Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-04 TNST PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 4, 2006 NST DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ 06- A regularly advertised hearing on the application by 000043) was called to order at 1:26 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Rene’ Siracusa Fred Galdones Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita Jeffrey McCall Alvin Rho Allen Salavea Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 6 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: NST DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ 06-000043) Change of Zone for 22,900 square feet of land from a Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to an Industrial-Commercial Mixed – 20,000 square feet (MCX-20) district. The property is located along the north side of Lanikaula Street, approximately 112 feet from the st Lanikaula Street – Laukapu Street intersection, Waiakea House Lots, 1 Series, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-36:64 and 134. ALAMEDA:Agenda Item No. 6, NST DEVELOPMENT, LLC (REZ 06-000043). Staff? HAYASHI:Going to the presentation map, the subject property is indicated by this blue dot; and it’s situated on the north side of Lanikaula Street.Lanikaula Street, this is heading toward Kanoelehua Avenue; and this would be in the Kilauea Avenue direction. This particular roadway heading north and south is Kanoelehua Avenue. This would be toward the Puna direction, and this would be toward the north. The Seawind property that we earlier discussed for a time extension is located at this particular location. It is approximately one lot away from the Kanoelehua Avenue –Lanikaula Street intersection. This particular property indicated in gray, which is zoned for Limited Industrial, houses complexes including the Sputnik Bakery and Okazuya, as well as Affordable Catering and Punahele Bakery; and that’s at this location. That was rezoned a few years back. 1EXHIBIT C Just as a matter of information, the Commission recently reviewed the rezoning request by Ivan Mochida; and that particular property is located here along the west side of Laukapu Street. Going to the overall site map, the applicant intends to rezone the property. There are two properties involved. First there is this property that is a flag lot. This is, again, Lanikaula Street. The property in the back has an existing building on the property. And what the applicant intends to do is to construct a new 5,000 square foot building; and both of these buildings will be used for office use for engineering practices. The proposal is to provide parking alongside the building fronting the proposed 5,000- square foot building, as well as parking along the western boundary of the property. The existing building is one story in height and the proposed building will also be one story in height. Based on the applicant’s representation, the proposed use would be limiting the hours of operation from 8 to 5, Monday to Friday; and the estimated cost of development would be approximately $800,000. As I indicated earlier, access to the property would be from Lanikaula Street. The current General Plan designation for the property is Industrial. The surrounding land uses, as I indicated earlier, includes certain Industrial and Commercial uses, as well as Single Family Residential uses bordering the property. There is also a doctor’s office that was granted by a use permit in this general location to Dr. Lee Ching. Lanikaula Street has a 50-foot right-of-way with approximately a 20-foot wide pavement with a graveled shoulder. The applicant intends to connect to the County sewer system. We did receive a letter earlier, which all of you received a copy of as part of your packet from Patricia Toyama and Victoria Abe, requesting that the request be denied; and today we received another letter from Miriam Hamakawa. Her address is listed at 1142 Puhau Street, also expressing similar concerns as the letter filed by Patricia Toyama and Victoria Abe. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the request subject to conditions. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Any questions for Norman on the Background Report? No? Okay, will the applicant or representative please come forward. Good afternoon. TAMIMI:Good afternoon. ALAMEDA:Will you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TAMIMI:Yes. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record. TAMIMI:Nimr Tamimi, mailing address PO Box 4159, Hilo. 2EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Okay. Did you get a chance to look at the County Department’s Background/Recommendation report? TAMIMI:Yes, I did. ALAMEDA:And do you have any questions or concerns about it? TAMIMI:No, not at this time. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, do you have any questions for the applicant? Okay, seeing none, you may be seated. We do have testimony. Is there a Miriam Hamakawa? HAMAKAWA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Please come forward. Good afternoon, Ms. Hamakawa. HAMAKAWA:Good afternoon. ALAMEDA:We did get a copy of your letter. HAMAKAWA:Well, that’s my testimony. ALAMEDA:Can you please raise your right hand. I’ll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? HAMAKAWA:I do. ALAMEDA:Okay, could you please state your name and address for the record. HAMAKAWA:My name is Miriam Hamakawa and I live at 1142 Puhau Street, Hilo, Hawaii. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Hamakawa. HAMAKAWA:My sisters and I own our family property at 757 Laukapu Street which is 100 feet from the rear of the NST Development property at 455 and 459 East Lanikaula Street. We have several concerns regarding the NST Development application for rezoning from RS-10 to MCX-20. We are already experiencing flooding on our property resulting from surface water runoff originating along Lanikaua Street and flowing down Laukapu Street and into our driveway which is the lowest point along the way. This water then accumulates along the side of our property endangering our living quarters, which is 3 feet below grade. This development would increase the paved area on the property as well as the sidewalks fronting the development on Lanikaula Street resulting in drastically decreasing the area for natural occurring ground 3EXHIBIT C drainage. Pavement also increases the height of the ground causing water to flow into the surroundIng properties. We are afraid that more water from the development would drain into the back neighboring properties and eventually into the back of our property. This would compound the flooding problem we are already experiencing from the front of our property during times of heavy rain. While we realize County Code requires water run off on the property to be caught on site, we have observed that this is not always the case. Our concern stems from our observations that there is a drywell in the parking lot at the corner of Lanikaula and Laukapu Streets, which does not prevent rainwater run off. The water flowing down its driveway results in ponds on the County road and the neighboring property. What assurances do we have that the design and placement of the storm drains for the NST Development will do the job they are intended to? At present, from the rear of our house we have a clear view of the existing single story building on the NST property that is 100 feet away. This is bordered by single family dwellings on all three sides. We feel that the MCX-20 zoning would not be compatible with the neighborhood. Most of the commercial enterprises listed as being within 600 feet of the property are in the Industrial area on the other side of Lanikaula or closer to Kanoelehua or Manono Streets. We did not realize that the commercial development on the Puna corner of Laukapu and Lanikaula was zoned MCX. Designating the NST Lanikaula property at MCX would open the door to further Industrial/Commercial encroachment into a neighborhood which is primarily residential. We feel that CN, also known as Neighborhood Commercial Districts, or RCX, also known as Residential/Commercial Mixed Use Districts, would not close the door on possible future residential use of the property, while allowing a business such as a consultant engineering firm to operate. We are very fearful that the MXC-20 designation will open a Pandora’s Box for the future, allowing future developers to build anything in the MXC-20 list, without regard for the residents in the neighborhood. Lanikaula Street may be in the commercial corridor for the proposed General Plan, but we want the MCX designation to be kept to the other side of Lanikaula and Kanoelehua Streets. We oppose this rezoning request from RS-10 to MCX-10 and look to you the Hawaii County Planning Commissioners to support us by denying the MCX-20 request. Thank you very much for your time. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Ms. Hamakawa. Fellow Commissioners, you have any questions for Ms. Hamakawa at this time? Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:Not so much the testifier, but maybe more for the Director. And that would be with regard to Condition H. And within Condition H it’s not a requirement, but we do say if required by the Department of Public Works a drainage study would be conducted. And I think her concerns can be mitigated if the edge of the parking lot or pavement impermeable surfaces is higher on her end and, you know, the water forced to drain within the drywells within the property. And seeing that this property is only like a little over 20,000 square feet combined, it would seem like it could be mitigated. But I’m not an expert; and I’m wondering if you could 4EXHIBIT C share with us whether you think that’s possible. And then if it is, then should we then require a drainage study to be rather than leave it for determination by DPW? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:I don’t have any problem with requiring a drainage study. I think that the Department of Public Works as a matter of practice when this building comes in there will be civil drawings that come with the building, and the civil drawings have to show that drainage is directed into a drywell or drywells on site. And it will have to be accompanied by engineering calculations that show that this can take care of a 10-year one hour storm, that means it will take enough water that would fall in the greatest rainfall expected in a ten-year period in an hour. That’s something like, I think for Hilo it’s something like 3 inches of rain in an hour; and that is what they would require. But if you want to say that they shall submit a drainage study to DPW I don’t have a problem with that, certainly. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners, any questions for Mrs. Hamakawa? IWASHITA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Is this a question for Mrs. Hamakawa or the Director? IWASHITA:Director. ALAMEDA:Okay, any questions for Mrs. Hamakawa? I have a question, that’s why. Mrs. Hamakawa I see two addresses. So the 1142 Puhau Street -? HAMAKAWA:That’s where I live. ALAMEDA:That’s where you live. And the 757 Laukapu -? HAMAKAWA:It’s the one that we own the property. ALAMEDA:You own the property. So, but, anybody lives on the property? HAMAKAWA:Yes. ALAMEDA:You or your sisters? HAMAKAWA:No, no, none of us live there. It’s rented. ALAMEDA:Okay, so you folks don’t live there. HAMAKAWA:Yes, but we’re very concerned about the neighborhood. ALAMEDA:Okay, okay. All right, I just wanted to clarify that cause I see two addresses. All right. 