Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-08-04 TKitagawa PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 4, 2006 I. KITAGAWA AND CO., LTD. A regularly advertised hearing on the application filed by (SMA 06-000014) was called to order at 9:05 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: I. KITAGAWA AND CO., LTD. (SMA 06-000014) Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the expansion of an existing pre-owned vehicles sales operation and the construction of an automobile sales and service facility. The propertyis located at the western corner of the Kalanianaole Avenue – Kumau Street intersection, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-1-7:7. ALAMEDA:First item on the agenda is Applicant I. Kitagawa and Co. This is a Special Management Area Use Permit to allow the expansion of an existing pre-owned vehicles sales operation and the construction of an automobile sales and service facility. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Members of the Planning Commission, going to the overall location map, just as a matter of orientation, this is Kalanianaole Avenue, and that is going towards the Keaukaha direction. This is Kanoelehua Avenue going towards Puna. This is the Banyan Drive area. The subject property is identified at this particular location by this red dot. The dot is actually bigger than the property itself but we just wanted to highlight where the property is located. Again, this is Kalanianaole Avenue, this is Kumau Street running in a mauka-makai orientation, and this is Ocean View Drive that goes up to this location. Access to Ocean View Drive would be from Kumau Street. The Hilo Harbor is located here. EXHIBIT A 1 The maps indicate the various zoning districts and the gray-shaded areas are identified either as General Commercial or Limited Industrial Commercial. The zoning for the subject property is Industrial-Commercial zoning, MCX 20. Existing on this subject property, and I’ll go to the site map that was presented by the Applicant. Again, this is Kalanianaole Avenue, and this would be in the Hilo town direction, and this would be towards the Keaukaha direction. This is Kumau Street running, again, this would be makai; and this particular line here identifies Ocean View Drive. There are some single-family dwellings owned by the State and leased to tenants, I believe until the year 2015; and those houses are located here. If you look at this particular map, the zoning map, the lots are located here; and those lots are zoned for Industrial use. The access to the property currently is from this particular location along Kalanianaole Avenue. The Applicant also intends to continue to use the access at this particular location. There’s also another access proposed from Kumau Street at this particular location. Existing on the property is a 7,500-square foot building that was constructed a number of years ago, and that was previously used as a showroom and auto repair and service area for the previous operation that I. Kitagawa had at this particular location. There’s also a small kiosk at this particular location, existing kiosk. This particular area is currently used by a pre-owned car sales operation. The Applicant intends to, as part of this SMA Use Permit, renovate this existing building and, also, convert this into a new showroom area for Kamaaina Nissan, which is one of I. Kitagawa’s subsidiaries, and they also intend to have a Parts Department for the Nissan operation, as well as a service area. They also intend to provide additional parking at this particular area or service parking. This particular area is currently just grass, so what the Applicant intends to do is provide new parking areas throughout most of the subject property as part of this SMA Use Permit application. Most of the area is currently graveled so they’ll be providing new paved areas. As part of this renovation of this particular building, the Applicant also intends to create a mezzanine; and that’ll be used for storage purposes. The height of the building would not exceed 25 feet. Actually, the existing height would remain the same. Excuse me, I did state incorrectly that the zoning was MCX, it’s actually MG-20. And the height limit for MG-20 is 50 feet, so they would be well within the height limitation. Surrounding lands are, just as a matter of information, on this side of the property there is the Pacific Island Flooring building at this particular location. Gaspro is located across Kumau Street at this particular location. We also have Creative Arts across of Kalanianaole Avenue, and several other industrial activities along or within this particular general area of Kalanianaole Avenue. As I indicated earlier, there are some residential lots along the makai side of Ocean View Drive that were created many years ago; and there are single-family dwellings on those lots. Those lands are owned by the State and leased to tenants for a period of time. EXHIBIT A 2 Kalanianole Avenue has a current right-of-way width of 70 feet with an approximately 22-foot wide pavement; and Kumau Street currently is County-owned and has a right-of-way width of 70 feet with approximately a 20-foot wide pavement. I just received an e-mail, unfortunately I was not able to circulate that to you, from Galen Kuba from the Department of Public Works indicating that the County and the State are in the process of turning over this section of Kumau Street from the County to the State. So that process is currently ongoing. The proposed facility will be hooked up to the County sewer line. We did receive Petitions for Standing in a Contested Case from two individuals. They both live or have leases in these lots along Ocean View Drive. The first Petition, which was filed timely, was submitted by Roderick and Gloria Hickman, and they live at 541 Ocean View Drive. And 541 Ocean View Drive would be generally in this location, almost in back of the subject property. The other application which was filed, an untimely filing, was submitted by I. C. Haunani Henry and they have a lease on 504 Ocean View Drive; and that would be more towards the southwest of the subject property. And Haunani Henry will be represented by, I guess her son, Leonard Bolinger. I’m not sure as to whether Mr. Bolinger is here today. The Planning Director is recommending approval of the subject request, with proposed conditions. We also received some material from the Applicant’s representative this morning. I’ll defer to the Applicant’s representative to explain those exhibits or information that they had submitted. Are there any questions? ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, are there any questions? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah, Norman, as far the SMA Permit, now this previously was a car dealership. Is the reason for the SMA Permit because of the renovations and paving of new area? If things weren’t changed, would an SMA Permit be required is my question, I guess. If there were no repaving, no renovation of the building, would the SMA Permit be required or -? HAYASHI:No. MCCALL:No. So it’s only because of the -? HAYASHI:It’s only because they’re doing the renovation to the buildings, as well as the parking areas. MCCALL:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Galdones? GALDONES:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Norman, you mentioned that there are some residential, residents in the back of the subject property and they are leased from the State. Would you know the terms of the lease from the State and are they zoned MG? EXHIBIT A 3 HAYASHI:Okay. My understanding is that the time of the lease is up till 2015; however, the Applicants have asked Mr. Ian Bernie from the State Harbors Division to appear today to explain some of the lease, the terms of the leases. But these, as far as the zoning of these properties, these are also zoned General Industrial. GALDONES:Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Galdones. Other questions, Fellow Commissioners, for Norman? I have a thought. There are two potential contested issues that we need to deal with, correct? HAYASHI:That is correct. ALAMEDA:I need to check with our Corp. Counsel. I would like to invite the Applicant up to speak generally about the application and then maybe address the potential Contested Case issues. TORIGOE:Right, that’d be fine. You know, you can let the Applicant just fill out whatever background they want to do at this point just as introduction and then the first order of business has to be to deal with the Contested Case requests under your Rule 4-7. ALAMEDA:Okay. Very well. Will the Applicant or its representative please come forward. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? FUKE:I do. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You may proceed. FUKE:Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant assisting Brian Kitagawa, Kitagawa and Co., Ltd. Brian, Mr. Kitagawa is also seated in the audience. He has had a chance to review the staff’s Background Report and the proposed Recommendation and found that to be acceptable. I hear what your counsel is saying that the whole issue of the Contested Case portion would be deferred, I guess, subsequent to just general opening comments. In that regards, I had passed out some material that possibly may be more germane or pertinent to the Contested Case portion but, and perhaps I can kind of defer to that component a little bit later.But generally, as you know, in response to a question to the, by the Commissioners to the staff, there was a car dealership established way back in 1967. And at that time it was called the Volkswagen and the Petitioner or the family had title to this property for like, I don’t know, maybe generations I guess. And subsequent to the Volkswagen, then it changed to like a different type of dealership; they had Datsun; and then Datsun became Nissan. And at one point in time, if you remember traveling that area, you also used to see a motorcycle dealership in that area. And more recently since probably like three or four years ago, it was then, it has now been utilized as a used car operation. EXHIBIT A 4 So what the Petitioner wants to do is essentially relocate its Nissan dealership from its current location on Kawili Street to this site here and not make substantial improvements to the property because the basic improvements already in. You know, you already have the existing 7,500- square foot structure, they want to just do some renovation. They already have an existing showroom, they want to do some improvements to the land so that they can safely and adequately park the new vehicles, new and used vehicles. In addition to that, they want to construct a mezzanine within the existing structure; and that’s designed largely for storage and, secondarily, they didn’t want to increase the overall footprint of the basic building. There are two accesses, two existing accesses to the property. One coming off of Kumau Street, and the primary access, and ingress and egress coming off of Kalanianaole Avenue. There is no access from Ocean View Drive. As a matter of fact, between the subject property and Ocean View Drive, there is an intervening State-owned parcel which the Applicant has a month-to- month lease on it. We realize that there are some concerns raised by the two Petitioners, you know, requesting for standing; and the concerns relate to traffic as well as for landscaping, visual concerns, rather. And it was only in relation to the landscaping portion I had submitted some additional language that, you know, I would suggest that the Commissioners may want to consider; and the landscaping would be very specific to make sure that they are trees and/or similar plant material to provide some visual separation or visual block between the subject property and the residences on the makai side. With that, I’m open to questions. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any general questions for us to get a better idea of the application? