Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2009-09-01 TIIDA WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 1, 2010 JIN SOO AND RAN HUI IIDA (REZ 07- A regularly advertised hearing on the application of 073) was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Wallace Ishibashi, Zendo Kern, and Stephen Ono. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Kelly Gomes representing Department of Public Works), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And six people from the public in attendance. APPLICANTS: JIN SOO AND RAN HUI IIDA (REZ 07-073) Amendment to Change of Zone Ordinance No. 08-039, which changed the district zoning of the subject 23,559 square-foot property from Single-Family Residential-10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Neighborhood Commercial-20,000 square feet (CN-20). The amendment request is to delete Condition D that restricts uses on the property to personal services, residential and residential- related. The property is located along the west side of Kilauea Avenue, approximately 420 feet south of the Kilauea Avenue-Puainako Street intersection, Waiakea Homestead Houselots, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-40:121. WOODWARD: First item on the agenda today, Applicants Jin Soo and Ran Hui Iida. It’s an amendment to a Change of Zone Ordinance which required a district change, district zoning from Single-Family Residential to Neighborhood Commercial. The amendment request is to delete Condition D which restricts uses on the property to personal services, residential and residential-related. And the property is on Kilauea in the Waiakea Houselots, South Hilo. Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning everyone. COMMISSIONERS: Good morning. COTTLE: The first application is an amendment to a change of zone ordinance, and the applicants are Jin Soo and Ran Hui Iida. The subject property is located in the South Hilo district. You can see the property on the slide as outlined in black; and you have Puainako Street 1 running in an east-west direction towards the top of the slide. You have the highway heading out of town towards Volcano. And then Kahaopea Street is running in an east-south direction on the bottom of the slide. The property is actually located just off of Kilauea Avenue. And you can see it’s currently zoned Neighborhood Commercial, which is shown in pink on the slide. Surrounding properties are zoned Single Family Residential which is shown in yellow on the slide. And the General Plan LUPAG designation for the property is currently Low Density Urban. That’s shown in yellow on the slide. You can see the areas east of Kilauea Avenue are currently designated in Medium Density Urban; and then further east is High Density Urban shown in red. The KTA Store complex, Puainako Center, is in this general area just across Kilauea Avenue. The applicants are requesting to delete Condition D of the original Change of Zone Ordinance 08-39. Condition D restricted the permitted uses on the property to personal services, residential and residential-related uses. This was to allow the applicant to establish a beauty salon on the property. The applicant would now like to expand the existing dwelling on the property to 1500 square feet and relocate their seed snack shop from Puainako Center to the property. This is a site plan of the property. You can see Kilauea Avenue on the right side of the slide. They have a shared driveway with their neighbor to the south. And then the beauty salon is shown in purple in the back of the property here. And the current dwelling is also shown in purple here; and they want to expand that out towards the front of the property to relocate the seed snack shop. This is a site photo. And, again, you have Kilauea Avenue in the forefront here. And their driveway, the beauty shop is in the back. There is parking between it and the existing dwelling structure. And this is the structure that they want to expand to establish a seed snack shop. The Planning Department is recommending an unfavorable recommendation to delete Condition D; and, instead, we’re recommending that Condition D be amended to allow restaurants as a permitted use. A restaurant is the closest definition in the Zoning Code for the use that the applicant wants to establish, the seed snack shop. So we felt that was a reasonable thing to do, to allow the restaurant as a permitted use. This would allow, as I mentioned, the applicant to relocate their seed snack shop to the property but would also limit commercial development in the area and would maintain the Low Density Urban LUPAG Map designation for the area. Are there any questions? WOODWARD: Any questions for staff? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Immediately in the front of this lot is Kilauea Avenue. And what designation is on the other side? COTTLE: The General Plan designation is Medium Density Urban -. 