Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-01-19 Leeward Exh C (Item 3 Stevenson & Fumo PL-REZ-2022-000035) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 19, 2023 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CHARLES STEVENSON,ANN STEVENSON & JOHN FUMO (PL-REZ-2022-000035) was called to order at 10:58 a.m. in the West Hawaii Civic Center, Council Chambers, Building A, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairperson Barbara DeFranco presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Barbara DeFranco, Michael Dela Cruz, Zaheva Knowles, Mahina Paishon-Duarte, and Michael Vitousek ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Clement"CJ" Kanuha III ALSO PRESENT: Sinclair Salas-Ferguson, Esq. (Counsel for the Commission), Jean Campbell, Esq. (Counsel for the Planning Department), Jeffrey Darrow(Deputy Planning Director), Maija Jackson (Planning Program Manager), Clinton Mercado (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Janice Hata(Zoom host), and Noriko Sauer(Commission Secretary) And no public members in the audience. APPLICANT: CHARLES STEVENSON,ANN STEVENSON & JOHN FUMO (PL-REZ- 2022-000035) Application for a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-20 acres (A-20a) to an Agricultural-10 acres (A-10a) zoning district for 22.665 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4375 Haleamau Street, approximately 570 feet northeast(mauka) of its intersection with Kaloko Drive, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko,North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-027:003. DEFRANCO: Well welcome back everyone. We're going to introduce the third agenda item. This is the applicant Charles Stevenson, Ann Stevenson, and John Fumo, PL-REZ- 2022-000035. Application for a Change of Zone from Agricultural-20 to an Agriculutral-10 acres zoning district for 22.665 acres of land. The subject property is located at 73-4375 Haleamau Street, approximately 570 feet northeast(mauka) of its intersection with Kaloko Drive, Kaloko Mauka Subdivision, Kaloko,North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 7-3-027:003. So, first we're going to have the staff presentation, okay. Yeah, okay. So, the staff is,who is doing that. [Indecipherable crosstalk) and here we go. Aloha. MERCADO: Testing, okay. Aloha and good morning, everyone. Sorry. We'll begin the Stevenson and Fumo presentation with the location map. The subject parcel outlined in red is located in the North Kona District, more specifically in the Kaloko Mauka Subdivision. The parcel is located approximately 2.3 miles east or mauka of the Mamalahoa Highway 190 and the Kaloko Drive intersection. From the intersection Mamalahoa Highway runs in the north and south direction while Hina Lani Street,makai of the intersection runs in the east and west direction. 1 EXHIBIT C JACKSON: Clinton, is the clicker not working? MERCADO: Yeah, one second. KAY: I'll move forward for you Clinton. MERCADO: Okay, thanks buddy. Okay, so the applicants' request. The applicants are requesting a Change of Zone from an Agricultural-20 acre to an Agricultural-10 acre zoning district for approximately 22.665 acres of land. The reason for the request is the primary purpose for the request is to create a two (2) lot subdivision to establish a separate fee- simple ownership of the property for the applicants. The property currently consists of 2 existing single-family dwellings. One of which was approved as an `Ghana dwelling in 1986. If the requested rezoning is approved, the applicants proposed to subdivide the property into 2 11.3325 acre lots. Each of which will accommodate I of the 2 existing single-family dwellings. No additional improvements to the subject property are currently being proposed by the applicant. Sounds like an echo. Next, we'll do the County zoning map. The subject property is zoned Agriculural-20 acres shown in green. While the nearest surrounding properties are a mix of Agriculural-20 acres and Agricultural-10 acres shown in blue. This is the State Land Use Boundary Map. The subject property and its surrounding properties are designated Agricultural by the State Land Use Commission shown in green. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the subject property and surrounding properties as Important Agricultural Lands shown in the light green. Here is the Kona Community Development Plan map showing the project site with the red star being located outside of the Kona Urban Area and the Kona Rural Town Area. The Urban area is shown outlined in the red while the Rural areas outlined in blue. Here is the proposed subdivision site plan provided by the applicants. Showing the subdivided lot line in the middle of the property and all its existing structures. So,towards the top of course is the existing single-family dwelling and across the line towards the bottom left is the second dwelling and they have a shared driveway in between the proposed 2 lots. