an action taken at
a previous meeting because it was not agendized. Mr. Rees noted that situation occurred
because there was a new Council change-over; however, an OIP opinion did state a motion for
reconsideration need not be agendized and it must be made at the very next meeting, unless
there is some specific rule otherwise.
Lq- Fnmy`kdy r`hc sgd Bnllhrrhnm hr s`jhmf Lq- Qddrlr sdrshlnmx
trying to correct the minutes or address deficiencies in the minutes. He said as far as any
lnshnm enq qdbnmrhcdq`shnm ne sgd Bnllhrrhnmlr `btions the rules have a time limit prescribed
by that; and as the matter is not agendized today, he did not see any further action that the
Commission can take today.
Mr. Rees clarified he was really trying to help the Commission by clearing up procedural
errors. He noted that there were also other procedural errors such the original sign about the
project was not taken down when the application was withdrawn and no new sign was posted.
Commissioner Domingo noted that a motion for reconsideration of an action must be made by
someone who was on the prevailing side, and no motion was made; and if there was no one
wishing to make a motion at this time the Commission should adjourn the meeting.
Lq- Qddr r`hc `bbnqchmf sn Qnadqslr Qtkds the Commission has to vote on a motion or by
unanimous consent, and it was clear Commissioner Domingo voted against the main motion,
noting essentially he would have been against the amendment also. He then noted that since a
variance from Chapter 27 was granted the Parks project can no longer be insured under the
NFIP participating program, which he understands HUD requires. He added that he would
like to have the restroom relocated to the highest elevation of the property, noting the need for
this occur and the need to happen correctly.
RECESSED i Sgd Bg`hq b`kkdc ` rgnqs qdbdrr `s 2936 o-l-
RECONVENED i Sgd lddshmf qdbnmudmdc `s 2941 o-l-
Commissioner Iwashita then moved to adjourn to executive session to discuss the matter,
seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all
Commissioners in attendance.
EXECUTIVE SESSION i Sgd Bnllhrrhnm vdms hmsn dwdbtshue session at 3:52 p.m. to discuss
this matter further with its counsel. The Commission came out of executive session at 4:50
p.m.
10
The Chair explained to Mr. Rees that the Commission considered and attempted to address his
bnmbdqmr `mc `esdq qduhdvhmf sgd Bnllhrrhnmlr options, the Chair decided not to take any
action at this point, and there were no objections. The Chair expressed appreciation for
Lq- Qddrlr o`rrhnm`sd vnqj enq sge last three years in attempting to get the best park possible.
There being no further business, the Chair declared the meeting adjourned at 4:51 p.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
11