5EXHIBIT C HAMAKAWA:That’s to show the part ownership. ALAMEDA:Okay, okay, I appreciate that. Any other questions for our testifier? Okay, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Thank you. Ms. Hamakawa, in your comments you say that Commercial- Neighborhood or RCX Residential Commercial zoning that that would be acceptable? HAMAKAWA:I beg your pardon? IWASHITA:That that would be acceptable, that those two would be acceptable to you? HAMAKAWA:Yes, yes, we feel that that should be better than the MCX-20. Because the MCX-20 I understand they can build whatever they want build, and it would not revert back to Residential, is what we’re concerned about. IWASHITA:Okay. So I take it you’ve looked at the Zoning Code and looked at the list of things that can be done. So the list of things that can be done in -. HAMAKAWA:It’s very scary. IWASHITA:In CN or RCX, those are acceptable; but those in MCX that you don’t want all of those uses if possible? HAMAKAWA:Yes. IWASHITA:Thank you. HAMAKAWA:We would rather have that than -. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita for that clarification. Any other questions for Ms. Hamakawa before we let her go back to sit down? Thank you so much for coming, Mrs. Hamakawa. HAMAKAWA:Well, thank you very much for listening to me. ALAMEDA:No problem. You may be seated. Could we invite the applicant’s representative back up at this time, Mr. Torigoe? Or can we engage in discussion first and then invite the applicant back up? TORIGOE:Well, normally you allow the applicant to come up and respond to whatever testimony was given by the public, right? ALAMEDA:Yeah, could you please step forward again. I wanted to give you a chance to respond to our testifier before we start going into a discussion and having questions at all. You’ve heard Mrs. Hamakawa. Do you have any feedback, comments for us, or reactions? 6EXHIBIT C TAMIMI:I guess from what I understand there are really two issues. One is flooding or water runoff and the second issue is the zoning issue or the type of zoning that’s being applied for. As far as the first issue on the water run off, the existing conditions are occurring as is, I mean, or this development has nothing to do with it because nothing has happened yet. So whatever flooding that’s occurring is occurring due to whatever development was there, whether it’s Residential or Commercial, whatever. As part of the requirements of the rezoning, we’re required to put on-site drainage as part of the development. The second issue is that what we’re effectively doing is taking about ½ acre out of this water stream; because if done properly, which it should be based on engineering calculations, all the water developed on site should stay on site, which would remove about ½ acre again of land that may contribute in addition to flooding. In addition to that the property is in a low place so a lot of runoff from Lanikaula does already come onto the property. So they’ve got large ponds on the front of the property already. I’m not sure typographically whether this property is higher than the Laukapu Street property or not, but it is relatively flat there; and we are on the lower side of Lanikaula Street. So, again, those are, I guess, my responses to the issue regarding the flooding or the water runoff. The isues regarding the zoning part is that corridor of Lanikaula Street through the General Plan is slated as Industrial. I understand that, I don’t know if the revisions were done or they have not yet been done yet, but the line that separates Industrial versus Medium Density is right at the back of the property. So my understanding was areas around the existing property or the current property was already designated as Industrial, but now it’s being pulled back and becoming Medium Density again. So in the wisdom, I guess, of the Planning Department the demarcation was the back of this particular property. So it was never pulled out again. It stayed as it was directed to in the recent change. As far as uses of the property it stayed as Industrial. And then looking at MCX, it seemed like a common type zoning for Industrial. You know, we’re looking at putting an engineering office but, you know, I don’t know what’s going to happen 20 years or more down the line. I mean that whole area may turn into an Industrial area. If it does, whether I’m the owner of it or not, somebody would have to go through the rezoning process one more time. Again, the initial intent right now is to make an engineering office instead of having to go through rezoning over and over again as things change or as time change; and in general everything I read states that that entire area is slated to go into Industrial or some type of commercial anyway. The thoughts or the ideas of it reverting back to Residential, I think, are probably not going to happen. As far as different zoning options, I mean, I’m willing to entertain that. I’m not stuck on MCX but I just figured, you know, we’ll just do it once and for all and be done with it. So if there are compromises to be taken, I’d be more than willing to look at those compromises. ALAMEDA:Okay, thank you. Now back to our discussion, or maybe questions for our applicant. I wanted to go to Commissioner Graham and then come over to you Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I was just following up on what Commissioner Iwashita asked Ms. Hamakawa before and also what you’re speaking to about zoning. Are these other suggested zonings, Neighborhood Commercial and RXC, would they be appropriate zonings for the type of development that he plans to do now? 7EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Director? YUEN:Well, I’m afraid not because the GP designation is Industrial, so one of the Industrial Zonings, ML, MCX, MG would be the range really. And so both in RCX and CN are zonings that permit residential use. The Industrial does go up along Lanikaula Street. I’m not sure how far it ends, it ends a block or two past this. ALAMEDA:Norman, Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Yes, the Industrial goes up to this location here; and so anything this side of where I’m drawing the line is within the area designated for Industrial. YUEN:Yeah, there’s an Industrial designation in the General Plan that’s, I think, one lot deep or two lots deep along Lanikaula Street. HAYASHI:In certain areas it will be two lots; but generally one lot, because the line is here. YUEN:So on either side of Lanikaula Street. So your range of possible zonings doesn’t include your Neighborhood Commercial or the RCX. GRAHAM:And so historically like as I remember that whole area used to be Medium Density Urban, and then it got changed just a couple of years ago maybe to High Density Urban. And now with this latest round of revisions, you’re splitting that High Density Urban into Medium Density Urban and an Industrial, is that correct? YUEN:No, in the 1989 General Plan the Industrial went up Lanikaula Street from Kanoelehua, not quite as far. I think it went up maybe two blocks less; but it was also a narrow band on both sides; and it went up farther on the south side of Lanikaula Street. And that’s why on one side of Lanikaula Street you have all these Light Industrial buildings. And then on both sides of Lanikaula Street toward Kanoelehua you have Light Industrial or Commercial type buildings; and then they stopped like short of where this property we’re looking at today. So the 2005 change to the General Plan moved the Industrial up a short, like two blocks up Lanikaula Street from where it had been on that one side, on the north side of Lanikaula Street. Then within Waiakea Houselots going north from Lanikaula Street toward Kekuanaoa part of that area was changed from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban in the 2005 General Plan. And then the part that’s closer to the Kanoelehua like along Kalanikoa Street was changed to Industrial. I have an Interim GP Amendment which went through this body a couple of months ago and went to Council Planning Committee just earlier this week that would take the Industrial on Kalanikoa Street and change that to Medium Density Urban. So if that goes through then again along Lanikaula Street is not going to change; but then going in from Lanikaula Street it will be all Medium Density Urban instead of having this other Industrial area. To complete the picture another one of the Interim GP Amendment is a text amendment that’s meant to give some guidance to how this whole Waiakea Houselots area that is Medium Density Urban now, not 8EXHIBIT C counting this Industrial part we’re talking about today, but how the Medium Density Urban part should be developed and to give some guidance for the Planning Commission, the Council and private applicants in the future. And the amendment says that the commercial uses should be directed along the main streets, which it identifies as Lanikaula Street, which is as you see already a street that has a lot of Commerical and Industrial activity on it now, Kekuanaoa Street, which is a main street going from the airport into town, Piilani Street which is already a street that’s largely Commercial (it’s across from the Civic auditorium parking lot) and Manono Street, which is another street, where there has been a fair amount of commercial activity and development over the years. And then it says that the development on the other streets should be primarily Residential. And the concept here is that the main streets that I identified you would encourage businesses more to go to those streets which already carry a high load of traffic, whereas a side street like Laukapu Street or Hinano Street you would encourage to be more Residential. That’s the idea behind the text. Because the Medium Density you can have Commercial, you can have Multi-Family, you can have a wide range of possible zonings. So that was the picture that this, or the direction that this amendment is intended to give. GRAHAM:Thank you. I remember better now. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Graham. Any questions for the applicant, or -? Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. IWASHITA:Just a clarification. ALAMEDA:Okay. IWASHITA:So my understanding of the net result of your comments is that this MCX is like the lowest possible Industrial use, I don’t know if lowest but can only consider Industrial -. YUEN:Well, it’s the most commercial. Of the three, it has more Commercial- type elements, in the MCX compared to ML or MG. IWASHITA:And the CN or RCX are not allowed, period? YUEN:Right, they would not be consistent with the General Plan. IWASHITA:Well, but can we not do it anyway? YUEN:No, the zoning has to be consistent with the General Plan. IWASHITA:Well, can’t we like do it conditioned upon changing the General Plan? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:When this came up before, we had the situation come up where there was a pending General Plan Amendment and we did process the, and I’m talking about the Big Island Candies rezone, we did process the rezone slightly ahead of the GP Amendment, but there was a 9EXHIBIT C pending GP amendment. And after some discussion, we were advised by Corp. Counsel that it would be better not to take final action, after it went through the Planning Commission, the advice was it would be better not to take, to act on, for the Council to act on the General Plan Amendment before the rezoning. And I have to say though that we do not have a pending General Plan amendment in this location. ALAMEDA:I wanted to see if we could move into discussion by allowing the applicant to sit down. But first I wanted to make sure we don’t have any more questions for the applicant before we start moving into discussion. Seeing no further questions, you may be seated. TAMIMI:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, I know you’re thinking, and you were going to say? IWASHITA:Again, the implementing part of the General Plan makes it clear that Community Development Plans are to be done in order to implement the provisions of the General Plan. And we only have old community development plans, old ones which get discredited all the time because they’re old and they differ from the existing. There’s conflict between the General Plan and the old development plans. And the old development plans are resolutions, they’re not binding law and all of that. But, again, because, as the Director said, our decisions should follow, you know, it really should be long-range decisions and shouldn’t be these, you know, these people are entitled to do what they want to do now kind of perspective. Again, the Community Development Plan as by law required to implement the general designations of the General Plan, in my mind, reinforces the need to get those done and not do these piece-meal. Because in the end, in going through the Community Development Plan process, if the net result is well some things really need to be changed and we should have General Plan Amendments in order to make things fit the way we want it to fit -- you know, like in this case where on the record we have an owner saying I’d rather have CN and the applicant is saying, well, I’ll consider that; but because of the GP designation we can’t even consider it today, not allowed. Right? And that’s understood, and that’s the law, and that’s how it has to be -- to me those circumstances really focus on the need to get the community development plan done. Because, otherwise, I don’t think there’s any dispute that just relying on the General Plan designations is not going to get us anything different from what Oahu has, from what Maui has; and we’re going on the same road to this broad, you know, sprawling kind of development that’s going to basically take away our lands as we know them today, you know, turn a lot of them into strip malls and most of them into subdivisions and create, you know, just augment the kind of traffic problems that we’re experiencing already today in certain parts of the island. And, you know, I guess my sense is that these kinds of concerns somehow get lost in trying to address these specific applications. But I hope that we come to realize more and more that this is what’s happening and we really as a, hopefully as a body, you know, can try and do something to get the community development plans going, because that’s the only thing different that we have from Oahu and Maui. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Point of clarification for the Director. So just for my own understanding, so we have the General Plan that in this particular case Industrial can take three different shapes, and what is being proposed is another shape that’s 10EXHIBIT C not really under Industrial; and so even if the community folks get together and say, hey, let’s figure out how to make sense of this General Plan, the community folks would still have to be under the auspices of the General Plan. So even if we do get together as a community or the community does get together they would still have to work under the confines of the General Plan; and right now it’s Industrial. So the Community Plan cannot go outside and trump the General Plan, correct? YUEN:Well, it would require an amendment to the General Plan if the Community Development Pan wanted to contradict the General Plan. ALAMEDA:Okay. YUEN:To actually contradict it. ALAMEDA:Yeah, okay, that makes sense. All right, any other questions? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I’m ready to make a motion, if that’s okay. ALAMEDA:Go ahead. WATANABE:Let’s see. I move that a favorable recommendation for Change of Zone application (REZ 06-000043) be forwarded to the County Council based on the Director’s recommendation, however, with revisions to Conditions H, which “if required” is removed from the, I guess, that’s the second sentence. And so the second sentence would read, “A drainage study shall be prepared and submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of final plan approval.” GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Salavea, discussion then? SALAVEA:In this instance, I have reservations about approving this zoning for the area, only because there are a lot of residents on that side of the street and the nature of the neighborhood is still more, well, it’s a mixed, it’s hodgepodge. But the residents on that side of the street still has to count for something. And I’m not sure which way I’m going to vote, so I’d like to hear some feedback from Fellow Commissioners as to their perspective on this particular application. I think I know where Commissioner Iwashita stands; but I’d like to hear from other Commissioners if that was possible. IWASHITA:I’m the low hanging fruit. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Iwashita is the low hanging fruit. Is there any high hanging fruit that would like to -? Commissioner Watanabe, do you have any responses for Commissioner Salavea on that? 11EXHIBIT C WATANABE:The way I kind of looked at this is even the testifier, Ms. Hamakawa, felt that the proposed use is okay with her, she was hoping that she could possibly limit future uses. I realize it’s an entitlement but I’m at the same time fairly comfortable that the applicant is going to go ahead with the proposed use. So I think in that respect, Ms. Hamakawa won’t be opposed to this particular structure that will come up. She was more opposed to the zoning and whether, you know, 20 or 30 years from now something else would come up. That said, I think her other concern was the flooding, and I use flooding rather loosely because it in some respects maybe it’s more ponding or collecting of water. And according to her testimony it seems like it’s already affecting her. I’m not sure if this development would help in any way, but I’m thinking that by requiring a drainage study we would be doing the most we could as a Commission to try and insure that the water will indeed be contained on the subject property; and I don’t know how much else you could do other than that. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I’m generally in favor of this application. I have some serious concerns about the flooding issue. I know that there is a problem for a number of parcels in that area with water coming off of Lanikaula, I think. But I do feel that this development could very well actually improve the situation and take care of at least some of the local ponding of water by doing the drainage study and the probably, at least as I think the applicants are at least taking a half acre of area, controlling the runoff from that half acre of area with drywells. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Salavea, do you need any more Fellow Commissioners to share their perspective to help you get a sense of where you’re going to go? GRAHAM:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Okay, we’ve got another one. Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Well, overall I feel very much like Commissioner Salavea feels. And the only thing that’s sort of kind of inclining me to vote in favor of this application is that the Planning Director has put a lot of energy into dealing with this whole area in Hilo and when that Interim General Plan Amendment did come up before us a couple of months ago we could have at that time said, well, we’d like to have this side of the street stay in the Medium Density and not in the Industrial; and we didn’t do that.And probably the reason we didn’t do it is because there was so much going on we had to just deal with what we could. But still it was the opportunity and we didn’t. And so since this conforms to the General Plan, I’m more inclined to go along with it even though I certainly feel the same way he does. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Salavea, you’re satisfied? SALAVEA:If that’s the amount of testimony we can get from the Commission, I’m satisfied. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Was the motion made -? 12EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Yes, Mr. Chair. Motion was made by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner Galdones. ALAMEDA:Any further discussion? IWASHITA:I have an amendment. ALAMEDA:A proposed amendment? IWASHITA:Yeah. ALAMEDA:Okay, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Can I discuss it before I make it? ALAMEDA:Sure. Why don’t you share kind of what’s on your mind. IWASHITA:I know we’ve done this I think only once before. But given the testimony we have today, both from the applicant and from Ms. Hamakawa, I think it would be appropriate in this particular situation to specify certain uses in MCX that would not be allowed on this zoning change. And I would suggest that, I’m assuming the concerns of Ms. Hamakawa may include such uses as No. 6 Bars and nightclubs, No. 20 Food manufacturing and processing, No. 24 Manufacturing, processing and packaging establishments, light, No. 41 Self-storage facilities, No. 42 Telecommunication antennas, No. 47 Warehousing, No. 48 Wholesaling and distribution operations. And the other uses appear to be more along the lines of basically commercial lesser kind of uses. So I would suggest an amendment that would delete those uses from this particular zoning change. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, there’s a motion made by Commissioner Iwashita to amend the earlier motion. Let me ask Mr. Torigoe, do we need to vote on that motion by Commissioner Iwashita? TORIGOE:Was it a motion at this point? He was discussing it -. ALAMEDA:Was it a motion or a discussion item? IWASHITA:Well, I brought it up. I’ll make the motion. WATANABE:I think we already have a motion though. ALAMEDA:So we have a motion on the table -. WATANABE:That was seconded. ALAMEDA:Let’s check this out procedurally with our Corp. Counsel. 13EXHIBIT C IWASHITA:Mr. Chair, let me translate it properly. I move that the main motion be amended so that the change of zone to MCX would delete under Section 25-5-132 permitted uses those uses I enumerated in my discussion earlier. And that would be an amendment to the main motion. ALAMEDA:There’s an amendment to the main motion on the floor right now made by Commissioner Iwashita. Is there a second? Seeing none, motion dies. Back to our original motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Any discussion on that? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. And the motion is to recommend approval with amendment to Condition H by deleting “if required” on the second sentence. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair? ALAMEDA:Aye. 14EXHIBIT C HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You will be informed in writing of this decision. Thank you for coming. The discussion ended at 2:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 15EXHIBIT C