Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-04 TASSOC. PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 4, 2006 ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by OWNERS OF LANIKAULA PROFESSIONAL CENTER (REZ 06-000040) was called to order at 10:31 a.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 8 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: ASSOCIATION OF APARTMENT OWNERS OF LANIKAULA PROFESSIONAL CENTER (REZ 06-000040) Change of Zone for 33,806 square feet of land from a Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to a General Commercial – 20,000 square feet (CG-20) district. The property is the site of the existing Lanikaula Professional Center located at the corner of Kilauea Avenue and Lanikaula Street, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-28:31. ALAMEDA:Moving right along, Agenda Item No. 3, Association of Apartment Owners of Lanikaula Professional Center. This is a rezoning request, 06-000040. Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. The subject property, there are several red dots on the map so I’ll just point to the correct one. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAYASHI:First of all, this is Kilauea Avenue. This would be going towards the Puna direction, and this is going towards downtown Hilo. This is Lanikaula Street going towards the east, and this would be in the west direction. The subject property is located at this particular intersection of Kilauea Avenue and Lanikaula Street. As the Commissioners may recall, we EXHIBIT B 1 recently heard the application by Janice Oshiro to do a similar rezoning on the adjacent two properties at this particular location. There also was the Takase rezoning next to the Mormon Church. This would be the Mormon Church property at this particular location, and there currently is a two-story structure recently constructed; and if you’ll see there’s also a sign that says “Merrill Lynch” on the top. The Applicants, back in 1994, received a Use Permit from the Planning Commission to allow a medical and dental facility at this particular location. The current building has four separate units and these were condominimized. There are three dentists located in this particular building and one doctor or dental facility, excuse me, a doctor. Currently, there are a number of parking stalls on the property. Based on the site plan, there are approximately 36 parking stalls, including two handicapped stalls. Access to the property is from Lanikaula Street at this particular location. The Applicant does not intend to construct any additional access from Kilauea Avenue. The basic purpose of this zone change is to allow the Applicants in the future to possibly lease or sell their units for other uses, for uses other than medical and dental facility. While there are no immediate plans to either lease or sell these units at this particular time, the rezoning will give the Applicants the option to do so in the future. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the zone change and there are some conditions that are also being recommended for consideration. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Okay. Fellow Commissioners? How about Commissioner McCall and then Commissioner Graham. MCCALL:Yeah, my question is on, okay, this has a Use Permit from ’94. I was of the opinion that Use Permits were only allowed in Ag designations. HAYASHI:No. MCCALL:Is that -? HAYASHIYeah, these are different. The Ag, those are Special Permits to allow certain uses not allowed within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Now within the County’s Single-Family Residential-zoned District, which the property is currently zoned, there are certain uses that may be allowed, provided that they get a Use Permit from the Planning Commission. And that’s specifically or specified in the Code as to the type of uses that may be processed by a Use Permit. Similarly, we recently processed a Use Permit for a crematory or cremation facility in Kailua-Kona within an area that is zoned for Commercial which is not permitted. However, the Code says that you could have this type of use provided the Use Permit is obtained from the Planning Commission. MCCALL:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT B 2 GRAHAM:Norman, I was kind of wondering about the time constraints on this. It seems like we have, you know, similar zoned properties adjacent, and this owner is suggesting that what they really want to do is be able to have a broader range of office use other than medical; and, yet, we put a condition in here like Condition B,” Final Plan Approval for a new structure shall be secured within five years.” So it seems to me like in that case if, even though we change it to CG-20 and they go ahead and do what they say, which is maybe lease a couple of offices to some different people, that once five years passes, they can’t do anything else on their property that conforms with the CG-20 zoning because they’ve blown the five-year requirements. And then they’re going to have to come back and ask for an amendment to their zoning ordinance. So it almost feels, to me, like, you know, if it’s appropriate that it’d be CG-20 then we just do it and don’t throw that