2 DOMINGO: Medium Density. COTTLE: On the east side of Kilauea Avenue. DOMINGO: And this particular area is Low Density -? COTTLE: That’s correct. DOMINGO: For residential uses? COTTLE: That’s correct. All of the areas shown in orange are Medium Density Urban. This square shaped area towards the bottom of the slide is the location of the old Food Fair. And then you have the Noodle Factory here; and Kai Store at the corner of Puainako and Kilauea Avenue, and then as I mentioned the Puainako Center across Kilauea Street. DOMINGO: When they came in for the original application for rezoning, if I recall correctly, the Department recommended denial of that application at that time. On what basis was that denial made? COTTLE: At the time we did recommend denial for this CN zoning, the main reason was we felt it was inconsistent with the Low Density Urban General Plan designation for the area. And we felt that changing to a CN zoning would be somewhat precedent setting and may allow or encourage the properties that you see in between the two orange areas, all these single family residential properties here, to come in also for CN zoning; and then you would introduce obviously more traffic to Kilauea Avenue. It would become more congested like other areas of Kilauea Avenue closer to Downtown, so we wanted to prevent that from happening. DOMINGO: Yeah, I can see that from a planning perspective. But as I look at the colors right now, would it not have been more appropriate perhaps if when the General Plan review was made that Medium Density be extended all the way to Kahaopea Street thereby having a consistent array of zoning in the area? COTTLE: You know, I wasn’t here at the time but I believe that issue had come up during the 2005 comprehensive review of the General Plan; and there was some discussion of kind of moving it over towards Kinoole Street and making this entire area in here Medium Density Urban. But for whatever reason, and I’m not aware of the reason, it remained Low Density Urban. DOMINGO: I see. And I can understand why the Planning Department had recommended denial. But I understand also at that time the Planning Commission sort of took a compromised position and permitted zoning, but based only on a specific use of that property, you know. It was, I don’t know if you call that contract zoning based on a specific particular use on that property and not allowing them to conduct a whole array of uses as contained in the CN zoning. And now what they’re doing, if I try to understand this clearly, is trying to delete what the 3 Planning Commission had permitted them to do; and I must also add that it was a compromise position. You know, the Planning Department is saying denial but we felt perhaps it would have been a better use in this particular area if we were to envision expansion of the CN zoning, but which had not happened since then. But now they’re coming in for an amendment to it, to delete that amendment, and to apply for further uses. Am I clear on that? COTTLE: Yes, that’s correct. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Madam Director, did you want respond to that? LEITHEAD TODD: I just wanted to say that, you know, we’re living with what’s currently in the LUPAG Map. And the way we’re interpreting it, because it’s running along street lines we were interpreting it as basically running, being divided by those lines. But I understand Mr. Domingo’s concerns. And I would be taking a good hard look next review of taking that area between Kinoole and Kilauea and looking at Medium Density. Because I guess what’s not even showing on that is, if, you know, you’re familiar with the Sure Save, the old Food Fair site, across from it in what’s considered Low Density Urban is the senior housing high rise project, which I think is three stories tall. So, you know, there’s a certain amount of flux and change going on in the area that isn’t even reflected on the map. Also not showing on the map in what is Low Density Urban is what I would assume is a grandfathered service station on one corner by Kilauea. On Kahaopea and Kilauea I believe there’s a service station on that corner there. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any further questions for staff? ONO: Yes, one -. WOODWARD: Commissioner Ono. ONO: Just for clarification then, my ignorance is showing here. You made a comment about giving a restaurant, by definition a restaurant -. COTTLE: That’s correct. ONO: Would that be an open door to their understanding that they could put in a restaurant? My ignorance is showing here. COTTLE: Well, they’re currently just requesting to relocate the seed and snack shop and have it be like a take-out type restaurant where people come and pick up bentos and buy other things, too. So it’s not, the way the applicant represented in their application, it’s not envisioned as a come- in and sit-down restaurant. The way the condition is written though, it could in the future allow, you know, a full scale sit-down restaurant. 