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Mr. Fuke, you had mentioned that there is no access to Ocean View Drive. FUKE:Correct. And there is no access and no planned access to Ocean View Drive. WATANABE:So -. FUKE:From this site, anyway, from this property. WATANABE:Yeah, so these people, because they’re separated by a month-to-month leased State land? FUKE:Correct. There is a State right-of-way that runs the back of all of the lots in this area that runs parallel with the existing Ocean View Drive; and, so, the Applicant has a month-to-month lease on that small portion that’s right in the back of his property. WATANABE:Okay. I thought that might be germane to the traffic concerns because, I guess, they don’t come directly adjacent to your property at any time anyway. Right? EXHIBIT A 5 FUKE:No, no. WATANABE:Not for ingress or egress, right? FUKE:Correct. The primary access would be from Kalanianaole Avenue and secondarily from Kumau Street. Kumau Street would be, you know, it’s available; but according to, from what I understand from Mr. Kitagawa this morning, it’s going to be used more than likely for emergency purposes. The other thing I think, you know, what your staff pointed out, and maybe if you’d just refer to the handout that I had shared with you, basically, and Mr. Bernie is here from the Harbor Division. And we had contacted him yesterday and he was gracious enough to come down to probably amplify or corroborate some of the things that I would share with the Commission, you know, regarding the Harbor’s expansion plan. But I was fortunately able to get and share with the Commission two photos of this area. The first one is just entitled like Hilo Harbor and basically just kind of gives you a general description as far as like where the existing uses are. And the second one shows the short- and long-range plan for the Hilo Harbor area; and the second sheet I think is a little bit more pertinent. If you, if I can direct your attention to that. You can see like the new Pier 4, the inter-island terminal, and its estimated completion is 2009; and, I guess, that would be like in about 2- to 2-1/2 years from now. And the future expansion would be where it would involve all of the lots, two of which you have requests for standing from. There have been on-going discussions between the State and the County, you know, regarding, as what the staff pointed out on Kumau Street. You can see Kumau Street, which forms a border on one corner of the subject property. The idea -- and Mr. Bernie can corroborate this, but it’s based on my discussions with him yesterday -- was to, was that the plan for the harbor was that the existing access on Kuhio Street, you know, to the harbor would be pretty much limited for the passenger carriers, you know, the boats, the ships, rather. The Young Bros. operations would be directed to Kumau Street, that would be their primary ingress and egress. And because of that there has the discussion between the State and County in terms of like who would now retain control and improve Kumau Street. The Matson operation would come in further Keaukaha side of the subject area. So essentially there would be three major accesses servicing the harbor area: the existing one, Kumau Street and another one on the south side, excuse me, on the Keaukaha end of the property. I also shared with you a document, you know, reflecting the existing lease; and I got a copy of that lease from, and this is just pertinent excerpts, you know, from the State DLNR. And then this lease relates to the lease from Haunani Henry; and I kind of tried to highlight that, you know, it’s to Haunani Henry, the appropriate TMK. And if you’ll notice on the second page it was executed like on February of 2002, so it’s basically like about four years ago that lease was executed. And on the last sheet, which is an exhibit relating to the subject property, I mean, you know, to Haunani’s leasehold property, it states that the lease expires in the year 2015. So I just wanted to just share that. So that’s the three bit of information. One was the proposed conditions relating to landscaping; the other one relating to, you know, the master plan and existing condition at the harbor area; and the third the leasehold of Haunani Henry. EXHIBIT A 6 ALAMEDA:Okay. Let me check with Commissioner Graham, I think you had a question earlier. No? GRAHAM:Well, -. ALAMEDA:Sure. GRAHAM:Just on what you just said right then, Mr. Fuke, if the leases run to 2015 and this first phase of the harbor expansion is estimated completion 2009, does that mean the second phase that has a new Pier 5 and all would come in subsequent to 2015? FUKE:Okay. Mr. Chairman, I know this is kind of out of order but is it possible to have Mr. Bernie testify directly on that? ALAMEDA:Let me check. Corp. Counsel? TORIGOE:Yeah, it’s, you know, within your discretion, if you want it as a background. But, you know, the first order of business should be to deal with the Contested Case requests. ALAMEDA:Yeah. We’ll get to that, Mr. Graham. GRAHAM:Okay. WATANABE:I had a similar question and I wasn’t sure if I was getting too broad. ALAMEDA:Okay. How about we defer, and let’s address this Contested Case, two potential Contested Case situations before us right now. Norman, would you like to give any more background to help us better address these two Contested Case applications? HAYASHI:Yeah. Before I do that, there was one question that was asked by Mr. Watanabe. I wanted to clarify that the response that, well, this was in relationship to access to Ocean View Drive. Okay, just going to this particular map, this is Ocean View Drive and the actual pavement is at this general location here. This is the edge of the Kitagawa property. Between the Kitagawa property and Ocean View Drive there is a 50 foot wide strip running the length of Ocean View Drive on the mauka side of Ocean View Drive that is owned by the State. This particular area is overgrown, it’s not part of the roadway right now. Eventually those properties will become part of the Ocean View Drive. So if you look at the Petitioner’s Exhibit 2, that is right in the back of, there’s a map after Page 1 of the environmental report. You will note that the subject property is highlighted in and outlined in black; and that’s this map here. And you will note that in the back of that on the makai side, there is a Parcel 55; and that is the strip that I’m talking about that is owned by the State. And just as a matter of clarification, although the map identifies Banyan Drive it’s actually called Ocean View Drive, on this particular map. That’s this particular roadway. Secondly, the Applicant indicated that the project will be hooked up to a sewer line; and we failed to include that as a condition. So at this time we’d like to add that new condition. This EXHIBIT A 7 would be condition, a new Condition 