five-year constraint on them. HAYASHI:Well, basically, what it states, although they don’t intend to construct any new buildings on the property, if they, in the future, if they decide to provide, say they demolish this structure and wanted to put a new one on there, then they would have to do it within five years. That’s basically what that particular condition states. GRAHAM:Right. And I’m wondering why are we wanting them to do it within five years if they choose to do it in the future. HAYASHI:I guess this is a standard condition that we require for any property that is currently vacant or if someone wanted to demolish an existing structure and put up a new structure. GRAHAM:Right, which is now what they want to do in this case. HAYASHI:This is the representation that they’re making at this point in time, but perhaps that could be deferred to the Applicant as to is there any future plans to demolish that building. GRAHAM:Okay. ALAMEDA:That’s a good question. YUEN:You know -. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:It is a normal condition for a vacant structure. But I think, as written, it does have the effect that you, 20 years from now, couldn’t tear down the building and build a new building; and I don’t think it’s a condition that we should have for an existing building. And I also, then, I don’t think that a progress report is necessary under Condition H; and if we actually delete B, then there’s no need for I, as far as I can tell, ‘cause there would not be any time condition. Because the Applicant could just, if the zoning is granted, they could just keep their building as is, keep all their tenants as is, and we wouldn’t have any objection to that. So we’re not really relying on them to do anything. EXHIBIT B 3 The reason we have the Final Plan Approval as a trigger is so that sometimes people get zoning and they don’t do anything with it; and if they haven’t actually done anything with it, then at a certain time it can be re-evaluated rather than just going on forever. So that’s the purpose for having time conditions. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, I think your comments triggered more discussion. Are you okay with the Director’s response? GRAHAM:Yeah, I think he sort of picked up what I was thinking and I’m good with that. And the only kind of quarrel area I would have with that is so if we’re saying that this is appropriate zoning, we don’t need to put those conditions on.And the only other thing I was thinking is when the rezoning ordinance went in on the next door property or something, if there was any particular conditions on that that were there for a public purpose that we might want to also impose here, it would be nice to know that. But I don’t know that specifically. Maybe Mr. Hayashi would know, you know, like a height limit or anything like that that we should at least consider. ALAMEDA:Norman? Let me check. WATANABE:Maybe I can respond to that. ALAMEDA:Okay. Go ahead. Commissioner Watanabe, go ahead. WATANABE:Yeah, on the Oshiro property we did place a height limit on it. We placed, I believe it was 45 feet or something; and I think more specifically it was stated as a residential height limit; and I was thinking about that as I read through this application. On the other hand, if you reviewed the application, you’ll find that this building was built in 1997; and, you know, with that in mind, the expected economic value of this building would be, or economic life of this building would be quite long, you know, probably 40-45 years. But by that time it is more likely that the residents who are living immediately behind that building, those structures, it’s likely that all of that area will change. So I don’t know that we would need to impose that condition on it, because what I’m thinking is it won’t be a concern in the future. And then it might come right back to what you said, are we saying that now they have to come back at a later date, even though we put the zoning in, you see. So I thought about that, you know, whether you want to be consistent or not. But given the age of the building and, you know, the apparent maintenance of the building, I just don’t see where someone would spend that much money and raise the building to build a taller structure. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner McCall, you had something? MCCALL:No. ALAMEDA:No. Commissioner Graham, any response? GRAHAM:Just maybe Planning Director’s read on what Mr. Watanabe said and my concern and how he feels about it -. EXHIBIT B 4 ALAMEDA:Mr. Director, your thoughts? YUEN:I wouldn’t have any objection to the Commission putting a height limit on this similar to the Oshiro property next door. ALAMEDA:Okay. Very fruitful discussion. All right. Seeing no further discussion or questions for our staff person, we’ll ask the Applicant or his representative, please come forward. Good morning. Please raise you right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? NISHIMURA:Yes. ALAMEDA:Could you please state your name and address for the record? NISHIMURA:Brian Nishimura, 1174 Awiki Place, Hilo. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Nishimura. You got a chance to look at the Recommendation? NISHIMURA:Yes, I did. ALAMEDA:And I know you’re hearing our discussion. You have any comments or thoughts right now? NISHIMURA:Yes, I appreciate the point that Commissioner Graham brought up. And I do agree that because the structure is already there and although they have no intent to do any additional new construction on the property, like Commissioner Watanabe pointed out, if they do, you know, 30 years from now or 40 years from now, decide to build a new structure, it would place a hardship on them to have to come back and amend the condition. And if I heard Planning Director Yuen’s comments correctly, the Applicant would not have an objection to the deletion of the conditions that he identified, which I believe were B, H and I. ALAMEDA:That’s correct. Okay? Are there any questions for the Applicant or his representative? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just the other thing that came up was the height limit to conform to the adjacent property. Brian, do you have any sense on how you feel about that? NISHIMURA:Well, based on what their current plans are, you know, there’s no indication that they plan to build for, you know, for a very long time, that all these current owners are interested in is having the flexibility once they retire to be able to sell their individual units to other office-types of users and have no immediate plans to make any further improvements. Based on that, I don’t think that they would have an objection to an additional height limit. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT B 5 IWASHITA:My reading of the application basically is this has been, all being done in anticipation of like one of the conditions I think you said was retirement and so forth which, to me, my impression is that’s years and years and years down the road. It’s not, or is someone planning to retire in the next year or two? NISHIMURA:Not immediately, no. IWASHITA:Okay. So I guess I’d like you to respond to my concern and that is, as I’ve said, maybe too many times already, about the need for a Community Development Plan and for any future uses basically to be dealt with in a comprehensive cohesive way with community involvement. And, you know, my view is because there’s no immediate need that’s being addressed by this application. Because, essentially, as I view it, you know, this is, the net effect of granting this is to create entitlements which there is no need for right now and that the interest, I think, as a Commissioner that I am more concerned about is that we protect the process which is law, which is the Community Development Plan. That, in my mind, will, and my hope is, will develop a Hilo which we, as a community, all will agree on and there will be a better plan for this town and for the entire island. I really don’t see a need to proceed with this application at this time and then any entitlements, really, as far as how this property is going to be used in the future should be addressed in the Community Development Plan. So I guess my particular comment or area of interest that I would ask if the Applicant has a comment on is, you know, whether the Applicant can wait, basically, and have the Community Development Plan go through and then, you know, have the input at that point and probably get more entitlements. You know, this is a very prime spot as far as real estate in our town. So, any response? ALAMEDA:Mr. Nishimura, you can choose to respond or not. NISHIMURA:I don’t know under what the public interest will be served to defer from proceeding with this application at this time, inasmuch as the use that has been established on the property will continue even after the Community Development Plan is adopted. That use will not change and, therefore, the impact to the community will not change. And, so, I don’t understand why these Applicants should be prevented from proceeding with their request at this time. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita, any -? IWASHITA:Thank you. I guess my follow-up on that is basically not, I guess that’s my point, right. Nothing, if we don’t approve this, nothing will change. They will continue to do what they’re doing and they’ll do it for until they retire, and they will not want for anything in the next five, ten, fifteen years, however long it is. You know, as I view it, this is a speculative matter from our perspective in terms of what may happen in the future and what the Applicants may do. You know, they may decide to move, they’ll sell and move to Vegas and play Texas, no limit, you know, hold them. And all this does is increase the pot size for them, you know, without any real benefit to me or with a detriment actually, to me, to the Community Development Plan process being inhibited by more entitlements being granted before we can complete that process. EXHIBIT B 6 ALAMEDA:Mr. Nishimura, Commissioner Iwashita is basically making a statement and you can acknowledge that statement, as it is, or you could -. You have anything else to add to that? NISHIMURA:No. Well, the only other thing I’d like to point out is that there would still remain an uncertainty about whether such a Change of Zone would be allowed in the future and what they would gain by getting this adopted at this time is the peace of mind that their plans for retirement would not be impeded, you know, at some future date if a Change of Zone is not obtained. ALAMEDA:Okay. Fair enough. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question, also, and this is with regard to the height limit. You know, do you feel you can speak for the Applicants that having a residential height limit, though, such as 45 feet is acceptable or not? ‘Cause it sounds like, you know, when we get down to the vote, etc., it may become an issue and -. NISHIMURA:Yeah, at this time, I would like to have the opportunity to check back with them to confirm whether this is a problem because this is a condition that was not previously provided to them and they have not had an opportunity to -. WATANABE:Okay. So you’re not willing to speak for them, then? NISHIMURA:Not without first having had a chance to check back with them. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, I’m wondering and, Mr. Nishimura, is there an opportunity, is there any chance to get access with them via phone or something, if we take a recess? NISHIMURA:Yes, I can do that. ALAMEDA:Because we don’t want anything -. WATANABE:Well, his question was whether you could contact them within like the next couple of minutes so that we could, you know -. NISHIMURA:Yes, I’ll be able to do that, yes. ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Yes, and for the record, the RS height limit would be 35 feet. WATANABE:What was it, 35? ALAMEDA:Thirty-five feet. Okay. Is there any objections for us taking a five-minute recess so that Mr. Nishimura could make his call? Seeing none, five minutes. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 10:59 a.m. EXHIBIT B 7 RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:08 a.m. ALAMEDA:Okay, Mr. Nishimura, did you get a response? NISHIMURA:Mr. Chair, I’m sorry, I have not contacted all of the owners as yet. Is it possible to take up another agenda item and then come back to our application? ALAMEDA:Any objections? Okay, let’s take up the next item on the agenda. The Commission at this time, 11:10 a.m., took up the next agenda item, Seawind Holding Inc. (REZ 898). At 11:20 a.m., the Commission again took up the subject application. ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi, how’s our Brian Nishimura doing? HAYASHI:I just spoke with him and he said he needs to contact two more individuals. So he would like to be continued until after the last item on the agenda. He also represents the last applicant, Mr. McNicoll. ALAMEDA:Okay, I think our Agenda Item No. 5, Mr. Ishii, might be in the house today. ISHII:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Let’s take up Agenda Item No. 5. The Commission at this time, 11:21 a.m., took up James Ishii’s application (REZ 06-000042). RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 11:29 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:34 a.m. At 11:34 a.m. the Commission again took up the subject application of Association of Apartment Owners of Lanikaula Professional Center. ALAMEDA:We’ll go back now to Applicant No. 3. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, Mr. Nishimura asked to be put on the agenda in the afternoon. ALAMEDA:At the end? HAYASHI:Unless you’re ready right now? Not yet? NISHIMURA:Well, I apologize, but I wasn’t able to reach two of the four owners and I’ve left messages for the other two to call me. EXHIBIT B 8 ALAMEDA:Well, Fellow Commissioners, there is Agenda Item No. 6. WATANABE:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I’m wondering if that height limit is going to be as much as a bone of contention as originally anticipated, so I’m wondering if we could, you know, revisit that application and -. ALAMEDA:See what we can make of it? WATANABE:Yeah, if we can iron it out. I don’t know, or would the applicant prefer to continue this to the very last item to give you -. Cause my impression was it seemed like you don’t think you’re going to get a response today. Perhaps we should break for lunch now and then continue at 1:00 p.m. NISHIMURA:Well, I -. IWASHITA:We’re not in recess? ALAMEDA:I thought we were going for a recess -. IWASHITA:That’s what I’m trying to clarify. If we’re in recess there’s no record. ALAMEDA:I did ask for a recess and can we break for a recess. Is there any objection to that, so we can get a little bit more clarification on this? Okay, recess, five minutes. RECESSEDThe meeting recessed at this time, 11:35 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 11:40 a.m. ALAMEDA:All right, Planning Commission meeting will now return to order. There’s a recommendation on the table right now that we break for lunch and return at 1 ’clock. Any objections? Seeing none, lunch break. RECESSEDThe Chair recessed the meeting at this time, 11:41 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 1:10 p.m. ALAMEDA:All right. Planning Commission meeting now return to order. Okay, picking up where we left off. I wanted to re-visit Agenda Item No. 3 since Mr. Nishimura does have an answer for us. So if I can call Mr. Nishimura back to the, up front. Mr. Torigoe, are there any procedural matters that we need to think about, or we just pick up where we left off? TORIGOE: You can