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject property outlined in red and of its surrounding area. The surrounding area consists of primarily native forest and single-family dwellings. The existing driveway to the property is off of Haleamau Street as indicated. Kaloko Drive is located south of the property shown towards to the bottom left of the slide. The image on the top left is looking north from Haleamau Street with the subject property driveway located on the right and the image on the bottom right is the intersection of Kaloko Drive with the Haleamau Street located on the right. So, the Deputy Director is recommendation is to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for the Change of Use, zoning request. Thank you. That concludes my presentation. Change of Zone, excuse me. 2 EXHIBIT C DEFRANCO: Do we get to ask questions now? Do we have any questions for the staff presentation? No. Okay. Put your speaker on. KNOWLES: Thank you Clinton. This seems like a relatively straight forward matter. I guess a question that's rattling around for me is given that this is designated significant agricultural land and we're making the parcel smaller, and I didn't see much information about any agricultural processes happening on the property. What I tend to think about is my question is there any downside of creating a smaller lot and negative impact on the land that was designated as significant agricultural land. Seeing how they're not farming on the land and we're just making a smaller parcel. MERCADO: Thank you Vice- Chair. The applicants currently secured a Forest Management Plan with the Real Property Tax, I think it was back in 2016 for 90% of the property. To maintain the existing forest as it is now, and the applicants like I mentioned they are not looking at developing anymore of the property. KNOWLES: Okay. MERCADO: So, the impacts would be less to none because most of it is preserved, yeah. KNOWLES: Okay. MERCADO: It nuns for 50 years if I'm not mistaken. KNOWLES: Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: Chair, I have a question. DEFRANCO: Yes. PAISHON-DUARTE: So, when the applicant had put forward, had come before the Commission at some time in 2022, I can't exactly remember which month. There were,there was a lot of conversation discussion around traffic, increase traffic, the possibility for increased traffic and then specifically if I recall was a conversation around the need for an additional stop light. And that's part of transportation,where it's going to provide guidelines or a report to this matter. Can I ask for what the current status is on that? MERCADO: Yes, that is correct. So, in 2022 they created a team to look at that. So, the Department of Transportation (DOT)were going to a I think it was a traffic impact analysis report and we recently learned that it's still in the works. So, that's where we are at right now. PAISHON-DUARTE: So, if I'm understanding correctly. We don't have all the information per se from that report. In terms of what is the impact of vehicular traffic. 3 EXHIBIT C MERCADO: If I may could I defer to our Deputy Planning Director to answer your question. Thank you. DARROW: Thank you Commissioner. As Clinton mentioned there is a working group established right now to be able to determine the impacts of that intersection. It appears that they are moving towards a stop light but again they are in the process of finalizing the traffic impact analysis report to confirm that. Once that is done this working group is going to work towards completing those improvements. There's still a matter of funding. You know,who's going to be responsible for how much. Part of that is coming from the fund that is mentioned that has been established when these rezonings have come through. We have approximately $650,000.00 in that fund right now as well as monies from DOT and possibly Department of Public Works. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you Deputy Director. That's probably the reason why I bring up the question is because I would hate to, I'm not clear like who is going to be,who's going to pay for the stoplight and the maintenance and so forth and if it's County or whomever or property owners or I don't know what the other pools of funding would be. So,that is a concern of mine like who is going to be stuck with the bill. DARROW: Yeah. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Okay, thank you for your presentation. MERCADO: Thank you. DEFRANCO: I'll ask the applicants to come forward now. TWO MALES AND A FEMALE CAME TO THE TESTIFIER TABLE DEFRANCO: Sir,just make sure it's near you and then it's turned on. So, I'm going ask you to raise your right hand and swear to affirm to tell truth on this matter before the Leeward Planning Commission. TWO MALES AND A FEMALE CAME TO THE TESTIFIER TABLE: I do. DEFRANCO: Okay, so, speak directly into the microphone and please state your name and the area you reside in. PIPAN: I'm John Pipan, applicant's representative Land Planning Hawaii. I live just outside of Honoka`a. To my left, Ann, and Chuck Stevenson. A STEVENSON: Ann Stevenson C. STEVENSON: Charles Stevenson. 