Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-07-08 THNMP WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 8, 2010 HNMP, LLC – PAUL OGASAWARA, A regularly advertised hearing on the application of MANAGER (REZ 698) was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the County of HawaiÒi, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Warren Lee (Director of Public Works), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Pl And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: HNMP, LLC Î PAUL OGASAWARA, MANAGER (REZ 698) Amendment to Condition B of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 03-111 (REZ 698), which rezoned 4.901 acres of land from an Agricultural-1 acre (A-1a) to a Neighborhood Commercial (CN-20) zoned district. The request is for a 5-year time extension to complete construction of the proposed Woodland Center commercial development. The subject property is located at the junction of the Phoa Bypass Road and the KeaÒau-Phoa Road bordering Kahakai Boulevard, Keonepoko Iki Homesteads, Phoa, Puna, HawaiÒi, TMK: 1-5-07: 20. 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 recommended a favorable recommendation to the County Council, with conditions. Ms. Cottle noted a correction to Condition E in the Planning DepartmentÓs recommendation, adding Ðadditional improvements at the Kahakai Boulevard-130 intersection,Ñ and removing Ðthose improvements need to be completed prior to receipt of certificate of occupancy,Ñ and forgot to underline the words Ðby January 2011.Ñ She noted for the record correspondence has been received from Tom Yeh dated June 29, 2010 with photographs as well as a site plan and some portions of the Zoning Code. WOODWARD: Any questions for staff? Okay, seeing none, if we could have the applicant and/or representative come forward. Good morning. YAMAMOTO: Good morning. MCELVANEY: Morning. 1 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: If I can swear you in. If youÓll raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? YAMAMOTO: I do. MCELVANEY: I do. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. If youÓll use the microphone. And before you begin your testimony please give us your name and address. And, sir, would you like to begin? YAMAMOTO: My name is Jerel Yamamoto. My office address is 187 Kapiolani Street, Hilo. I am the attorney for HNMP. WOODWARD: Okay. You may begin, if youÓd like. YAMAMOTO: Basically weÓre here asking the Commission to approve the conditions, or approve the request for a 5-year extension with the conditions as recommended by the Planning Department. As indicated by the staff, the project is, at least the construction of the project is almost done. The additional time will allow completion of the site improvements. The offsite improvements are basically done except for additional things that are being worked on with the Department of Transportation and the Department of Public Works. We ask that this project be approved without any additional things being added on because basically the project is bringing jobs to the Puna area, itÓs bringing construction to the Puna area, itÓs providing needed retail and food service providers to the Puna area that doesnÓt already exist. It will allow Puna residents the opportunity of avoiding having to travel to Hilo or to KeaÒato get similar services; and the developer has been cooperating and working with required government agencies, has put in appropriate mitigative measures, and has been very sensitive to issues in the community. So we hope that the Commission will favorably act on the recommendation. ItÓs our hope that the stores will open by the end of the year. WOODWARD: Very good. Do we have any questions for Mr. Yamamoto. I have one. You have, I assume youÓve received this recommendation and reviewed the conditions? YAMAMOTO: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay. Are the conditions as stated acceptable to you? YAMAMOTO: I believe they are. WOODWARD: Okay. All right, sir, if youÓll give us your name and address, and you may begin your testimony. MCELVANEY: Yes, yes. IÓm John McElvaney. My office address is 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 1001. IÓm the ownerÓs representative and the project management consultant. As such, IÓve been completely in touch with everything that has gone on from 2007 when we first began till now. 2 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: All right, do we have any questions? Okay, no, seeing none, thank you gentlemen. You may be seated. Okay, we do have eight people from the public signed up to testify. We would like to give everybody a chance to testify and still get through the agenda. So please limit your testimony to three minutes. And if you run significantly beyond, I will politely ask you to summarize. We have four seats up here, so let me call the first four who have signed up to testify. Thomas Yeh, Myke Metcalf, Brady Metcalf and Jame come up and have a seat. All right, good morning. If I can get you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WOODWARD: Very good. Okay. And we ask that you give your name and address as you begin your testimony. And, Mr. Yeh, you signed up first so, Tom, youÓve got it. YEH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. You know, I often come before this Commission seeking a balance of traffic related conditions, on the basis that sometimes whatÓs suggested is more than whatÓs required of the circumstances. In this event, this particular application really presents a perfect traffic st thatÓs going to arise if the Commission and the Council do not require concurrency of some of these traffic improvements that have been, at least are still being worked out between DOT and the applicant. I want to make clear that the Metcalf Family Limited Partnership on whose behalf IÓm speaking is not opposed to this project. If we had been opposed to this project back in July, back in December Ó09 when we pointed out to the applicant that they had exceeded the time conditions because of the situation of jobs and those kinds of issues, the word state, given the economy -. All that the Metcalf family is doing is asking that you consider before approving this particular extension request, imposing reasonable conditions that are directly tied to the traffic impacts that are related to this project. A lot has happened since 1991 since this zoning was first started. Now the Metcalf family has been operating Pahoa Auto Parts since 1987. They have a first driveway -. Now what IÓve provided to you was kind of a pictorial exhibit that shows where their first driveway is. Mr. Metcalf, Myke Metcalf will show you some photographs later. But basically there are three things that weÓre saying should be dealt with here. One thereÓs a concurrency ordinance in place which the County adopted. And the reason I provided to you a copy of the pertinent provisions of the HawaiÒi County Code is if you take a look in Section 25-2-44, what it talks about is the CouncilÓs ability to impose conditions on the use of the property. And then if you look at Subsection b, it says changes or alterations of conditions of any change of zone ordinance shall be processed in the same manner as the zone change. You then look at Section 25-2-46 which has these concurrency requirements that weÓve raised. And what it states there is that on Subsection Bagain, this section applies to any application for change of zoning district or for any extension of time to perform a condition of zoning, which is before this Commission now. So if you read those two sections together, they are exactly designed to fit the situation that we have before you, which is changed circumstances, greatly increased traffic conditions, Pahoa Market place having come in and adding traffic to a currently bad situation. The intersection of 3 EXHIBIT A Highway 130 and Old Phoa Road has now the highest traffic accident rate in the State of HawaiÒi. What we have here before you is a T-intersection, if you take a look at that diagram, with a stop sign. The problem for the MetcalfÓs is youÓre going to have traffic coming in, a stream of traffic, major conflicts