4 ONO: And if that should ever occur, do they have to face the Planning Commission again? COTTLE: No. ONO: So this is -? COTTLE: Not the way the condition is written now. ONO: So this would be just a blanket permission for them to expand it into a restaurant without permission? COTTLE: Potentially that could happen with the CN zoning, yes. ONO: Thank you. COTTLE: You’re welcome. WOODWARD: Okay, any further questions before we have the applicant up? DOMINGO: Yes. WOODWARD: Yes, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Maija, you know, they’re coming in for, first they want a condition be deleted and they’re coming in for another amendment to that, to the previous action taken on the zoning. What if, you know, based on the past action we just say, okay, the zoning is granted and we not put any amendments to it or take any action to it, would they then be able to conduct a CN zoning, Medium Density uses on that property? COTTLE: Are you asking if you do not change the ordinance and you leave it as it is now? DOMINGO: Yeah. And even with withdrawal, delete that condition that its uses should only be a reflection of that having a residential nature and all that. COTTLE: Yeah, so what you’re asking if that condition were deleted, which is what the applicants are requesting, then what would happen is any permitted use in the CN district would be allowed. So they could establish a restaurant, they could establish a convenience store, there’s a variety of uses that they could establish on that property if Condition D were deleted. DOMINGO: You know, this is something that I’m wrestling with because we give them the zoning with conditions and now they’re coming in with an application to delete that amendment with restrictions, but then they’re coming in with another, another application for the expansion of the existing uses. 5 I thought about this real hard and, you know, I feel reluctant to consider such a move because, you know, a CN zoning permits certain particular uses and it’s permissible. What we did, we put restrictions and tell them, okay, you guys have the zoning but you just have to do certain uses. Now they’re coming in because of some circumstances which they have no control in the future. With the expiration of the lease, they need to relocate the use. And I totally sympathize with that, in the predicament they’re in. But from the standpoint of land use actions that we take, you know, I’ve always contended that the General Plan and the Zoning Code are the most important planning documents in the County. It has to be specific and real exact as to what one can do and what one cannot do. In this particular case, you know, we’re just wavering on the line and saying okay, we can do this, and next we’re coming in and we’re deleting that, and then now they can do that. That’s why my question was if we take no action, and considering that we gave them the zoning in the past, what would then be their alternative? And you indicated that, well, the existing uses and all existing, all uses as permitted in the CN zoning would apply to this property. And then that’s where I’m coming from. That’s my concern. WOODWARD: All right. Any further questions? Okay, seeing none, let’s call the applicant and/or representatives up. All right, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Morning. WOODWARD: Hi. If I can get you to raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? FUKE: I do. WOODWARD: Okay, very good. Are you both going to testify or just Mr. Fuke? FUKE: Just myself. WOODWARD: Okay. All right, Mr. Fuke, if you’ll give us your name and address; and then you may begin. FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a planning consultant. But today I’m here more as a role of helping out the applicant’s father who’s a good friend of mine. And so this is what I would say like a not-for- profit type of pro bono work, but his father is a very good friend of mine. But my address is, business address is right across the street, 100 Pauahi Street, Room 212. In listening to the dialogue, you know, that Commissioner Domingo and, I guess, Commissioner Ono had also raised I’d like to just kind of give the Commissioners some background on this situation here, inasmuch as two years ago or two and a half years ago I was kind of like helping out Mr. Iida again on this same application. The biggest debate between the former planning 6 director and when the applicant came in, you know, rests solely on whether this property fell within the Low Density area on the General Plan or the Medium Density area on the General Plan. And we were trying to make, you know, on behalf of the applicant, that the General Plan was not intended to be GIS measurable like how you see right now. It was more intended to be like broadbrushed. And so as such, you know, given what’s happening in that area one could reasonably interpret this area to be Medium Density rather than Low Density. However, at that time the Department and the Director said, no, we’re still going to call it Low Density. And so what we then had proposed is that recognizing that within the Low Density area Neighborhood Commercial uses according to the General Plan could be allowed, but -. You know, you don’t want to have like a Commercial Neighborhood zoning that would be a blanket type which may undermine the intent behind the Low Density General Plan designation. So we made that concession. So that particular condition that Mr. Iida is proposing to delete