4 EXHIBIT C PIPAN: And Mr. Fumo would like to have attended today unfortunately he regrets he had to be away on business. DEFRANCO: You going to have to speak into the microphone. PIPAN: Sorry about that. Yes. Mr. Fumo, co-applicant regretfully could not make it today. He is away on business. DEFRANCO: Thank you. So,you've received all the background information and recommendation reports from the Planning Department? PIPAN: Yes. DEFRANCO: Yes. Okay and do you agree with the recommendations and including the proposed conditions? PIPAN: We have requested respectfully amendments to 2 of the conditions and we can go over that momentarily. DEFRANCO: Okay and do you have any further comments? PIPAN: Yes. DEFRANCO: Okay. PIPAN: Yes, for sure. On the face of it yes this is a very simple request turning 2 separate dwellings, separating ownership, giving them their own fee-simple lots. They had a co-tenancy agreement, good neighbors for many years, been proactive in managing the native forest on the property dedicating 90% of it to conservation. Where are the impacts with this requested use with this rezone going from Ag-20 to Ag-10. This is not a very productive soil for cultivation or agricultural uses again the native forest is the highest and best use for the bulk of the property. There are no new structures that would be permitted by this Change of Zone. No increased in the intensity of use of the properties. So, when we're tasked with looking at the impacts and a fair share contribution as in Condition K that we're requesting be evaluated. The Supreme Court has reviewed cases like this where land use exactions have been questioned, right and they've ruled that they have to meet a couple of criteria. They have to be rationally related to the impacts of the project, right, it can't be something far field. Say the project is in Kona, the contribution impacts like can't be in Kohala, that doesn't make much sense, rationally. It has to be proportional to the impact on that resource generated by the project. So, in this case we're working with the existing homes, there is no new construction, no new construction would be allowed by this ordinance. There is specific language prohibiting new dwellings. So, I'm just wondering whether or not this type of condition is actually illegal or if it's more of like a band aid solution, right. We see that this intersection needs improvements but instead of like a holistic systematic approach to evaluating our transportation infrastructure and the 5 EXHIBIT C needs and the users of that infrastructure. It's now being applied to applicants coming in with a request with, [cleared throat] pardon me, no increased impact. So, yes, I think this is a very simple request but the details of this condition it makes a big difference to these applicants. Mr. and Mrs. Stevenson are retired, on a fixed income. This nearly $16,000.00 bill is a very tough pill to swallow. With that, we'll respectfully request your favorable consideration on forwarding this favorable recommendation to the County Council. We'll take any questions you might have. Thank you much. DEFRANCO: Thank you. So, Commissioners do have questions? PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure, I have a question. I actually appreciate your comments when it related to fair share contribution and also like what is the,what is the holistic approach to looking at potential increased vehicular impacts. My question to you is a little bit more conceptual. Do you know of successful examples or models, planning models that you're suggesting that we can learn from in other parts of either anywhere in the state or maybe in other states as well. PIPAN: Yeah, great question,thank you Commission Duarte, Paishon- Duarte, excuse me. I don't know off the top of my head. I know this has been a topic of conversation for some time in the County and our infrastructure needs are great and they really haven't met the development of our island over the years. So, if I could I'd defer to Deputy Director Darrow, he may have some better examples than I do off the top of my head. Thanks. DARROW: Thank you Commissioner Paishon-Duarte. My understanding of your question is in regard to impacts to development, what options are there in regard to being able to provide monies to support infrastructure or mitigate those impacts. There is what's called an impact fee. Our island has not created an impact fee ordinance. When you look at our conditions, Condition L, specifically. It kind of takes into account the possibility of in the future the Council adopting a unified impact fee ordinance and what that would do in a sense is it would be a fee that would be connected to some sort of activity. Currently, what we do is we have a fair share fee that we attach to rezonings because basically they're coming in and creating higher density for that particular area. And so, as part of that there's a fair share fee that normally goes to several agencies to take care those impacts that would be generated by that increase of density towards the region. In this particular case, the bigger issue was the intersection and so at some point in the past maybe 15 years ago. They decided rather than setting aside fair share to all the different agencies they focused on this going specifically to the improvement of the intersection. This particular practice is based out of County Code Chapter 2, Section 2-162.1. It's a community benefits assessment that associated with land use approvals and so that's where that all stems from. You know there have been attempts in the past to try to create an impact fee, and they just have not passed. Around the country, you'll see different areas that utilizes these. I would say