existing. The fact that the applicant is now working with DOT to go put together this opening to the Bypass is good thing. But letÓs look at the reasons why they are requesting an extension of time after the opening to put this in. In July of Ó09 when this project was supposed to have been completed there was nothing on the ground. Those photos that youÓve seen depict that. In December of Ó09 when we sent the letter to the applicant telling them you passed the time condition, we sent a copy to the County, nothing happened. Between then and April when the applicant fin request, they did, they worked hard to go put the improvements in. And now theyÓre standing before you saying, gee, give us a break, we want to be able to open this project and create a big th traffic mess and have until January 11 to go fix that. WhatÓs going to happen in between? And I can guarantee you that when this project opens and the public gets into accidents and thereÓs a major issue, and give me about another minute, please, the public is going to be asking the County, and the Council, and Public Works what happened here? So really the question before you is given the standards and the requirements of the concurrency ordinance, given the condition that we have there, what should this County do? Fine, provide the time extension, but letÓs look at what kind of mitigation measures are required, and letÓs implement it concurrently. If you look at Conditions C and D of the existing ordinance, it talks about requiring that sidewalks, curbs, gutters, and other improvements be done prior to the certificate of occupancy. Are those really the major issues that we have here? And if those were required prior to certificate of occupancy, why not this opening to the Bypass? ThatÓs basically our position on this thing. Thank you. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you, Mr. Yeh. Do we have any questions for Mr. Yeh? Okay, seeing none, Mr. Myke Metcalf, youÓre next. If youÓll give us your name and address, please. M. METCALF: Myke Metcalf, PO Box 1301, Phoa. My brother and I own the Auto Parts Store directly across the street from this project. WeÓve been there for 12, 13 years. WeÓve watched that intersection from its inception. It is the worst intersection in the State of HawaiÒi. And bythe CountyÓs own traffic impact analysis in 2006 itÓs rated 2 , 3  times the minimum requirement for an LOS F rating. That was three or four years ago. ThereÓs pretty close to an accident a day there. I mean before the LongÓs building went up, we could see them, we could hear them. And thatÓs bad enough. But three weeks ago to the day at 5 oÓclock in the afternoon, I got to feel it. Tourist, his wife, two daughters from Montana cleaned me out at 50 miles an hour, after I had already cleared the intersection. If my passenger hadnÓt screamed and I hadnÓt moved forward six feet sh have died in my truck. You would have had six people in that intersection. YouÓve got one ambulance 1300 yards up the road, the next one is ten miles up the road, the next one is in Hilo. You have six people in a -. I mean this is not an ÐifÑ thing. This is Ðwhen.Ñ YouÓre going to have the accident. I mean nobody wants to see tourists spread all over the highway. And I know that intersection better than anybody. I go through it multiple times a day; and I still got hit, and I was clear out of the intersection. He had a choice of taking a head-on from a car that was 4 EXHIBIT A engaged in the intersection behind me or taking out the back end of my truck. He hit me so hard he did $15,000 worth of damage to the back of my Toyota. If an accurate traffic assessment had been done for this project, every intersection in this project area would have an LOS F rating. They did four years ago, they do now. I appreciate the mitigation on opening up the bottom of Kahakai. But, I mean, that is not, as Mr. Morioka said in his letter to the Commission or the Director, thatÓs not solving the problem. ThatÓs keeping the intersection at its present state which is poor, unacceptable. I mean if you donÓt do that, youÓre sending people out into that intersection by force, into an intersection that canÓt handle the volume that it has right now. If you look at the pictures here, they said 85 percent of this construction is complete. One hundred percent of that construction was after their permit expired last July. They had not even broken ground yet. You have the photos in front of you. You can see the traffic in, towards the back there. I mean IÓm not trying - but it shows what the traffic is going to be like. They back clear up into the intersection. They back out into the intersection. When the tsunami alert was that Saturday morning, no work traffic, no school traffic, they had two accidents in four hours at the top of Kahakai Boulevard, in that short morning period on a weekend. ThatÓs going to be an everyday occ no way in, thereÓs no way out. Malama Market Place will be the landlocked. If you have one accident anywhere in that project, youÓve got gridlock. YouÓve got no way in, no way out, even for emergency vehicles. Okay, IÓm sorry. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Metcalf? LEE: Mr. Metcalf. WOODWARD: Yes. LEE: Just a little clarification for the record. When you refer to the intersection what is that intersection? M. METCALF: Old Phoa Road and Highway 130. LEE: Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you, Director Lee. Any further questions? No? Okay, Mr. Brady Metcalf. B. METCALF: Good morning. My name is Brady Metcalf. My residence address is 15-2707 Old Phoa Village Road. I live about 150 yards from this intersection of Kahakai Boulevard and Old Phoa Village Road. I have made numerous 911 calls because of accidents in that intersection, both during business hours from my business, which is right next door, the auto parts, and from my home at night. ItÓs a dangerous intersection already. And when we experienced the opening of the Malama Market Place and the Subway Sandwich Shop they have 5 EXHIBIT A there, we had traffic backed up literally to the Highway from the parking lot. People donÓt line up into the parking lot, they line, backed them up, back out to the Highway. ThereÓs no reason to assume that LongÓs Drugs with their drive-thru and Burger King and Kentucky Fried Chicken with their driveway-thrus are going to generate less traffic than a Subway Sandwich. And this already dangerous intersection or series of intersections are overtaxed as it is with the traffic burden on there. And IÓm just trying to prevent unnecessary damage to property and injury that will occur if these improvements are not implemented before the certificate of occupancy is given. I donÓt see how thereÓs not going to be an increase -. Since 19 lower Puna of population. So whatever studies were done before that time, our population has gone up. ItÓs the fastest growing area in the State. We have a traffic mess that theyÓve modified several times going into Malama Market. And this other intersection IÓd say itÓs like 150 yards away, with turn lanes, thereÓs no traffic light, thereÓs no, people drive crazy anyway. I mean theyÓre just, they donÓt do the common sense thing. When they get backed up to the traffic they do crazy things. And IÓve seen it. IÓve seen the accidents, IÓve seen the results. And I donÓt want to see any more property damage or injuries on my front door step. If we can avoid it, you know, thatÓs all IÓm saying here. I mean LongÓs Drugs will open, and it will be a good thing for the community. But I think that these improvements to the roads should be implemented before they are allowed to open their doors because they are going to generate a huge amount of traffic. And the first month will be insane; and every month after that. I mean, LongÓs drugs, CVS, they know how much traffic comes through one of their stores. They could tell you. I donÓt. I donÓt have those statistics. But, I mean, if you took the average of LongÓs Drugs Stores from the State of HawaiÒi, and their traffic, you took the Burger Kings and the KFCs and averaged out operations; and, you know, you can get a good idea of what kind of traffic is going to go through these places. And it fits on paper and itÓs going to be a good thing; but without proper traffic mitigation my concern is that there will be unnecessary injury and property damage. WeÓve already had one man lost a leg at the intersection over there by Malama Market and KeaÒau. But, and I thank you for letting me speak this morning. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Metcalf. Any questions? All right, seeing -. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. LetÓs see here. Comments fr Transportation, State of HawaiÒi, itÓs stated that,ÐWe recommend that the County impose the following conditions of approval for the 5-year time extension,Ñ and it goes on to read, ÐImprovements to Route 130 shall include reconnecting Kahakai Boulevard to the southeast bound Route 130 with a right-turn in/right-turn out configuration and providing a dual purpose auxiliary lane on southeast bound Route 130 from Phoa Village to Kahakai Boulevard. This dual purpose auxiliary lane will be an acceleration lane for vehicles turning right on Route 130 from Phoa Village Road, a merge lane for vehicles traveling past Kahak deceleration lane for vehicles turning right into the reopened Kahakai Boulevard. The right-turn 6 EXHIBIT A out from Kahakai Boulevard shall be a channelized acceleration lane with a paved striped island.Ñ You guys feel that this would perhaps address the concerns you have? YEH: Mr. Domingo, if I can kind of respond to that. You know, part of the comments that we made was that it is good that the DOT has now recommenced that. We were, never saw that up until about a month ago. One of the issues that weÓve raised is that the concurrency requirement says that when you have this kind of an issue come before you with these changed circumstances, you really need to have a pretty good traffic impact analysis that provides not only assessment of what the conditions are now or will be, say, five or ten years from now, but also a presentation of what alternative mitigation measures might be. Now it sounds pretty good to us that thatÓs the case. But in the absence of a proper TIAR itÓs very difficult for us to be able to talk in a vacuum. But I will say this, is that even assuming that, you know, we come to the conclusion that that is the best option at this point in time, it still behooves the Commission and the Council to say, okay, that sounds really good, but youÓve got to do it now. DOMINGO: I think this rezoning was acted upon in 1991, thatÓs a long time ago. And certainl within that time until the present many changes have taken place; and the entire picture or major part of the picture has changed from 1991. So what youÓre saying is that a traffic impact analysis should be done, a study should be done, and that the concurrency requirements as provided for in that ordinance be applied to this application so that all the concerns that you folks have expressed can be addressed? Is that what you guys are saying? YEH: ThatÓs correct. And thatÓs, if you take a look at the purpose section of the concurrency ordinance, thatÓs exactly the spirit and intent because it specifically and expressly applies to extension requests. DOMINGO: I can understand also, youÒve mentioned that as you read the ordinance should there had not be an application for extension then all of this wouldnÓt come into the picture. And if they had then built the project and completed the project and met all the conditions, all the deadlines, then they wouldnÓt have been saddled with this whole requirement. YEH: Perhaps. Except I suspect that by, as a result of whatever they needed to do or whatever they needed to do that deal with traffic impact kind of issues, they would have had to talk to the Planning, to Public Works, as well as DOT. Part of the reason that we submitted that letter was to require them to come before this body and the Council, to be able to provide the kind of scrutiny or level of scrutiny that was required given the fact that they had already gone past basically two extensions. Cause if the Commission recalls, this ordinance was adopted in 1991. There was, I believe, another extension in 2000, and then subsequently another extension in 2003. And so the Council in recognizing that when you have these changes and circumstances you then need to reassess what the then existing conditions are. And thatÓs why itÓs good that weÓre now before you having this opportunity to be able to raise these issues. Because if we hadnÓt done that, where would we have been at that time? DOMINGO: Well, as I look at it, if the project was already completed and built and now weÓre faced with this, with this situation, then I would assume the County or the State would have to step in and then through tax payersÓ dollars put in those improvements. 7 EXHIBIT A YEH: IÓm not sure about that assumption. Because even on the plan approval which had an expressed condition that tied that plan approval to compliance with this Ordinance 03-111, that time condition expired there. The time conditions that apply to the construction of the roadway improvements on Kahakai expired a year ago. Not until the Metcalf family said, hey, wait a minute you guys gotta take another fresh look at this thing. We would have a big mess if we werenÓt here, sitting here today and looking at these issues. I guess thatÓs my point. And then the question is should the County and the State have been saddled with those kinds of costs that are triggered as a result of this particular application? WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. Mr. Weatherford, your turn. th WEATHERFORD: Thank you. My name is James Weatherford. I reside at 15-1886 6 Avenue in Hawaiian Paradise Park, KeaÒau. And I have a farm in Phoa, also, and travel through this area at least once a day. As a member of the community, the first question I have to ask Î have the previous conditions been adhered to? And, of course, as itÓs clear they have not, I have to ask why? And it brings to my mind a question as to whether the project has been conducted in good faith with the laws and regulations that our community depends on. This extension request has come late, it has come very late. And, again, itÓs an issue of credibility. And I take issue with the comment by the attorney earlier that this development -- although I donÓt oppose development per se but just another question of credibility -- it was said that residents will have to drive, would have to drive beyond Phoa to get the services provided there. ThatÓs not true. ThereÓs a pharmacy in Phoa, and there are food service establishments in Phoa. So, again, I have to wonder about acting in good faith. The result we see now is there is a real impending calamity of traffic snarl there. I donÓt know if any of you have ever experienced this, but it is really, really quite shocking. ItÓs an issue of safety. And in my understanding it has already impacted the MetcalfÓs business because when the trucks and the cars were jammed up in the construction area there, their customers simply cannot get to their store. If a customer canÓt get to your store theyÓre not going to buy something. And if they donÓt buy something you wonÓt have a store pretty soon. IÓm asking as a member of this community that the Planning Commission do the right thing. You have an opportunity to partially redress the problem. We need conditions here, and at the expense of the developer by the way, for taking care of the traffic problem that will occur. And this needs to be done, of course, prior to the certificate of occupancy, prior to the opening of the commercial development. I look forward to patronizing LongÓs Drugs myself if I need to, and that is not the issue. The issue is that this has not been done right. You have a chance now to redress at least some of it. Please do that. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Weatherford? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, just for information, the Police Department, or what IÓm hearing here now is totally different from what the Police Department has said in response to the request. It said, ÐStaff upon reviewing the provided documents associated with the requested 5-year time 8 EXHIBIT A extension does not anticipate any significant impact to traffic and/or other public concerns.