just pick up where you left off. EXHIBIT B 9 ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi, is there anything to add to the Background Report or -? HAYASHI:No. ALAMEDA:Okay. And you did get a copy of the Recommendation -? NISHIMURA:Yes, I did. ALAMEDA:And on the table was Commissioner Watanabe’s idea about perhaps checking in with your Applicants on whether or not they’re okay with the height limit? NISHIMURA:Yes, that’s correct. Thank you, Planning Commission for granting me the time to do that. I really appreciated it. In doing so, they felt they had no problem with the imposition of a 35-foot height limit and would be willing to accept that. ALAMEDA:Okay. Fellow Commissioners, any other questions for Mr. Nishimura? Let me check with staff. I don’t think there’s any testimony. NOMURA:No one signed up to testify. ALAMEDA:No? Seeing that there’s no testimony, fellow Commissioners, what’s your pleasure? WATANABE:Maybe we can enter into a discussion. I believe in the past, the Director has preferred to use the then current residential height limit, and would you like to replace Condition B with that? Would that be the appropriate area? ‘Cause we’re proposing to, I believe, eliminate B, H and I. Is that correct? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:Yes. If the Commission would like to put the height limit in, it should just be worded that the height limit shall be the same as in our RS zone. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Watanabe, any follow-up to that? WATANABE:Okay. The Change of Zone, yeah, I think I can make a motion. I move that we send a favorable recommendation to the County Council to approve Change of Zone application REZ 06-000040 with the amendment to Condition B stating that the height would be limited to the RS Zone height limit and the elimination of Conditions H and I. GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Graham? EXHIBIT B 10 GRAHAM:I just want to verify with Chris that, in fact, when Brian came back and said they were okay with the 35-foot limit, that 35-foot limit is, they will have that 35, at least 35 feet with the current Residential? ALAMEDA:Mr. Director? YUEN:The height limit in Residential, RS Zone currently is 35 feet. GRAHAM:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Other discussion items? Okay. Seeing none, staff? IWASHITA:Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Oh, hold on, excuse me. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I just want to make for the record in the discussion part an explanation of my nay vote -. ALAMEDA:Sure. IWASHITA:And that is, again, my overall concern is it’s a big picture in terms of what we as Commissioners look at in terms of how Hilo and the rest of the island is going to be developed. And I use that, again, in the parameter of the General Plan and the Community Development Plan, and in all the other matters in which I’ve raised this concern. You know, basically, there’ve been situations where the change has been requested because there was a present need or acclaimed present need for the zoning change so that the use could be fulfilled, some perceived need could be fulfilled by a change in the use. In this case, there is none. This is just, very frankly, you know, coming out here and saying, you know, speculating about future use and future basically increasing value of this property. Once this entitlement is granted, the use is not going to change. The record is clear that, you know, these buildings were built years ago, the owners have been there for years, and they’ll continue to do the same thing for the foreseeable future; and it’s basically just speculating about getting more money for their property when they eventually decide to sell, or lease, or whatever it is. And I just don’t see, because there is no need, present need for this, and because the use is already there and it’s going to continue the way it is, I just see no need for us to give a favorable recommendation to this request as it is purely speculative. Just, in my mind, it can’t be more speculative than this. And the interest, the public interest is in control in growth; and the more I talk in the community about what’s going on, the more I get back from the people in the community that I talk to that I listen to, you know, is that too much is going on. Right? The administration talks about concurrency as a driving policy in terms of how growth should be managed. It’s not happening from my experience on this Commission, and especially in a situation like this where there is no need. This is purely speculative, you know. It is represented that nothing is going to be sold. But if the right buyer comes along and says, you know, a million bucks, it will do it for you, right? These guys aren’t going to hang around, and you’ll have an increased need in the infrastructure. You just, it’s going to be market-driven, right? So from the perspective of public policy, concurrency from really managing -. If we’re really EXHIBIT B 11 talking about managing growth, and that’s what we’re supposed to be doing, well, that’s my perception of what I should be doing as a Commissioner, then I really can’t, it was frankly a no- brainer for me from that perspective that this should not be allowed at this time under these circumstances, that the Community Development Plan should be done. If we keep approving these applications without regard to the existence of a Community Development Plan, there’s no need for a Community Development Plan. We will have our strip mall from Lanikaula back into town. You know, we will have a strip mall going down Lanikaula Street now, and Kekuanaoa Street, and Manono Street, and Kawili Street. And there really won’t be a need from the developer’s perspective, to any developer’s perspective, to have a Community Development Plan because even as blatant a speculative situation like this, this Commission will approve it. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Is there anybody else who’d like to air a statement, a contrary one or a consistent one. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I just had a brief kind of contrary side to that, which is when I read the Change of Zone application from the Petitioner here, or from the Applicant, they’re saying essentially that, from what I understand, with the Use Permit they have currently, the offices can only be used for medical or dental, and there’re several of them. And when maybe one of them wants to relocate, maybe one of them wants to go out of business and retire, or whatever, they’d like to be able to lease to, or sell to an architectural firm, or sell to this or that. And so we are clearing the way for them to do that by making the zoning comparable to the zoning that sits right next to them. So I don’t find that as a purely speculative, hypothetical thing in the future. It seem reasonable to me. That’s all. ALAMEDA:Anybody else would like to put a statement on the table for the fellow Commissioners to think about without going into a debate? This is pure statements, we don’t need to debate it. We just need to have more information so that we can make a real good decision here. Commissioner Iwashita, promise me that you’re not going to debate this. Any other statements, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Well, I don’t know what the Chair’s definition of debate is but, and I clearly, it’s obvious to -. Well, my clear and distinct impression is this is going to go no matter what I say, right? So what I’m attempting to do is not debate the issue. ALAMEDA:Okay. IWASHITA:I am, I would like to make clear on the record the concerns that I have and that -. You know, I think that, this additional point, so it’s not a debate. ALAMEDA:Okay, go ahead. I like that one additional point. IWASHITA:A debate rule would limit me to respond to just what I’ve already said. But I think that one of the default kind of tendencies, right, is to look at an application and say, “Well, you know, unless we can find some really, really good reason, we ought to be granting people these entitlements;” and I think that’s wrong. There is nothing in our rules, nothing in, you know, in the documentation of how this is supposed to go that entitles any applicant, right, to have the approval being given just because you turn it in and certain conditions can be met. We’re at a point in terms of where this island is and where our development is going, where we EXHIBIT B 12 really got to get a grip on it. Because if we don’t, as I’ve said before, just get on the new airline and go to Honolulu and you can see what we’re going to get, or you can go to Maui and see what we’re going to get, you know, in 15 years. And that is a bias, I’ll call it, that shouldn’t be there. Our bias should be the other way. You should have a high burden to show that, one, it’s really necessary and not -. You know, the rationale that, well, we need more options in order to -. That assumes that there aren’t doctors out there that’ll buy it or some other profession, that assumes there’s another process to add another use that will facilitate getting that done. Changing this to Commercial General opens it up not just for offices, right? We all know that, it opens it up for convenience stores, for a gas station, for all kinds of different uses, that again it’s a speculative request, and it’s contrary to what I think that this body’s bias should be otherwise. And by not having that bias basically we encourage, you know, not having the Community Development Plan. Right now the way we’re going, there really is no need to do a Community Development Plan; and as far as I can see, it’ll never get done. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Seeing no further discussion, motion was made again by Commissioner Watanabe. I think it was seconded by Commissioner Galdones, is that correct? WATANABE:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Staff? HAYASHI:The motion is approve with amendments, to delete Condition B and replace it with a new Condition B relative to the height restriction, and also to delete existing Conditions H and I, proposed Conditions H and I.With that, I’ll call the roll call. 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:Yes. EXHIBIT B 13 HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Your Applicant will be informed in writing of the decision. NISHIMURA:Thanks. The discussion ended at 1:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT B 14