the normal practice is through a building permit process. So, when someone comes in for a building permit. There is a fee generated with that permit that goes towards to infrastructure improvements. It goes towards all the different agencies and so it's across the board. You do a permit; you get a fee. I'm sure 6 EXHIBIT C they also must have fees related to land use approvals as well but, that's one that brings in quite a bit of monies toward infrastructure projects is through building permit applications. PIPAN: If I may Chair,to add— DEFRANCO: Yes. PIPAN: —just a little bit to this topic. We've had a number of rezones with similar features. No increase in intensity or dwellings permitted on the lot not too far from this one. Kalawa, in Waimea as well. Neither of those and quite frequently many others similar to this don't have such a fair share requirement. It's just this Kaloko Mauka area. So, instead of doing this piecemeal almost discriminatory approach on this neighborhood. I think maybe it's through the ongoing subdivision and rezone code amendments a more systematic approach is taken to impacts on transportation infrastructure and what that actually means and how that's implemented. And I think the building permit example is a great example because that is an impact,right. You're building a structure, there's going to be traffic to and from it. But, in this case, there is no new structures, traffic is going to be as it has been since 1986 when these houses were built. KNOWLES: I just had a question. DEFRANCO: Yes. KNOWLES: I think what you say is true potentially. But basically, what we are doing now is subdividing it so that there are 2 fee-simple lots. Both of which can be sold and that theoretically could increase density on the property. I mean, maybe its only 2 or 3 more drivers or whatever it is but it still may have impact, correct? PIPAN: You're saying in terms of like family size that would— KNOWLES: Sure, I mean for example, or they could come before us and make another request to subdivide their 10 acres. I mean, you know density can increase hypothetically with this kind of subdivision. PIPAN: I think in this specific case, there are conditions that prohibit that in this ordinance. So, let me pull it up, pardon me. Okay, Condition F, "restrictive covenants in the deeds of all the proposed lots within the subject property shall give notice that the terms of the zoning ordinance prohibit the construction of a second dwelling unit and condominium property regimes on each lot", it goes on. But that's the crux of it. So— KNOWLES: Okay. PIPAN: — if a request to do like a Special Permit use or to come before the Planning Commission that's a discretionary permit you'd then be able to evaluate the impact of that use. But as it is,we're looking at 90% dedicated native forests and 2 single-family residences. 7 EXHIBIT C KNOWLES: Thank you. PIPAN: It's a very small, very low impact existing use that's not going to change. DEFRANCO: Thank you. We have one more question. PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes, thank you. Actually, this question is for County Council. My question is, is it proper and appropriate for the Commission to deliberate on— DEFRANCO: The question is not for the County Council, but for the Planning Department? PAISHON-DUARTE: Yes. DEFRANCO: Okay. PAISHON-DUARTE: Sure, Planning Department. My question is, can we move forward as a Commission without having the information from the Department of Transportation report. My question is, is it legal for us, is it appropriate, is it legal for us to move forward with the decision prior to us having that information? DARROW: We typically provide applications to numerous agencies, and we request comments by a particular date. Normally we get a majority of the comments back. Unfortunately,there are applications that we don't get back. In this particular case, Department of Transportation is an example. We have been, we have received previous comments from them for rezonings in this similarity. So, we have an idea of what their comments will be and that's kind of stated further in the rec. But again,with this working group that's been happening,there's been changes and so they've been working on this impact analysis report which is huge because before they were keeping hands off. But now they're getting involved and so the likelihood of them being involved with the improvements in the intersection are much greater now. Being that we have a working group, and the goal of the working group is to provide the improvements to the intersection. We were hoping that we would have the analysis report done, by this time. They were saying it would be completed in Fall, unfortunately it's just finalizing now. So,we should be getting better ideas of the type of improvements they are going to want to see at that intersection. But again,just preliminary, we are hearing that it's going to need a stop light. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you, okay. DARROW: I don't think there's anything, like legally binding us from moving forward. A lot of times what we do is if it's something that is going to require like if the applicants had an access directly on a particular road under the jurisdiction of Department of Transportation and we did not receive comments. We would put in a condition that says comply with requirements of the Department of Transportation for access. In this particular case, it's actually a county road that they are on, but the subdivision is accessed through that intersection and that's under the jurisdiction of DOT. Thank you. 8 EXHIBIT C PIPAN: Chair if I may. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. PIPAN: A quick — DEFRANCO: Yes. PIPAN: — addition. If I understand correctly this fund for Kaloko intersection improvements was established in the 90's, and it's grown to $650,000.00 and we're just now getting to the studies of what's required to improve that intersection. I feel like,perhaps a more again systematic and better stewardship of those funds and what's required for safety of that intersection would make us feel better about contributing to it. If it's systematic, it applies to everyone and not again this kind of piecemeal tied to a request it's almost like pay for play zoning. Which I don't think we want to be a part of. I might also add that again the concurrency trigger for a traffic impact study for a project like this is 50 peak hour trips. We're contributing zero. So, we are no way near a requirement to conduct a study for this project. Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: Thank you. DEFRANCO: Thank you. CAMPBELL: Chair, can I jump in real quickly to elaborate I think on Deputy Director Darrow's answer to our commissioner's question. Our applicant did articulate for the Commission the proper legal test that you all should be considering when you are applying, it applies to all conditions, and I think in this case it bubbles up. But it's the one that you should be applying to all of your conditions and that is, in a more legal jargon it's nexus and proportionality. So, it is the condition that you're looking at rationally related to the impact of this particular project. So, and I think in this one that that is very clear. And the second piece of that test is,is the condition that's being applied proportional to the actual impact of this particular application and if you can articulate and find that the answer to both of those is yes, then your conditions are correct. If you can't articulate that test,then you need to consider whether the conditions are correct or not. So,just to give you that test and that's what you want to be thinking as you are evaluating these. [Indecipherable talking] PIPAN: And if I may add just briefly. Any— DEFRANCO: So, do want to respond— PIPAN: Sorry. DEFRANCO: — excuse me to the test that they're talking about? 9 EXHIBIT C PIPAN: Yes. DEFRANCO: Yes, okay. PIPAN: Yes,just a quick sentence response. DEFRANCO: Please. PIPAN: Any multiple of a zero impact is still zero impact. DEFRANCO: Okay, thank you. Thank you, okay. So, if there are no more questions then we can move for a motion then, Is that right? DARROW: If I could just interject. There are 2 conditions that the applicant is requesting an amendment to. John, have you been able to speak to the first one? PIPAN: For sure. DARROW: Okay. PIPAN: Yes, thank you. Condition D (3),this is relating to the frontage setbacks for structures. DEFRANCO: Speak a little bit louder. PIPAN: Yes, sorry. Condition D (3) would require a 100-foot structural setback from the road frontage on both of these properties and based on the surveys that we've submitted with the application the Stevenson's residence is within 85 feet approximately of that frontage. So, this is intended to clarify that any new structures would have to adhere to this 100- foot setback that the Stevenson's don't have to move their existing home at that I00-foot setback. DEFRANCO: Okay, so, it's not at a 100, it's at 85 feet, is that what you're saying? PIPAN: Yes. DEFRANCO: Okay. PIPAN: Yeah, based on Wes Thomas Associates survey. DEFRANCO: And then, the second one? DARROW: The second was the fair share. DEFRANCO: Oh, the fair share. Okay. 10 EXHIBIT C DARROW: The applicant had submitted a letter with that proposed language for Condition D (3). DEFRANCO: So, in making the motion, then we would include these 2? DARROW: Those are, that's the big question. DEFRANCO: Well, if we can make a motion and include whatever or not then we at least can discuss it amongst ourselves what we think about this. Right, so it's important to get a motion made. So, the motion might sound like,what do you think Mike? PIPAN: Again, it's a recommendation that you are forwarding to the County Council will ultimately— KNOWLES: I'm sorry, can you speak up when you speak into the microphone. DEFRANCO: I'm sorry there's no public testimony that I know of. Is there any on Zoom? HATA: No, no Zoom testifiers. DEFRANCO: Yes, for the record there's no public testimony. The person that was going to testify is not. Is there anybody on Zoom that is waiting to testify? HATA: No, there are no Zoom testifiers. DEFRANCO: So, there's no public testimony. So, now we're looking for a motion. VITOUSEK: If I might,just ask a quick question before the motion of the Planning Department. Are you in favor of the recommended change under Condition D (3)? DARROW: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. What about the recommended change to Condition K? DARROW: I did speak with the applicant's representative about that, and I understand his position. In the past we've had similar requests before the Planning Commission and the Council. Where dwellings were built. These were normally CPR'd type situations. Where the property was CPR'd, and they were trying to be able to create fee ownership and they would come in for a Change of Zone. So, similar argument that there was really no new dwellings, or new impacts but again it was a matter of additional density, higher density was created, additional lots were created. So, in all fairness we'd like to keep the condition in but again that is our recommendation. 