Ñ You know, thatÓs totally different from what IÓm hearing today. WOODWARD: All right, any further questions? KERN: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Kern. KERN: Yes. So I guess weÓre faced, IÓve heard that you want the improvements made before certificate of occupancy; and then IÓve also heard that potentially a TIAR report, a new one. I guess thatÓs kind of a brass tacks -. Like whatÓs the real, I know traffic is an issue there, obviously, and thatÓs the concern. So is it if the conditions were fulfilled prior to the certificate of occupancy would everybody be happy? YEH: I think that would go a long way towards solving or resolving an issue. The reason we point out the TIAR issue is because, you know, if you look at the Ordinance, thatÓs what it requires. I think our position is that, okay, if youÓre not going to require that but recognizing the DOT and after say Public Works did submit comments also saying that traffic mitigation requirements are required, itÓs going to be a big mess. If youÓre at least going to take that position, then require this concurrency. ThatÓs just a given. ItÓs a common sense issue. WOODWARD: Okay. Let me ask a question, and really maybe anyone can answer, but maybe Mr. Yeh you may know more about this. We do actually have a traffic impact analysis report from 2008. What are your comments about that? And IÓve looked through the, we just got it this morning, I guess. YEH: Right. Well, my comments are that, is this, is under the concurrency ordinance the TIAR is supposed to be no older than six months as of the time the application. No. 2, the 2008 report was based on 2006 traffic counts. No. 3, there was no presumpti TIAR that there was going to be a drive-thru at LongÓs, there was no information then existing that there was going to be a KFC and a Burger King. So now knowing what we have there, and the fact that we do in fact have changed conditions between 2006 and 2007, thatÓs kind of my response to why that 2008 TIAR may not be a valid assessment, nor did it provide what we consider to be full-blown set of mitigational alternatives as required under the ordinance, which has a certain set of standards for those kind of reports and assessments. WOODWARD: Well, they had basically four recommendations here for mitigation: One is widening of Kahakai Boulevard approach to Old KeaÒau-Phoa Road. Two, widening of the approach to Highway 130 on Old KeaÒau-Phoa Road. Three, widening of Old KeaÒau-Phoa Road to provide a left-turn lane for traffic entering Kahakai Boulevard. Widening of Old Phoa Road at Kahakai Boulevard, to add a right-turn lane. ThatÓs what they said. YEH: And it didnÓt include the opening into the Bypass. So just an example of being able to take a really hard look at what all those alternatives are. 9 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: Okay. Any further questions? All right, you gentlemen may be seated. WeÓll call the next group of testifiers. We have four more, Gregory Smith, Joyce Folena, I guess itÓs J. O. Sumida, and Jiro Sumada, sorry if I butchered your names but -. Oh, we have one person entered twice. They just spelled the name differently. Okay. All right, if you all will raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today befo Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WOODWARD: Very good. Okay, Mr. Smith, you signed up first. If youÓll give us your name and address, and then you may begin. SMITH: Yes, sir. My name is Gregory T. Smith. I live in the Phoa area, past Phoa, south of Mile Marker 10. My mailing address is Post Office Box 2005, Phoa, HawaiÒi. As a citizen, I have a real question about this development, particularly when it comes to the road infrastructure. Now being just the normal citizen, I assumed in infrastructure. And the problem with this development is not th Mr. Ogasawara worked really hard and wanted to develop his property. I have no problem with that or the businesses whatsoever. I do have a problem when my safety is impacted by a development, IÓm very concerned. Because on that same intersection, the intersection of Old Phoa Road and Highway 130, we were in two near accidents, my partner and I, Joyce, coming within inches of being hit. All right? Now being the dummy that I am, the dumb citizen that I am, I assumed that my County and my state officials will look out after our interests, primarily one being of safety; and roads are safety. The point of the matter is that these, the whole area, the Highway 130 intersection, the Malama Market intersection, and the Kahakai-Old Phoa Road intersection right in front of the, adjacent to both the Longs and Pahoa Auto Parts, are extremely unsafe intersections. On the morning of the tsunami, we had to wait 5minutes. We were thinking like everybody else, oh, weÓre going to run down, get some fuel in case, you know, in case we canÓt get fuel. And we had to wait five minutes to get to that intersection. It was jammed up as the photographs from the MetcalfÓs point out, all the way in to Old Phoa Road down into the OgasawaraÓs gas station. And, according, and we checked it out, yes, there were two accidents that morning on, you know, that morning in four hours, two. So the point of the matter is IÓve, you know, IÓve lived in many different states and there is always a contingency clause in any development and that means, and particularly where I came from in California, you donÓt lay, you donÓt even build the first building unless the road infrastructure is in first. I mean the concrete is laid, thereÓs no promise -. ItÓs there before you start your construction, period. And it has been that way ever since, other states. IÓve lived in eight different states, just to buy that. Okay. This is a disaster ready to happen. And we do, you know, I really appreciate the OgasawaraÓs opening up, you know, Highway 130 to Kahakai. ThatÓs a help. But that is only a little bit of the medication. That just might make the road workable, possibly. But if one ac those intersections, that whole place is gridlocked, period, end of conversation. And if you have serious injury, how the heck are you going to get your emergency vehicles in? Anyway, thank you so much. 10 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Mr. Smith. Do we have any questions for Mr. Smith? Okay, seeing none, Joyce Folena, youÓre next. FOLENA: Thank you, sir. My name is Joyce Folena. IÓve been a r years. My Post Office Box 2046, Phoa, HawaiÒi, 96778. I live south of Phoa. IÓve been there for, gee, almost 11 years. I thank you for the opportunity to s before me, including the attorneys and the representatives of various business establishments, have been very clear in what they said. And IÓm going to add to their testimony with what I feel as a community member and the fact that there is no other route except Highway 130, the Bypass, or Highway 130 at Mile Post 10 entering Phoa Village Road going through Phoa. We have no other routes. We have no other choices. I would like to say I demand something but I have to say IÓd ask for it. But as the citizen of the United States and of the State of HawaiÒi and the County of HawaiÒi, I have an assumption that the first priority is public safety over development profit. And I donÓt have any feelings of animosity towards LongÓs Drugs Store, or Burger King, or Kentucky Fried Chicken, or the developer, or Mr. McElvaney. What I do have terrible, terrible fears about is that if that development opens before Kahakai Boulevard is opened to the Bypass weÓre going to have serious traffic problems augmenting an already seriously hazardous traffic area because of Mile Post 10 receiving that F LOS (level of service) way back in 2006. Because of Malama Market intersection, which I believe is called the KeaÒau-Phoa Old Road intersection with Phoa Village Road, that is an extremely dangerous intersection. In my untrained and civilian attitude Kahakai Boulevard reaching Phoa Village Road, the improvements there are deficient. We need a signal light. There are no additional turn lanes from Ka completed, or constructed