right now is one ironically that we had suggested, you know, on behalf of the applicant. We said like, okay, we recognize the General Plan constraints. And then so if you have like a generic zoning which, with the Commercial Neighborhood zoning, then -- although at that time all they wanted to do was just put up their Lani’s Beauty Salon -- you know, it’s possible at some point in time in the future you could have like a gas station, or something which would be totally, which may be totally incongruous with the concept of a Low Density General Plan designation. So we said, okay, fine, let’s limit it then. And so we understood at that time that it was, amounts to some amount of a contract zoning, which Commissioner Domingo is pointing out accurately; but we said like that’s fine because this is the applicant’s proposal. We’re not saying that the County is unilaterally requiring that of the applicant to restrict uses. You said no -. We from the applicant’s standpoint we’re saying that’s fine. So what Mr. Iida is coming before you right now is that, you know -. And the General Plan has not changed, and so, and probably the interpretation has not changed as well. So we’re saying that, okay, recognizing that then all they want to do is, you know, like now introduce another element, which is to put in their Five Spice Store which is at the Puainako Center, and just relocate in that area. And so the staff is saying that the only way that they can do that right now is to, you know, expand the definition to also now allow a restaurant, rather than going like a wholesale deletion of that “condition.” And, you know, we agree that if you delete that condition it may kind of undermine the spirit of the Low Density designation. And so, you know, Mr. Iida, the applicant, would have no objection to the proposed amendment, you know, as it is with that kind of restriction. The only comment that I would make is that it’s clearly understood, you know, I guess by the Department and whoever is interpreting that that what he’s proposing right now, which is a Five Spice Store which has like, you know, they sell crackseed and all that kind of, you know, eating stuff, plus not a typical restaurant type. They serve like manapua, or hot dog, and sandwiches, those kinds of things; and that’s why they still need to have like a commercial kitchen. You know, whether that kind of falls under the definition of a restaurant -. And in my discussion with the staff this morning and also which was confirmed by her statement, you know, this morning, 7 it’s kind of saying that, yes, that would, his existing operation, his proposed operation would still fall under the definition of a restaurant. So from that standpoint, they have no objections. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Well, I think if we’ve got it on the record, if there’s a question, then you just pull out the record. And it has been stated that that is the case. The other question I had, and in looking through this, evidently the Department of Water Supply and the Fire Department are requiring a fire hydrant to be put in. FUKE: Correct. There were like a number of issues that the agencies raised; and I discussed that with Mr. Iida earlier today. And he said, yes, he is aware that the Fire Department is calling for the fire hydrant to be situated directly across of the property; and then that’s something that he’s going to have to do. The Water Department is also recommending that he install a backflow preventer. And I explained to him that if you’re going to have a fire hydrant up there, you better have a backflow preventer; otherwise, you’re going to blow up your, you know, your plumbing system. He also has an obligation by the year 2013 to construct curb, gutter and sidewalk fronting his property. That was part and parcel of the original condition; and that he’s aware of. WOODWARD: Okay. So you’ve received the recommendation, and the conditions are satisfactory to you? FUKE: Yes. WOODWARD: And you have, you would be happy with the recommendation that the Planning Director has put forth to, rather than delete Condition D to just add “restaurant” as a permitted use? FUKE: That’s correct, with the understanding that his existing operation falls under the definition of a restaurant. WOODWARD: Okay. And the other question I have, and perhaps for the staff and Planning Director, I don’t know what a fire hydrant costs, but my guess is it’s not real cheap. And there is going to be a revision of the various fees. The, what is it, fair share contribution is going to be updated. And it would seem to me that since this fire hydrant is not your fire hydrant, it is a fire hydrant that is going to benefit everybody, and is really a County function that you have to pay for, whether it would be reasonable to use that as an offset against the fair share contributions. FUKE: Well, the fair share as I understand, and maybe the Director can correct me, but the fair share applies only if he elects not to have commercial but instead have like a duplex or -. 