11 EXHIBIT C VITOUSEK: Is that how it would be standard applied where even in the case of a CPR where there is separate ownership we're still adding on that fee? DARROW: Yes. VITOUSEK: Okay. DARROW: Because it's for any new additional lot that's created. This one, whereas several rezonings, I mean a number of rezonings that you'll see come across will talk about dwellings, right. You'll see the term additional dwelling units and so that's when fair share is related to the dwellings. In this particular case, it's related to the additional lot. VITOUSEK: Mahalo. In that case, I'd like to make a motion. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for a Change of Zone, Docket 2022-000035, based on the Deputy Director's recommendation including the revised language from the January 16, 2023, letter Condition D (3) for new structures proposed after the effective date of this ordinance a 100-foot wide structural setback in lieu of the required 30-foot setback along the existing properties, public street frontage to provide an additional buffer, which shall be adopted. KNOWLES: I second. DEFRANCO: Okay. So — DARROW: I'm not sure, so, correct me if I'm wrong Commissioner Vitousek. The language for D (3)that we're looking at is that simple phrase that would be added to the 100- foot wide structural setback. Which is DEFRANCO: Paragraph 3. DARROW: within the January 16'h letter. VITOUSEK: That's the only new language, is the underline? Okay, cool. As long as the Condition D (3) states that. DARROW: Correct. Thank you. VITOUSEK: Yeah. KNOWLES: Second. DEFRANCO: So, we have a first and second. So, now we're open for discussion. VITOUSEK: Mahalo, I would just add that I think the language suggested by the applicant is reasonable and providing their existing structures that don't need to be moved. Also, I believe that increasing density is by creating a new lot. If that's the application of the fair share 12 EXHIBIT C contribution,then I think this should be continued to be applied in that way. I also want to say that I think the use of the property as native forest is definitely the highest and best use and I agree with you guys and want to encourage you to do the best that you can in preserving that forest. I think preserving that forest, I don't know if it officially is an agricultural practice but it sure should be. So,best of luck with that. A. STEVENSON: We agree. KNOWLES: I concur Chair Vitousek, and I also want to commend the applicant on their willingness to revisit cultural practices and should those arrive and consider that as part of the stewardship of the land. And I also concur that it's important to protect this fair share responsibility in lieu of other potentially sort of county-wide legislation or regulation relating to infrastructure improvements which clearly, we will need going forward. But in the absence of those I think that this is an important thing to continue to do. Thank you. PAISHON-DUARTE: I echo Commissioners Vitousek and Knowles and applaud you folks for wanting to care for the particular `aina that you are located. My only hang up but not insurmountable is that I don't like the idea of us awaiting information for a report that is overdue. But I do understand that the department has done their work and has followed procedure and has awaited comments and the information that was yet to presented. Thank you. DEFRANCO: Mike? Well, I agree with my fellow commissioners. I think it's great that you're committed to the forest land and there's a very little change in impact of infrastructure and going forward as a community that it's good to see that you're connected in that way and that you honor the traditional cultural practices. So,thank you. So, is there anymore discussion? We could go for a roll call vote then on this okay. MERCADO: Okay. DEFRANCO: Okay, call for a vote. MERCADO: Commissioner Vitousek? VITOUSEK: Aye. MERCADO: Vice Chair Knowles? KNOWLES: Aye. MERCADO: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. MERCADO: Commissioner Paishon-Duarte? PAISHON-DUARTE: Aye. 13 EXHIBIT C MERCADO: And Chair DeFranco? DEFRANCO: Aye. MERCADO: Thank you. DEFRANCO: And I know we didn't repeat the motion, so maybe we should have, or should we have repeated the motion before we voted? No,we were okay with that. Alright, very good. MERCADO: Okay. DEFRANCO: Thank you. MERCADO: Motion carries, the ayes have it. A STEVENSON: Thank you very much. DEFRANCO: You're welcome Mr. Pipan. PIPAN: Thank you all very much. Aloha. The hearing ended at 11:40 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Melissa Dacayanan-Salvador Secretary to Boards and Commissions 14 EXHIBIT C