to Phoa Village Road. ThatÓs a kind of a little intersection to han the additional traffic that absolutely will be generated when LongÓs Drive-in window capacity and foot traffic opens, when Kentucky Fried Chicken opens and when Burger King opens. We have to make allowances for the additional traffic that will be when this development opens. If they open in November to take a holiday rush, and people make a lot of money, people make tons of money at Christmas, before Kahakai Boulevard is open, I dare say that the liability to the County, the State, and the developer are extremely high. May I have 30 seconds, sir? WOODWARD: All right, sure. FOLENA: Thank you. The guard rail is not in place with an elevation drop with 12 to 13 feet between the border of Phoa Village Road and Woodland CenterÓs property. IÓve spoken to DOTÓs representatives about that, and theyÓve assured me that that is going to be mitigated -- I hope thatÓs what Jiro was talking about in that brief phone call -- and that the guard rail will be in place before they get their certificate of occupancy. ThatÓs a distance from Kahakai Boulevard- Phoa Village Road intersection for approximately, I donÓt know, a few hundred feet, almost half way in my untrained eye, to Mile Post 10. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions? Okay, no. Seeing none, okay, Mr., is it Sumida or Sumada? You were spelled two different ways here. 11 EXHIBIT A SUMADA: Sumada. WOODWARD: Sumada. Okay, if youÓll give us your name and address; and then you may begin, sir. SUMADA: My name is Jiro Sumada. IÓm the Deputy Director for th Transportation, Highways Division. Address is 86, 869 Punchbowl Street in Honolulu. IÓm here today to provide testimony in favor of the time extension for this development. I also have staff with me here too in case there are questions that come up; and IÓll probably ask our Highways Administrator to come up for those questions. Again, the Department supports the time extension request. We also ask the Planning Commission to include the requirement, additional requirement, for the developer to construct a right-in and right-out. Before I address the issue of concurrency, what IÓd like to do is just to provide the Commission some history. The traffic conditions surrounding the development for our State Highways -- namely the Malama Market intersection as immonly referred to, but we classify it as Old Government Road intersection with Highway 130 -- in addition to that intersection, and the County intersection roadways in this devel problems existing right now. Before Mr. Ogasawara initiated his development, they have traffic problems. We know about them. We have projects on the books that are geared at least for State Highways to try and mitigate those traffic concerns. When we were presented with this time extension request I received calls from members of the community, namely Joyce Folena and Greg, expressing their concern that once the Woodland Center opens the existing traffic problems will get worse. And I tend to agree with that, that the traffic concerns will increase. About a month ago, based on some of these phone calls, and it wasnÓt just from Joyce and Greg but from others in the community, we called a meeting. Knowing the timeline that we had for our projects on State Highw traffic concerns, we called a meeting and we met with the County Public Works Department. We brought together our traffic experts from State Highways, the State Highway Traffic Engineer, and also the County Public Works Traffic Engineer. We kind of all sat around in the Public Works Conference Room and we said when the Woodland Cente existing traffic problems are going to get worse. What are some solutions that we can come up with? Forget who owns the road, forget who has to fund the project, what are some solutions? And we came up with one. And that was the right-in/right-out that is going to be constructed by the developer. To provide a right-in/right-out at Kahakai intersection, create an intersection at Kahakai and 130; and I have a drawing thatÓs available for the Commissioners. Once I got agreement from both the County Traffic Engineer and the State Highway Traffic Engineer that the best solution, most immediate solution for this situation was the right-in and right-out at Kahakai, then the issue came up of whoÓs going to do it. Now if, because itÓs a pre- existing condition, the traffic problems in this general area, we recognized that any improvement on the State Highway should be initiated by us. And like I said, we do have projects on the books that deal with traffic concerns in the area. Those projects at this particular time didnÓt address connecting Kahakai to 130. Okay? But when we met with the State and County Traffic 12 EXHIBIT A Engineers, their proposal was to create this right-in/right-out at Kahakai, to connect Kahakai on the mauka side to 130, okay, to address the immediate concerns. Again, so the issue became who was going to fund it and who is going to construct it. If we, State Highways, initiated a project to do that, we anticipate it will take us anywhere from eighteen months to two years to do it. So thatÓs how long our process is of going through design and procurement process to hire a contractor to do the work. Eighteen months to two years, if we had to do it. Then we turned our attention to the developer to see if they would be willing to do it; and if they did it, theyÓd fund it on their own dime, and theyÓd fund the whole thing. No contribution from the State because if we got involved then weÓd enter into a memorandum of agreement, and that would take time also. So the concern about the urgency of the thing drove us to approach the developer, and we met with them a few weeks ago. And they agreed to do this, knowing full well that their responsibility to mitigate the traffic is only for the incremental increase in traffic created by the development. TheyÓre not responsible to fix the pre-existing traffic problem which we know about in State Highways. But they were willing to do this as their contribution to their community. It also helps them as a business because it provides this direct access from the Highway. But, regardless, they were not responsible to pay for the entire thing on their own nickel. Okay? But working with them, they agreed to do it, which we were very appreciative of. Then became the question of how fast can you do it. And the main issue came up that we wanted it done before LongÓs Drugs opened. So then it became, well, how fast can they design it, get it permitted, and start construction. Now we met in June a few weeks ago and at that time the issue was, okay, well, you know what, Jiro, give us six months at least, you know, even if they told the design engineers stay up all night and put double shifts on your draftsman or CAD operator and get it done. Okay, fine, but then now State Highways has to review it, County Public Works has to review the plans. Okay, so weÓre going, weÓre working with them right now to quench down that schedule of our review time needed to get the plans approved. So then again it turns out to be, okay, how soon can they get this done. Now we initially when we met with them, we told them we want it done before LongÓs Drugs opened. Go back and forth about whatÓs reasonable, what can be anticipated as far as how fast they can get bids from three different contractors, to make the whole project work for them. Anyway, they came up with, okay, fine, how about January 2011? ThatÓs how that January date got inputted into the condition. Okay, while all our efforts that weÓre going to do o make sure what our role, weÓre going to turn this project around as fast as we can as far as the design review, and as far as permitting. The goal is still to finish it before LongÓs Drugs opens, this right-in/right-out. Just to be safe to meet the developerÓs request, thatÓs how the January 2011 was put in. So our recommendation is that the Planning Commission recognizes a reasonable construction time to deliver this right-in/right-out thatÓs going to be paid for by the developer to be included in the condition. ThatÓs our recommendation to the Commission. And