8 WOODWARD: Right. FUKE: An apartment complex on the property. WOODWARD: Housing, yeah. Okay. And there’s some other fee that, Unified Impact Fee Ordinance, and I’m not sure if that would affect businesses or just residences if it’s enacted. FUKE: Well, if it’s enacted we would hope that it would not be retroactive. WOODWARD: Okay. All right, any further questions? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Fuke, you gave us a list of requirements by the Board of Water Supply and the Public Works. Are, those would be required of the applicant regardless of whether or not these restrictive uses are put in as against a total zoning being granted? FUKE: Well, in terms of the water requirements, the answer would be yes. Because what the Water Department reviewed was what the applicant was proposing, was to have essentially not only the deletion but more specifically the allowance of his Five Spice Store. And so in that regard the Water Department is saying, you know, if you’re going to do that then you need to do some upgrade, you know, you need to submit your water calculation demands to us, and then we can effectively determine what the water requirements are. The fire hydrant standard is almost like a standard requirement on the Water Department and Fire Department whenever you have a commercial zoning. And in this case here the property is zoned Commercial. If the property were zoned Residential or maybe if you were granting like a use permit, then there is a possibility that the fire hydrant requirement could be waived. But not, as my understanding of the Water Department rules, when it calls for commercial zoning then it’s almost like a mandate. There was also a similar situation for properties that were recently rezoned along Ponahawai Street, you know, where the medical offices are, you know, right below that area; and when they came in for the commercial zoning the Fire Department and the Water Department both required that the fire hydrants be installed. DOMINGO: You know, I’m not looking at even the possibility of a waiver in this particular case. What I’m talking, I’m looking at a future development along Kilauea, Kilauea Avenue, and should there be other expansion applications by people who would like to do any kind of business -- this would be an appropriate place to situate their business because of the growth in population and the growth in the Hilo area. We’re looking at Hilo going towards the south, the 9 southern part of town; and this would be appropriate. And notwithstanding the fact that you have the old Food Fair building there, I think you have several uses of commercial type situating there, and also offices and the like. So, you know, I’m looking up to the point of Kahaopea Street an ideal place or area in which future development can take place. And my, you know, to the Planning Commission, my problem is because we’re looking at what’s there on the map and what’s, where the application is, you know, would it be wiser that we anticipate growth taking place there and just not put any restrictions to it? I have strong reservations about putting restrictions on any particular zoning. It sends out, it sends a different kind of signal to the public as far as the ability of the, of any developer making plans with regards to establishing a business, or developing any housing, or whatever. For them it’s important to know that what’s there is there and what’s not there is not there. And what they can do, and what they can’t do, it’s very important. I think in this particular case, it also applies to the applicant. I remember many years ago when I was on the County Council there was this foot doctor, and there was an application up Ponahawai, and it’s above the jail within the residential area. He had a property and he came in for rezoning. It was a big issue because given a commercial zoning the people in the development were very concerned about the possibility what might happen if this individual had sold his property; and then with that commercial zoning he would be able to put in a service station and other uses. So what we did at that time is did exactly what we’re talking about today, you know, contract zoning, allowing only a particular use within the zoning to be conducted. And, you know, it’s always a scary position for me as I look at that because in the event that individual sells the property or in the event that individual needs to change the use of that property, you know, then he had to go through the same procedures that this applicant is going through; and I don’t think it’s fair for them. Once you give a person a rezoning I think they should be comfortable that under that zoning they’re permitted all these uses, with no restrictions whatsoever. And that’s where I’m sitting at right now. WOODWARD: All right. Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Do we have any other questions? Okay, seeing none, you folks may be seated. Thank you very much. And we’ve already had a little deliberation, but now we can really deliberate. We have nobody signed up from the public to testify. So would somebody care to make a motion? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I move for the deletion of the previous condition imposed on them on Rezoning Application 07-073. WOODWARD: Condition D? DOMINGO: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay. Do we have a second? 10 AU: Second. WOODWARD: All right. So your motion is to send a favorable recommendation to Council for the deletion of Condition D? DOMINGO: Just deletion of Condition D with no other, other applications to it. WOODWARD: Okay. GONZALEZ: No other amendments. WOODWARD: All right; and for the, okay. Do we have any discussion? Okay, well, I’ll throw in my two cents worth. I think Commissioner Domingo has a point here and I think I -. And from what I can sort of glean, the Department is not real steadfast in their convictions on this one in that this property is surrounded, I mean in every direction except one there’s Medium Density; and there’s more Medium Density in anywhere near this than there is Low Density. It’s a bit, seems a bit capricious to me that we’ve got this patchwork effect; and it would seem to me to be more reasonable as Commissioner Domingo is suggesting to move it over one street to that next street over. So I would be in favor of -. And, again, I’ve seen too many abuses and misuses, in my opinion, of modified zoning. I can tell you a place out in Ocean View that, where they have the swap meet now. This is all zoned Agricultural. And these people came back so many times, and so many times, eventually the Planning Commission back in 90’s decided that they were going to give them essentially the ability to do anything that could be done in the MX zone without changing the zoning. I mean, you can really get some strange combinations and permutations. So it would seem to me that the most simple direct thing to do would be to delete this condition. And I think based on the fact that this is in an area with a lot of Medium Density, and the only legitimate reason for not having a true CN zoning here would be the fact that it is in fact in the LUPAG Map Low Density. But, again, it’s surrounded on all sides by Medium Density zoning. So that’s my two cents worth. Anybody else have any comments? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just additional comments as you were speaking. I liken this situation with that of the industrial area, I mean not industrial area but Houselots. In the years past it was predominantly, its use was for residential uses. But what we’re seeing here today, and it was dependent upon the requirements and the need for light industrial uses, office and other mixed uses at that, at this time. And that’s why what we’re seeing at the Houselots, it’s a combination of various types of uses and a slow transition from residential into those uses. And it’s only because the demand is there, you know. And those who lived there prior who owned those homes have become old, or have sold their interest, or turned their interest over to their children; and their children, in effect, had other plans with other intended uses; and they’re also going into light, into Light Industrial and Office uses, a combination of what we’re seeing there today. 11 So I think what we may be initiating here, and which might be a far cry from it, but in the future if this zoning is established and if the Planning Department and the Council follows up with a General Plan Amendment and then designates this area as Medium Density uses we’ll find similar type of scenario taking place here as we have seen now with Houselots. And I think it’s a good move, I think it’s a good, good planning. From the planning perspective, I think it’s a good move and it’s in preparation for the growth of the area. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. WOODWARD: All right, thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Any other comments or discussion? Madam Director, do you have anything? No? LEITHEAD TODD: No. WOODWARD: Okay. All right. Well, let’s take a vote then. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have one question. The Condition D would be deleted is what your, is what the motion is. But, Mr. Domingo, are you also recommending to keep the remaining ordinance as is or implement the revisions that we recommended? DOMINGO: I would, at this point I would, I tend to lean towards implementing the conditions that you are, you’ve inserted in the recommendation. And it’s only because it’s based on the proposed use of this property, as Mr. Fuke stated, you know, those uses reflects, as reflective of Medium Density uses. COTTLE: Okay. WOODWARD: All right. Commissioner Au as the seconder, is that acceptable to you? AU: Yes, that’s acceptable. WOODWARD: Okay, is there any objection to that? Seeing none, okay, let’s take a vote. COTTLE: Thank you. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Au? AU: Yes. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Kern? 12 KERN: Aye. COTTLE:Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes six-zero. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. We will send a favorable recommendation to Council for you and you will be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 9:50 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 13