11, which would state that “The Project shall connect to the County sewer line prior to receipt of Certificate of Occupancy;” and Condition 11 thereon would be renumbered to 12, 13, etc. As far as the request for Contested Case Hearing, the first petition was filed by Roderick and, as I indicated earlier, Roderick and Gloria Hickman; and that application was received in our office th on July 28. That was 7 days prior to the hearing, so that was filed in a timely manner. Mr. and Mrs. Hickman, I believe, are here and perhaps you may want to call them up at this particular time. ALAMEDA:Okay. HAYASHI:And the second petition was by I.C. Haunani Henry, who will be represented by, according to the Petition, by her son, Leonard Bolinger. And that was received st in our office on August 1, which was, basically, not filed in a timely -. ALAMEDA:Too late? HAYASHI:Well, based on your rules, it’s too late; but that’s the determination that you would make. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, that’s just the low hanging fruit, the one that appears to be too late. Fellow Commissioners, we need to decide upon whether or not we’re going to allow the second contested application into our discussion. Is there anyone here, what’s the last name, again, of the representative? HAYASHI:Leonard Bolinger. ALAMEDA:Is there a Leonard Bolinger here today? Seeing none, fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Well, I would move that we deny Standing for I.C. Haunani Henry because the filing was untimely and, well, apparently there’s no representative here. ALAMEDA:Okay. There’s a motion on the floor to deny the standing for two reasons: one, it was untimely and second reason there’s no representative here.Is there a second? SALAVEA:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe and seconded by Commissioner Salavea. MCCALL:Discussion first? ALAMEDA:Any discussion? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Yeah. Norman, if you could just review with us what the timeliness is. How many days before a required -? EXHIBIT A 8 HAYASHI:Based on your rules, the Request for Petition for Standing would have to th be filed seven days prior to the hearing. And seven days was on July 28; and this was received st on August 1. MCCALL:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner McCall. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:The other thing that comes to my mind is made before I was on the Planning Commission and attending a couple of hearings that turned out to be Contested Case Hearings. I remember some decisions were such that if a properly-filed party was granted a Contested Case status, another party maybe who was somewhat defective as this one could be at the discretion allowed to enter into it also. Whereas, if they were not a valid party, probably wouldn’t be allowed. So that just makes me a little bit think about the order in which we’re doing this, that’s all. ALAMEDA:I see. Okay. Mr. Torigoe, any response to Commissioner Graham’s comment? TORIGOE:Generally speaking, you know, your rules basically set forth the timeframes in which these applications should be filed. And in the absence of their being some good cause shown on the record, generally speaking, we would not recommend that you deviate from these rules. There may be cases where somebody, and there was one in Kona a couple of meetings ago where there was some indication that people who should have gotten notice didn’t get it. And, of course, in a case like that, you know, you want to give people an opportunity to make their filing. But in the absence of some kind of good cause shown like that, we generally would say you should stick to your rules, which is not to rule out, you know, the possibility that if somebody shows up, if there is a Contested Case going on and somebody else shows up and says, “Hey, I should have been allowed to file or should have been allowed to intervene,” that’s something you can consider. But, generally speaking, again, in the absence of good cause, we wouldn’t recommend you go there. WATANABE:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Yes, Commissioner Watanabe. WATANABE:I guess we’re in discussion right now, right or -? ALAMEDA:Right. WATANABE:Yeah, so, you know, I noted on this particular I.C. Henry filing that their main objection was additional congestion on KalanianaoleAvenue that was under “A;” and, you know, we already have had testimony on record that indicates that there is no ingress or egress access to Ocean View Drive from the subject property. And, I mean, if you allow this, then it’s almost like saying, “Well, if I had something a mile down the road it would add to the congestion of Kanoelehua Avenue.” So, you know, would they then have standing in that, also? Do you see what I’m driving at? They don’t pass by this property directly, I don’t believe. EXHIBIT A 9 ALAMEDA:Any comment to Commissioner Watanabe’s logic? Seeing no further discussion -. IWASHITA:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Oh, Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:I just wanted clarification from our counsel if, as to the point Commissioner Graham raised in terms of the order in which we’re doing this, and if we’re going to end up actually approving or accepting the other Contested Case Petition, whether or not that decision is going to have an impact on this application, and whether it’s timely, and whether the timeliness becomes an issue, and if there’s some discretion in the Commission in the rules in that regard. ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:In this case, on this record, basically, you know, the Applicant did not show up and there’s no representative here to present a good cause why they should be allowed to go ahead, notwithstanding the lateness of the application. I would say based on the record so far, it really shouldn’t affect what happens with the next application at this point in time. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Torigoe. Mr. Salavea? SALAVEA:Two parts. The first would be my statement of my not being comfortable allowing this applicant to piggy-back sort of on the other contested application because of the lack of representative here and us being able to question them and trying to understand some of the reasons for the filing, the late, the timeliness of the filing, so that’s the first part. The second part, just to clarify for the record, is the question for Mr. Hayashi, just to make sure for the record that all notices for the meeting were sent out, you know, on time and there was prior notice sent out so that we don’t have to deal with anything coming back for us. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. Hayashi? HAYASHI:Thank you. The Applicant had sent the notice to the surrounding properties of the meeting. Also, after receipt of Ms. Henry’s Petition for Standing, we did acknowledge that and, also, indicated that the meeting was today and we informed her her presence or representative’s presence would be requested at this meeting. Excuse me, will be required at this meeting. ALAMEDA:Okay. Required. Okay. Thank you, Mr. Salavea. Any other discussion on it before we vote on this. Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I’m slow this morning so I just want to make it clear. Our records show that this Petitioner was given actual notice of this proceeding before and with the time, deadline requirements for submitting a Contested Case Hearing in the normal course, according to our rules. They received actually, is the Henry party one of those that received actual notice by mail? EXHIBIT A 10 ALAMEDA:Norman? HAYASHI:Yes. It was sent to her; and her tax map key is listed as, excuse me, by confirmation of mailing by the U.S. Postal Services. IWASHITA:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Any more clarification items? Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Sorry. And it’s very clear that no one is here representing this Petitioner today? ALAMEDA:That’s correct. IWASHITA:Okay. ALAMEDA:If you are, this is your chance, if you’re hiding. Okay. Seeing none, any further discussion items? All right. Staff? HAYASHI:This is to deny the Petition for Standing filed by Ms. Henry. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? EXHIBIT A 11 IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Chair? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. All right. We have a second application for Contested Case. Can I call on Roderick and Gloria Hickman. Could you please come forward. I have to swear you in at this time. Could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai`i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Could you please state your name and address for the record? HICKMAN:Roderick Hickman, 541 Ocean View Drive, Hilo, Hawai`i. ALAMEDA:Okay. Ma’am? Gloria, could you please state your address? HICKMAN:Gloria Colden Hickman, 541 Ocean View Drive. ALAMEDA:Okay. That’s just for the record. I don’t know if I got you, Sidney, to state your name and address for the record, now that I’m thinking. Could you please do that. FUKE:I did state my name. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you. Mr. and Mrs. Hickman, do you have any additional comments to add to the discussion or share anything from your end? Go ahead. R. HICKMAN: We had the opportunity to talk to the Petitioner and spend some time getting further clarity. Our original contestant was based on more or less a lack of clear understanding on what the, one, process was going to be and, two, what the intent of the Petitioner was for that particular area that was adjoining Ocean View Drive, which is right out of our front door. After discussing that with them, I think we’ve been provided with additional information to allow us to at least digest what the scope of the project is going to be and to be able to probably stipulate with them some satisfaction. The other thing, though, is I think that there needs to, from our perspective, we need to be able to clearly understand from a process standpoint, as I go forward if the project is approved, on what they’re going to do at what stage and in the process to insure that we still have some appropriate visability so we’re not looking at a parking lot. That’s probably the most succinct way for me to describe it. I don’t want to look out the front door at a parking lot. If they do something that disallows me to look out the front door at a parking lot and we don’t have access or egress problems in regards to Ocean View, we probably can be pretty comfortable with the process as it is. EXHIBIT A 12 ALAMEDA:Okay. Mrs. Hickman, do you have any other additional comments to make? G. HICKMAN:I think that was well said. But I would -. R. HICKMAN:Good job. G. HICKMAN:Yeah. He’s going to pay me later. R. HICKMAN:You’ve got to do that at a public meeting. That’s on the record. G. HICKMAN:Yeah, my major concern was that visibility wall that was there, it came down; and there was some concern about kind of that barren land there.The lushness of the area is what leads to the ambience there, so we have a vested interest in making sure that there is some ambience left to the area. I understand that the Petitioner is willing to insure that that continues; and I would just ask that it would be minimized so that it doesn’t detract from our enjoyment of the property that we have there. But, clearly, we do not have the intent to try to stop the project. We just needed better understanding about the process and how it would go forward so -. ALAMEDA:All right. Thank you, Mrs. Hickman. Let’s see, Commissioner Salavea, then we go to Commissioner Watanabe. Questions? SALAVEA:Yes. You mentioned something about the barrier coming down. Can you tell us a little about what’s currently existing in terms of foliage? G. HICKMAN:Well, there was a lot of -. ALAMEDA:Ma’am, could you please speak into the mike. G. HICKMAN:Oh, okay, I always thought I had a booming voice. There was a lot of just natural foliage. I mean, it wasn’t a planted area or anything. It had, you know, an avocado tree, and I think what you call rubbish trees, and just vegetation quite lush there. I guess it’s a coqui frog haven. But it was cleared and it’s growing back now. So it’s providing some layer of barrier between there; and we’re just asking that there continue to be something through the process so that it’s kind of not, not barren when we look out and kind of looking at boulders and just kind of a cleared area. And from talking to them, it appears that they’re quite amenable to that. And, so, again, we want to stress that we’re not here to impede their progress. ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Salavea. GALDONES:Mr. Chairman, a point of process? ALAMEDA:Sure. GALDONES:Before us right now is the application for Standing in a Contested Case Hearing that we have to deal with. Now, listening to the dialogue that is going on right now, it EXHIBIT A 13 seems that some of the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Hickman could be addressed in the further discussion with the Applicant. But, nonetheless, we have to deal with the application procedurally. And maybe this is where counsel might be able to help us in the process, is to deal with the Contested Case Hearing, allow the discussion on the application to proceed, and if it meets the concerns raised by Mr. and Mrs. Hickman, then allow them the opportunity to withdraw their Petition for a Contested Case Hearing. If that would be a proper order, Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Galdones. Let’s check with our Corp. Counsel, make sure that we’re abiding by the rules. Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Okay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Your rules allow for parties to amend any procedures by stipulation. There are a couple of things you could do, one is, as was suggested by Commissioner Galdones, you could grant standing and then allow for some discussion on the record, or off the record if they want to see if they can come to some agreement by which they could stipulate that certain conditions will be a part of the permit, if it is granted, that would satisfy the Hickmans’ concerns. And if they are satisfied that they are protected, then they could then withdraw their Contested Case Hearing request or just, I guess, withdraw from Contested Case Hearing standing. You could also attempt, at this point, to give them some time to see if they can come up with a stipulation to have certain conditions included that would satisfy their concerns and then allow them to just withdraw their request before you actually act on the standing. ALAMEDA:Let’s have more discussion on this so we can know how to proceed. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question for the Hickmans. Have you had an opportunity, well, obviously, you’ve discussed this with Mr. Fuke, etc., with regard to the landscaping. And I was wondering if you had an opportunity to see, okay, so you’ve seen this proposed amendment by him? R. HICKMAN:Head shakes don’t go into the record. I’ll say “yes” for the record. WATANABE:Okay. So, then, you know, with regard to this process, if we included this as one of the conditions, would you then be willing to withdraw your Petition for Standing? R. HICKMAN:Let me ask a question before I answer that. WATANABE:Okay, sure. R. HICKMAN:Is it okay for me to ask a question? ALAMEDA:Let me just check if we’re on the right logic here in terms of process. I want to honor Commissioner Galdones’ comment that everyone, to make sure we’re on a process. So, Mr. Torigoe, if we continue with this discussion of going back-and-forth, does that, is that healthy discussion prior to? Should we act on whether or not to grant them standing, or wait and see maybe they can withdraw standing before granting? EXHIBIT A 14 TORIGOE:It’s up to you. I mean, you could pursue this line of discussion for a few minutes to see if they might, you know, if right off the bat they can say there’s a condition that would satisfy them and they’ll be willing to withdraw their request. ALAMEDA:Okay. TORIGOE:But, you know -. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Galdones, are you okay with this line of discussion? GALDONES:My preference would be that we act on the Contested Case Hearing. However, if the concerns of Mr. and Mrs. Hickman could be addressed by the Applicant and satisfy their concerns, then I am willing to proceed with the dialogue to take care of their concerns so that we don’t have to address the Contested Case Hearing. If the Applicants for the Contested Case Hearing, Mr. and Mrs. Hickman, can feel satisfied that their concerns are taken care of and then in the process of this dialogue right now that they would withdraw it, you know, that is fine. Let’s allow the dialogue to continue. However, if that is not the case then I would rather we act on the Contested Case Hearing, have the Applicant continue their presentation, be questioned by the Commissioners, and then allow Mr. and Mrs. Hickman to be, to present testimony. And through their testimony they may be able to raise their concerns and give Mr. Fuke, the Applicant, an opportunity to respond to the concerns that they had raised. So, it’s, I guess, which one we’re going to put first. If the concerns can be taken care of without the Contested Case Hearing, I’d say let the dialogue to continue. If that won’t be taken care of, then I’d say let’s act on the Contested Case Hearing and proceed with the regular public hearing. ALAMEDA:Okay, let me just cut to the chase and let’s ask Mr. Fuke right here to see if this -. You guys kind of know the situation, Mr. Fuke, go ahead. FUKE:Yeah, Mr. Chairman, I think that, which is what I was going to suggest, and I think that Commissioner Galdones expressed like what I was going to suggest, and that is to say, to request the Commission defer action on the question of the Standing until such time that we go through the process. You know, after we exhaust the normal public hearing process for, you know, the Planning Commission, not the Contested Case Hearing portion, and then a decision can be made on the part of the Commission on the Hickmans’ request for granting of standing. If they’d elect to withdraw, then according to their rules, then they would entitled to get a refund. But, on the other hand, once you certify them to become parties, then the $100 is cashed already. So I’m just trying to see if possibly they could save their $100 and we can accommodate their concerns without going through the Contested Case process. ALAMEDA:Okay. I like that, I like that. I like that very much. Mr. Hickman? HAYASHI:Mr. Chair. HICKMAN:Mr. Chair? I’m sorry. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, I just wanted to clarify what, correct what Mr. Fuke had indicated. EXHIBIT A 15 ALAMEDA:Go ahead, Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI:Based on your rules, and that’s Rule 4-7, regarding Contested Case Hearing, it says, “If the request for intervention is withdrawn in writing before the commencement of the hearing, the $100 filing fee shall be refunded to the applicant.” So if we proceed with the hearing, then we would no longer be able to send his $100 filing fee back. FUKE:So I interpret that hearing to be the Contested Case Hearing, not this hearing? ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi, the interpretation of the hearing, is it this hearing now or is it the Contested Case Hearing? HAYASHI:Well, I’m not the attorney here so you might want to refer that to your legal counsel. ALAMEDA:Hold on, let me clarify this -. TORIGOE:You really want to know that now, huh? It says, well, Section B says, basically, “Upon receipt of a written request to intervene, the Commission at the first meeting on the matter shall hold a hearing on the written request.” So -. ALAMEDA:How would you interpret that? TORIGOE:Well, it would -. You know, on its face, it seems to say that this is, you’re holding a hearing on the written request and the $100, the refund section says, “If the request for intervention is withdrawn in writing before the commencement of the hearing,” it doesn’t say the Contested Case Hearing, it says “the hearing,” “the filing fee shall be refunded to the applicant.” So I don’t know, when you look at this kind of in context within this rule, it seems to indicate that, you know -. WATANABE:This is the hearing? TORIGOE:Yeah, that this is the hearing. ALAMEDA:Mr. Hickman? R. HICKMAN:Mr. Chair and Mr. Counsel, for the record, I’m willing to stipulate that we will withdraw, if I can, in fact, get assurances of what they’re going to do onto the record. ALAMEDA:Okay. R. HICKMAN:So I don’t know if that, I mean, I’ve got a written withdrawal right here. So if the hearing today, or the hearing is next week or whenever that is, we can eliminate all that legal analysis. I’m willing to stipulate on the record that I’m willing to withdraw as long as I can understand what, that this amendment goes onto the record and then, in addition to the amendment, and maybe I’m out of process, if I am just let me know, in addition to the amendment that there be some language that talks, if they can, in fact, provide what the EXHIBIT A 16 timeframes or methodology of the process would be for them. So if they’re saying in the stipulation it says the landscaping shall be trees or other plant material and, furthermore, said landscaping shall be implemented as part of the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy, that in that, in between that what the process is from getting from putting in the landscaping and the Certificate, does it get cleared before it gets done? Do you understand? Does it get cleared out to get landscaped? I just want to understand in your process what they’d be doing; and if that can be clarified for the record then I will sign the withdrawal, the hearing can be today and -. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Mr. Chairman, if it is in order, what I would like to propose is that we call for a short recess and let Mr. Hickman get together with Mr. Fuke and see if they can iron out their concerns. ALAMEDA:Okay. FUKE:Commissioner Galdones, I respect that. Except that we’ve already had the discussion and I think what the Hickmans want us to do is put it on the record; and I haven’t had an opportunity to kind of share with the Commissioners publicly and for the record what Mr. Kitagawa’s intents are. GALDONES:Follow-up question then. Mr. Fuke, then the discussion that you folks had and the concerns that the Hickmans had is the document that you had submitted over to us for consideration? FUKE:Correct. If I could, Mr. Chairman? ALAMEDA:Sure. FUKE:So in addition to that, you know, as the staff had mentioned, there’s this intervening parcel between Ocean View Drive and the subject property, you know, intervening parcel that’s about like 6,000 square feet that’s owned by the State. It’s on a month-to-month lease to the Kitagawa’s. What happened like in the last 6-8 months or whatever, Kitagawa’s, the Applicant did get a Minor SMA Permit to do basic grubbing in that area.And, so, basically, the vegetation within that area as well as the subject property portion, in the rear portion, that vegetation was removed. So over the last 6 or 8 months, the vegetation within the State portion, you know, has creeped up and, according to Mr. Hickman, he said it’s like about like 4 to 5 feet tall. And so he would like to kind of like have it retained and just let it kind of continue. In talking with Mr. Kitagawa, he said that, yes, you know, his plan is not to do anything more, no clearing no whatever, you know, within that area that belongs to the State land. Apparently, like, you know, from where the roadway at Ocean View Drive, there’s kind of like a depression, and then it kind of like comes up again, and there’s a small little plateau, and then hits onto the Kitagawa’s property. So if you look at the condition, the condition reads that Mr. Kitagawa is obligated, the proposed condition is obligated to provide landscaping on his property, not on the State’s property. So his plan is to kind of like landscape on that portion and somewhat like on, if he wants to, like on the adjoining State land; and that would provide the necessary screening. EXHIBIT A 17 GALDONES:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Follow-up. Mr. Hickman? R. HICKMAN:Yes. GALDONES:In light of the statement made by Mr. Fuke, does that address the concern that you had? R. HICKMAN:Yes, it does. GALDONES:Then the decision then is yours to decide whether you want to continue with the Contested Case Hearing or you’re going to be withdrawing so that the Commissioners know how to respond to this situation? R. HICKMAN:For the record, we have a written withdrawal signed right here. So we can withdraw. ALAMEDA:Okay. And also note that what Mr. Fuke said has been also indicated for the record. R. HICKMAN:Right. So do I need to give this to staff or, and could I ask to get a copy of that. ALAMEDA:Mr. Torigoe, are we proceeding in the correct manner? TORIGOE:Okay, so at this point, we have a written withdrawal based on the stipulations on the record regarding how that, the planting screen and landscaping is going to be handled. All right. And that’ll be incorporated into conditions, I expect. ALAMEDA:Okay. TORIGOE:Okay. All right, that being said then that would dispose of that Contested Case request. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mrs. Hickman, you want to say something? G. HICKMAN:Yes. I just wanted to thank all of the parties involved for being willing to leave us that screen up, and congratulations on your project, and I hope it’s a success. So, and I hope that you guys understand why we needed to get clarification, that it wasn’t to hold your process up or to question the Planning Commission’s wisdom in granting your request. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. You’re welcome. Let me check first real quick if there’s any other questions for Mr. and Mrs. Hickman before we ask them to sit down. Okay, go ahead. EXHIBIT A 18 IWASHITA:I just wanted to clarify -. ALAMEDA:Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA:Mr. Fuke’s references, the language that he read. That was from the document, one-page document received that says, “amend the last sentence of Condition 2.” Is that -? FUKE:That’s correct. IWASHITA:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Okay. G.HICKMAN:Can I ask one clarifying question. At the demonstration that was given here -. ALAMEDA:Sure. G. HICKMAN:And it talked about the egress, the secondary -. ALAMEDA:Microphone. The reason for the microphone is because it has to be recorded and so we can take proper notes. But, yeah, we can hear you without it. G. HICKMAN:Okay, thank you. The side exit, Kumau exit, there’s another building that’s there on the property that I didn’t think was the part of the dealership. It looks like a, maybe like an apartment and it’s something, another building there? FUKE:You’re talking about like a, right on the corner? Yeah, it’s a small little kiosk, right? G. HICKMAN:No, it’s back a little bit further. FUKE:Oh, okay. That’s another property. That doesn’t belong to the Applicant. G. HICKMAN:So that will remain there, also, that property there? FUKE:That’s not the subject of this application. Mr. Kitagawa does not own that property. G. HICKMAN:He does not own that? FUKE:Yeah. G. HICKMAN:Okay. FUKE:Yeah. You’re talking about on the corner of Kumau and Ocean View Drive, right? EXHIBIT A 19 G. HICKMAN:Yeah. R. HICKMAN:It’s further on the makai side. FUKE:Correct, yeah. No, he does not own that. R. HICKMAN:It’s a residence, I think it’s a residence. FUKE:There’s a residence, yeah. G. HICKMAN:Okay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Mr. Hayashi, is there anything formal that we need to do to let go of this withdrawal -? HAYASHI:No. ALAMEDA:Or can we ask Mr. and Mrs. Hickman to be seated at this time and continue with the application? HAYASHI:Yes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Mr. and Mrs. Hickman, thank you very much for coming. R. HICKMAN:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Appreciate your time. You may be seated. G. HICKMAN:Thank you for your time. ALAMEDA:You bet. There’s a request on the table to take five? Any objections? Seeing none, let’s take five minutes. Recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 10:05 a.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 10:10 a.m. ALAMEDA:The meeting is now in order. All right, fellow Commissioners, just so you know -- now, we start with the application, about 10:10. Okay, anything to add, Mr. Fuke? FUKE:No, I think everything has been said in the earlier dialogue, except that, you know, we do have Mr. Ian Bernie and, you know, if you have questions relating to the harbor expansion plans, as it may relate to this application, then he’d be more than willing to share it with you. ALAMEDA:Who’s Mr. Bernie? EXHIBIT A 20 FUKE:He’s the Harbormaster. ALAMEDA:Is he here? FUKE:Yes, he’s out there. ALAMEDA:Oh, he’s outside. FUKE:Only if the Commission wants but -. ALAMEDA:Oh, then he’ll come inside? FUKE:Well, I mean, it’s up to the Commission so -. ALAMEDA:Oh, I see. Okay. Well, fellow Commissioners, any questions, further questions for Mr. Fuke or our man outside? Go ahead, Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Personally, I don’t think we need the discussion about the Harbormaster because that was more in reference to the application for standing, yeah, on Contested -. FUKE:Yeah, correct, yeah. WATANABE:‘Cause, really, it doesn’t, other than the planting screen, it doesn’t affect the adjoining properties. FUKE:No. The harbor expansion, well, having Mr. Bernie here was really more to address, you know, any potential concerns raised by tenants of the existing leases in that area. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any questions for Mr. Fuke or the applicant in general? Seeing none, you may be seated. Do we have any take testimony? Actually, the only testimony was from Mr. and Mrs. Hickman; and they’re not here so, and they just have withdrawn the application, so -. I guess we can go into discussion. WATANABE:Mr. Chair? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I have a question for the Director. Mr. Yuen, you’ve had, I assume, an opportunity to review the proposed amendment by the Applicant to the last sentence of Condition 2. Do you have anything to add to that or you’re satisfied with the way it’s worded? YUEN:We don’t object to that condition if the Commission wants to add that. . ALAMEDA:Okay. Very good. Any other questions for the Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:I’d like to make a motion, if possible. EXHIBIT A 21 ALAMEDA:Sure. WATANABE:I move that we approve SMA, Special Management Area Use Permit 06- 000014, including the amendments to the last sentence of Condition 2 and inclusive of the additional Condition 11 and renumbering of the subsequent conditions. GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Galdones. Okay. Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Rho? RHO:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you. You’ll be informed in writing of this decision. EXHIBIT A 22 KITAGAWA:Thank you very much. ALAMEDA:You bet. Thank you, Mr. Kitagawa. The discussion ended at 10:14 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary EXHIBIT A 23