thatÓs a little history. IÓm sorry for, Mr. Chairman, for exceeding my three minutes but -. WOODWARD: That is okay, Mr. Sumada. Do we have any questions? IÓd like to make one statement. First of all, thank you for two things that we rarely see in government. That is thinking outside the box and problem solving. And I think you have worked to do both; and I applaud you for that. That really makes a difference. It wasnÓwe canÓt do it, or itÓs 13 EXHIBIT A going to take us two years. ItÓs how can we get around all this stuff. Well done. Any questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Sumada, what about the pre-existing conditions that exists today? SUMADA: As previous testifiers had mentioned, the intersection at Government Road and Highway 130 is a major concern for the State Highways. It is a site of a lot of crashes. Due to the way we count these crashes the close proximity of the Malama Market intersection is kind of like counted in that total. The projects that we have on the books in the future are going to look at not just that intersection but theyÓre going to look at the whole four intersection locations all at once to try and figure out whatÓs the long-term solution to make this whole area operate safer and more efficiently, recognizing the businesses and the type of activities that are going on there. So we do have in our plans an effort to makes those types of improvements. And in actuality thatÓs how a lot of the community provided input to me and how m have gotten my cell phone number that they call me about twice a month to remind me that I better hurry up and start making these projects happen. And so, well, we recognize the communityÓs concerns and we are making efforts to accelerate those projects. DOMINGO: ThereÓs no timetable? SUMADA: There actually is a time -. I donÓt have all the different projects that we have. ThereÓs actually about five of them that we have programmed betw first one comes on line maybe 2012; and then the major one that weÓre working with the community on is the KeaÒau-Phoa improvement project. That major project is programmed to be finished in 2018. So we think between 2012 and 2018 there would be about five safety and capacity projects that State Highways will be undertaking. ItÓs just the concern about the Woodland Center Development opening created this urgency that we needed to do something now before 2012. DOMINGO: So these are anticipated improvements that would go far beyond into the future, and taking into consideration the potential growth thatÓs taking place right there? SUMADA: Yes. DOMINGO: And the whole Puna area? SUMADA: Yes. And, in fact, when we analyzed this, if you look at the drawing that I have, the green shaded roadways are the, theyÓre both State and County roads. We didnÓt distinguish them; and we didnÓt have time to differentiate the two. But when you look at it, there are basically four intersections that weÓre dealing with. Okay, the highlighted blue one, thatÓs the new construction that the developer is going to undertake for the right-in/right-out to connect Kahakai to Highway 130, because that connection doesnÓt exist right now. ItÓs a deadend. When we looked at these four intersections to look at the longer improvements, weÓre also going to come up with not only what weÓre going to do on State right-of-ways, thus the KeaÒau-Phoa Highway 130, but weÓre also going to make recommendations on what the County can do on 14 EXHIBIT A their intersections. Now the timing when they can make those improvements, you know, itÓs up to their budget and their CIP Program. But at least there will be a total picture of what needs to be done. WOODWARD: Okay. Any further questions? Commissioner Au. AU: I just have a quick question. And I just want to know whatÓs the projected cost for the developer cause you guys are speeding this up. So IÓm just wondering what the projected cost is, if you guys even have a number. SUMADA: Well, right now, the ballpark figure that we have in talking to their consultant is between $360,000 and $400,000. WOODWARD: Okay. Director Lee. LEE: Mr. Sumada, Ms. Joyce mentioned a conversation with you about putting up a guard rail. Is that, she mentioned that that will be done before the certificate of occupancy is issued. So is this in relationship to the January 2011 date that you referred to have this completed by? SUMADA: You know, I know Joyce mentioned that to me, and I was meaning to get back to her about finding out exactly where this guard rail that sheÓs concerned about is located. And we can have our staff look at it. ItÓs off of Old Phoa Village Road? FOLENA: May I speak? WOODWARD: Yes. FOLENA: The absence of the guard rail is from Kahakai Boulevard intersection with Phoa Village Road. From that corner, sir, all the way a few hundred feet, almost half way, a good 1/3 of the way, between 1/3 and 1/2 to Mile Post 10 mile marker. This section here, Jiro. And there is a notation on the plans of the development in proof, as well te, of a difference of elevation, from the side of Phoa Village Road and the parking lot floor of Woodland Center, a difference of elevation of 12 to 13 feet. My point is that traffic is now traversing using Phoa Village Road, and itÓs a very dangerous situation with no guard rail in place. WeÓd like to know if the developer has plans to put it there. Was that part of the contingency of the developer paying for improvements to that portion of our roadways? And if not, is State going to do it, and when are they going to do it? Because, Mr. Sumada, whom I respect greatly, is involved with this, because thatÓs a State portion of the road, Phoa Village Road. SUMADA: So in response to Mr. LeeÓs question, we can meet with Joyce later and find out exactly whatÓs going to be done, either by the developer or us. LEE: Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any further questions? Okay. All right, these are the people that have signed up to testify. I just want to make sure everybody who wanted to 15 EXHIBIT A testify has had a chance. Okay, we could have the applicant come back if they wanted to respond to any of these statement. Okay, youÓve already been sworn in so -. YAMAMOTO: This is Jerel Yamamoto again. IÓd just like the record to reflect that HNMP did not pick up the property until I think about 2000 or thereabout. Prior to that it was owned by, I think, the Kaneshiro family who was the prior owner of Food Fair Super Market. And it was always the original intent, I think, when they went in for the rezoning to put in essence a super market on that spot. And basically the concept of the development hasnÓt really changed since 1991. A supermarket in Puna, a LongÓs in Puna basically, I mean in terms of relative scale itÓs not that much different. And basically the other thing, part of the reason for the TIAR itÓs, weÓ been working with DOT and Department of Public Works; and I believe that was a requirement of the Department of Transportation to prepare the TIAR back in 2008. And I believe it underwent amendments along the way to address concerns that they wanted. And the four conditions or mitigative measures that the Chairman pointed out were, in fact, the conditions that were originally required of us, and have been done by us already on site or off the property, but basically in terms of Kahakai or Phoa Road, fixing up the intersection a little bit. But basically weÓve done everything that has been required of us by DOT, except for the right-turn in/right- turn out. So, and in terms of the size of the property, you know, I think it needs to be not looked in a vacuum but basically the commercial space -. Basically from the time of the original plan approval in, I believe, 2008, it hasnÓt really changed with the advent of the Longs. Basically it was going to be a village shopping center that had the amount of size that the three building that comprised the LongÓs, the Burger King, and the Kentucky Fried Chicken would be. So in terms of, for a traffic analysis and traffic mitigation basically thatÓs what they look at, you know, in terms of size of commercial space, not whoÓs going in necessarily. ItÓs the size of the commercial space. And, you know, those things were being specifically addressed in the traffic impact analysis report done by the developer in conjunction with review by DOT and Department of Public Works. So itÓs, a lot of what has being done has not been done in a vacuum. I mean weÓve been working with the government agencies to try and address the needs and concerns of traffic and, you know -. So basically, you know everybody to try to address the concerns. A lot of what exists there pre-existed us. You know, part of the dime is the responsibility of the County and the State; and as Mr. Sumada accurately points out, you know, I think when you folks impose conditions i increases. I believe HNMP is willing to, you know, carry their, take their dime and, you know, carry it even further. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any questions? Okay. MCELVANEY: Just to add to that, the TIAR was the first thing that we did in 2008; and the population, and they base those things on population, the amount of traffic and the retail square footage, size. And the retail square footage size at that time, contrary to what we heard, had Burger King and KFC all along in the plan. The only square footage that changed was the Village Center which ended up being LongÓs. So the TIAR reflect population and traffic, thatÓs how we worked it out with SSFM. We submitted that to the DOT. They came back with 47 markups. We corrected all of those things that they asked for and then 16 EXHIBIT A it went back to the DOT. So that has always been in the process; and it was always the first thing we considered. I wanted to add also that the developer, you know, if you look at the ordinance it says access to this property will be from Kahakai Boulevard. The DOT at that time didnÓt make any recommendations for that ordinance. All that was said was that there will be a left-turn out of Kahakai on the Old Phoa Road, and a right turn. So that sounded really simple. So projection on that intersection was about $350,000. Then it said we should have a 50-foot right turn going on to Old Phoa Road. So we needed to extend that right turn. WeÓll, weÓve extended it to a hundred feet; and not only that, we added a full left-turn lane. If you look at that Malama Market intersection, we added a full-right turn, long right-turn lane, that is not there now, well, itÓs there now cause we constructed it already, and then we added a long left-turn lane going out. We widened the Malama Market intersection which is going to help Malama Market but also all the traffic there. Then we added a left Î now this is all in addition to the DOT asking for improvements; and weÓre agreeing for those improvements. We into Malama Market which isnÓt there. It wasnÓt there. We widened the Old Phoa Road and the Kahakai Boulevard Road, and added more lanes. This is all done by the developer. The price keeps going up and up. But weÓve done everything that DOT asked us to do. And in the review process, it took way too long, which is part of the reason that weÓre here now. We could have finished this six months earlier, at least six months earlier. So I just wanted to add those things. And we are totally in support of the Puna Development Plan. We agree that the, all the work that DOT is doing now. We recognize the fact that they could not get back to us on their reviews because they were overloaded with all kinds of airport work and big projects on Oahu and Maui; and our project, you know, sometimes was not the most important thing on the menu. But we do support the community. We do support all of the things that need to be done. WeÓre not arguing with any of it. LongÓs has been another, it was kind of hard getting them all together, but they are actually almost ready for occupancy now. So IÓm thinking that possibly to alleviate this problem maybe we can open this intersection incrementally so we donÓt open all of the stores at the same time. Something like that we can maybe work out. But thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. And we appreciate developerÓs cooperation with the public and State and County. But try address that guard rail, if you recognize the location and how weÓre going mitigate that? MCELVANEY: I, you know, we have to rely on the engineers and the traffic engineers. And that never had, that hadnÓt come up at all. And maybe because this is o speed limit in here. So thereÓs not a high speed problem. But neither the DOT, or County, or SSFM, or EIP, no one had mentioned that. So I, this is the first time I have heard about it. WOODWARD: Director Lee. LEE: Regarding the guard rail situation. So, Mr. McElvaney, as the ownerÓs rep, would you be okay with using the model that Mr. Sumada described earlier on working on that intersection? That will at least address if there is a guard rail problem or, and if thereÓs a guard rail solution. 17 EXHIBIT A MCELVANEY: The way I understand it guard rails are extremely expensive. I know that when thereÓs a wreck, like there has been several times on the corner, sometimes the guard rail gets knocked out, the DOT always puts it in, puts a new one in. But it just keeps on adding up, the expenses. WeÓre going to do $400,000 of improvements that we volunteered to do even though the DOT said they would do it. We recognize if they get overloaded again that two years could go on to four years. So itÓs better for the developer to do it for the communityÓs sake, rather than wait for the DOT to do it. But now adding, I mean, it just goes on and on, the expense keeps adding up. You know, weÓre like this -. I would have to talk with our people and the DOT on that. LEE: The question wasnÓt meant to allude that the owner would be responsible for the cost, but just as a matter of working together as a team to resolve the issue, if there is an issue. WOODWARD: Okay. Any further questions? Okay, thank you, gentlemen. You may be seated. All right, would somebody like to make a motion? Commissioner Domingo, youÓre reaching for the microphone. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. Mr. Chairman, with regards to the Rezoning Bill 698, Paul Ogasawara, amendment to the condition of the Change of zone Ordinance, I move that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council with the proposed amendments attached to it, submitted by the Planning Director. WOODWARD: Very good. Do we have a second? ISHIBASHI: Second. WOODWARD: Okay discussion? Commissioner Kern. KERN: Yeah, point of clarification. Taka, is that including the DOT recommendation? DOMINGO: The right-turn and left-? KERN: Out of -. WOODWARD: ThatÓs Condition E. DOMINGO: I think itÓs already included in their recommendation. KERN: ItÓs all in there, right. Okay. DOMINGO: Yeah. th KERN: And youÓre leaving it at that, at the July 11 deadline? th WOODWARD: January, January 11. 18 EXHIBIT A th KERN: Excuse me, January 11 deadline, yeah. Born and raised Big Island, grew up most of my life in Puna, IÓve been watching that intersection grow for many years. I know who Paul is since I was a little kid, my father used to know him as well. I got great respect for Paul and him doing that development there. I think that needs to be done. Honestly, the whole situation of Puna and development makes me a little bit sad because people want to do things there and itÓs hard to do it because of lack of infrastructure, primarily due to the State Highway. ItÓs a big challenge there. And to think that itÓs going to take another four years for that to occur is disheartening. I have, I mean, IÓm pro development. IÓve been involved in development. Any good developer knows that the, itÓs crucial to know your details, to have a greater understanding on where you stand with the ordinances, with your conditions, with your timetables and with your time frames. I also know that the tenants of most developments would love to get in there prior to the Christmas season. And then you put human life in there, and how that affects their -. And I had a great friend, lose their life at that intersection. And the problem existed there prior to this development going. the problem there. And personally I have a hard time putting off the improvements until, excuse me, allowing certificate of occupancy to occur prior to having the improvements in place. ThatÓs a challenging one for me, and I have a hard time going against t timeframe what happens if some people make or what happens if it gets pushed out? I mean th whatÓs the recourse of that January 11 deadline not occurring? Not a lot. WhatÓs the recourse of people dying there? More so. And I just think thereÓs, you know, thereÓs the cart and the horse and you want to get the horse in front of the cart. And itÓs a challenging one, cause I totally support it. I think itÓs a great thing. I drive in that intersection. It scares the crap out of me. ItÓs a very, very scary intersection; and we need those improvements there. So I have a hard time supporting the measure with allowing occupancy prior to those conditions being met. Thank you. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. Anybody else? Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I have to agree with Commissioner Kern. I believe the developer is trying, from the very start they have been trying. And, you know, just a little bit of history for the Commissioners on this particular project. TheyÓve gone through a lot from the very start of this project with the Department, with the DOT. And back in January they actually had a death on the job at LongÓs Drugs. So, you know, this developer has gone through a lot and they are trying to work with the community, with the State and the County. So I just want to remind the Commissioners before we take a vote. WOODWARD: Okay, anybody else? All right, IÓll throw in my two cents worth here. One thing IÓm certainly, I certainly understand where Commissioner Kern and Commissioner Au are coming from. And the only thing is that this has been a problem that has been there for years; and itÓs a problem thatÓs going to continue. And itÓs a matter of probably minor degrees that itÓs going to change between now and the time that that the remediation is done between 2012 and 2018. The one thing, as I said, I was very impressed that Mr. Sumada had actually gotten involved actively in this and has been using some innovative thinking and has actually adopted problem solving rather than just passing the buck around. And I think the compromise that theyÓve come up with is imminently reasonable. And I think the only thing thatÓs going to make 19 EXHIBIT A a difference in the long term is this significant change in that whole highway system thatÓs going to occur over a six-year period between 2012 and 2018. It sounds like the Department of Transportation is convinced, is happy that the ameliorations and the mitigating factors that have been proposed and that have been agreed to by the developer are going to take care of any incremental change in traffic. And as weÓve said, you canÓt expect the developers to fix the problem that pre-existed. All you can ask for is them not to ma done everything they can. And evidently Mr. Sumada, the Department of Transportation is comfortable with that, that is in fact the case. So I think this one of those situations where there really has been a good faith effort to make this work for the co community as safe as possible, and to think down the road in the long term as far as amelioration in the timeframe of 2012 to 2018. And thatÓs really the only thing thatÓs going to solve the problem. Anything else is just tinkering around the edges, to be honest. So I think theyÓve done a good job. I think theyÓve done as good a job as possible; and I commend Mr. Sumada for his efforts in this. I think theyÓve done the best job they could, given the situation, and to do the best they can to protect the public safety, at least to make sure that the incremental change in traffic does not have an adverse effect. So that would be my take. Any other discussion? KERN: Mr. -. WOODWARD: Commissioner Kern. KERN: Yeah. A quick question. IÓm not sure exactly who to point this to. But what happens if th the improvements are not made to the Kahakai intersection as of , if this gets passed and approved and is moving forward? COTTLE: The ordinance states that the applicant would be required to request an additional time extension from the County Council. WOODWARD: Oh, my. KERN: ThatÓs my point. I mean I support everything about it. But itÓs saying here, you go for it, and weÓll see you back here in a while. Cause I know constra little bit. ItÓs a critical path. Critical path means you take care of everything thatÓs critical to get to the end of it, and all the rest of the stuff you kind of tidy up, you know, punch list as you get there. ThatÓs my sticking point. IÓm not sure if we can do something about that or if any of the Commissioners have any opinion on that. But, really, thatÓs my sticking point right there. ItÓs like I agree with everything but how long does this point out, go down the road? And then weÓve got to submit for a time extension thatÓs got to be processed by the County, which is efficient but then it still takes time, and then weÓve get back to here? ItÓs a process. And meanwhile everything is happening. And, yeah, thatÓs my point; and itÓs a hard one. WOODWARD: Any suggestions, Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, this is the CommissionÓs call. You have existing conditions which have been in the ordinance which basically state that most of the work has to be done prior to receipt of certificate of occupancy for any portion of the development, other than the proposed 20 EXHIBIT A service station and convenience center. So as originally envisioned in the Ordinance 03-111 the service station would be able to get a certificate of occupancy and the convenience center, those are the two things that are there. Anything beyond that cannot get a certificate of occupancy. So if the Commission wants to make amendments, it has to make amendments to those sections. WOODWARD: So youÓre saying that the LongÓs Drugs could not get a certificate of occupancy until this other condition is met? LEITHEAD TODD: I believe the LongÓs Drugs is the convenience center. Mr. McElvaney? MCELVANEY: No. LEITHEAD TODD: No. Okay, then LongÓs, if itÓs not the convenience center, then they cannot get a certificate of occupancy until all the other improvements are done. Because under the current conditions only the proposed service station and convenience center can get a certificate of occupancy. KERN: So, Planning Director, so when itÓs, on Condition E here where it says, slashed out, that Ðprior to receipt of certificate of occupancy for any portion of the developmentÑ is out or gone. And itÓs Ðby January 2011Ñ is put in there? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, but you have to look at Conditions C and D, which the language is not being changed. Yeah? KERN: Uh huh. So how does this language change in Condition E r LEITHEAD TODD: Unless you want to take that language and add to E to kind of reflect what you have in C and D. KERN: And I guess maybe my understanding this is wrong. I mean to me it says through Condition E that they can get certificate of occupancy as long as these other improvements are th made by January 11. LEITHEAD TODD: The other improvements, yeah. This one only refers to the right-turn/right- out on Kahakai. KERN: Just on the Kahakai Boulevard. LEITHEAD TODD: So if you want to have that type of a condition there, then you would need to mirror the language thatÓs in C and D. KERN: Got ya. WOODWARD: All right. PUBLIC: May I -. 21 EXHIBIT A WOODWARD: IÓm sorry. WeÓre deliberating on the motion so we canÓt take your testimony. Any further discussion by the Commissioners? Okay, letÓs take a vote. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before you is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Kanalua. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: And Commissioner Kern? KERN: Kanalua. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes five-zero. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. I think we had a very good discussion. And your request will be forwarded with a favorable recommendation to County Council. The discussion ended at 10:47 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 22 EXHIBIT A