Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2003-09-11 tpuaanui PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 11, 2003 A regularly advertised public hearing on the applications of PUAANUI PARTNERSHIP (REZ 694/SPP 649) was called to order at 2:20 p.m. in the King KamehamehaÓs Kona - Beach Hotel, Kamakahonu Ballroom IV, 755660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with First Vice-Chairman Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl FujikawaABSENT & EXCUSED:Fred Galdones Bill Graham Jeffrey McCall Florence Kubota Bill Thibadeau Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Hannah Springer Craig Masuda, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Kiran Emler representing Department of Public Works And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: PUAANUI PARTNERSHIP (REZ NO. 694) Amendment to Condition B (deadline to secure Final Plan Approval) and Condition C (construction deadline) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 91-91, which rezoned one-acre of land from an Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to a Village Commercial 1-acre (CV-1a) zoned district. The area involved is located on the makai side of the North Kona Belt stnd Road, Holualoa Village, Holualoa 1 and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-6-08: portion of 5 (formerly TMK: 7-6-08: portion of 10). APPLICANT: PUAANUI PARTNERSHIP (SPP NO. 649) Amendment to Condition No. 5 (construction deadline) of Special Permit No. 649, which allowed the establishment of a 10-room inn on 3 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The area involved is part of the Holualoa Inn complex st situated on the makai side of North Kona Belt Road, Holualoa Village, Holualoa 1 nd and 2, North Kona, Hawaii, TMK: 7-6-08: portion of 5 (formerly TMK: 7-6-08: portion of 10). 1 Now weÓre on Item No., back to Item No. 3. The Applicant, Puaanui Partnership (REZ No. 694), Amendment to Condition B (deadline to secure Final Plan Approval) and Conditions C (construction deadline) of Change of Zone Ordinance No. 91-91, which rezoned one-acre of land from an Agricultural 1-acre (A-1a) to a Village Commercial 1-acre (CV-1a) zoned district. Staff, go ahead. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, since both Item No. 3 and No. 4 are similar, to have those two consolidated for orientation purposes. FUJIKAWA:You may. DARROW:Thank you, Mr. Chair. If I may direct your attention to the location map. Again, we have Mamalahoa Highway, old Mamalahoa Highway, running north and south. This area here is Holualoa, and this red dot signifies the subject property. The Applicants in this case, Puaanui Partnership, are requesting to amend Conditions B and C of Ordinance No. 91 (REZ 694), which was originally rezoned from a 1-acre portion of land from Agricultural 1-acre to Village Commercial 1-acre. TheyÓre requesting an additional five years to complete construction of a restaurant. The Applicants also concurrently are requesting an amendment to Condition 5 of Special Permit No. 649 to allow five years to complete construction on t for the 10-bedroom inn. Special Permit No. 649 was originally p 5-bedroom bed and breakfast, and then later was amended to a 10-bedroom inn. At this time, currently, there are 6 bedrooms within the inn. Looking at the site map, this area here is the old Mamalahoa Highway; and this area in gray represents the road access from old Mamalahoa Highway down of property that is zoned, that was rezoned Village Commercial. This is the area that the future restaurant would be located. At this time, there is an existing building on this property. As you follow this area down, this is the area for the Special Permit for the 10-bedroom inn which is known today as Holualoa Inn. And, again, as I mentioned earlier, there is currently 6 bedrooms, and theyÓre requesting five additional years to be able to complete the additional 4 bedrooms. Recently, the Planning Department had received a letter of concern from Georgene Inaba regarding a trail, and I will defer going into detail for the ApplicantÓs representative. But just for your location, right here along this northern portion of the property is where this trail runs, itÓs a 12-foot trail; and, so, itÓs not really identified on this map. But if you would follow it along the northern boundary, it would be 12 feet from this property line here. This area here is zoned Agricultural 1-acre. So this setback on this side would actually be 20 feet, so itÓd be well out of this area that the trail is located for, to have any development. 2 The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the HawaiÒi County Council for the amendment to Change of Zone Ordin REZ 694; and, also, the Planning Director is requesting approval for the amendment to Special Permit No. 649. Are there any questions? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners, to the staff? Commissioner Springer, go ahead. SPRINGER:Did I understand correctly that youÓre going to, youÓre asking the ApplicantÓs representative to answer the questions that Ms. Inaba had? DARROW:He had, the ApplicantÓs representative recently had submi response; and basically the response is stating that, as I mentioned in the presentation, that the setback from the property line is 20 feet. The actual trail is 12 feet and runs along the border. So any development would not affect this trail on the property. SPRINGER:But her question is what transpired in the 1990Ós that led to the trail being eliminated from the map? DARROW:Okay. That might be a good question for the ApplicantÓs representative. SPRINGER:Thanks. DARROW:Thank you. KUBOTA:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Kubota. Go ahead. KUBOTA:Jeff, in essence, by your write-up of the conditions, the conditions, you are consolidating Conditions B and C? DARROW:Correct. KUBOTA:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other questions from the Commission to the staff? If not, the owner or the ownerÓs representative, please step forward? KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, IÓm sorry IÓm late but I do have one more q of staff. FUJIKAWA:You may proceed. 3 KUBOTA:According to DPW memo, I guess thatÓs Exhibit B, they pro certain conditions on roadways, specifically Nos. 2 and 3 and 4. Where are they reflected in the conditions? DARROW:It appears theyÓre not reflected in the conditions. The previous ordinance had some pretty strict conditions for the Applicants. And, in fact, thatÓs the main reason why weÓre here today. Because the cost of being able to do the improvements that were required under the previous, under this ordinance, had set them back financially a great deal. So, at this time, it would appear that this would be a great burden to continue to place on the Applicants, and that we would be looking at just allowing them additional time to complete construction. KUBOTA:IÓm not getting the gist of the answer. ItÓs not answering my question. On July 21, 2003, DPW sent this memorandum. DARROW:Right. KUBOTA:Okay, and in that memorandum of July 21, they have specif recommendations to make on the roadways. DARROW:Yes. KUBOTA:I donÓt see them reflected in the conditions, and maybe IÓm missing something. HAYASHI:Okay. Basically, if youÓll note that this is a time extension request, as well as a time to, time extension request -. KUBOTA:Yes, yes. HAYASHI:And, basically, the comments that were received from the Department of Public Works goes beyond that and -. KUBOTA:Goes beyond what? HAYASHI:Beyond the request that was before them for review -. KUBOTA:I see. HAYASHI:That is for an amendment to Condition B, which was a tim secure Final Plan Approval, and, also, in which to commence construction. KUBOTA:I see. 4 HAYASHI:So, normally, what we do is just review, whenever someone comes in for an amendment to a zone change, we basically review their request and not impose additional conditions that are not related to this specific request at hand. KUBOTA:Oh, I see. HAYASHI:So, on that basis, we did not include anything regarding the roadway improvements that Department of Public Works had recomme particular application. KUBOTA:Oh. HAYASHI:Conditions like those normally are taken care of at the time the application is first reviewed. KUBOTA:Yes, yes. Okay, so, in essence, what youÓre saying is the recommendation that DPW made is moot? HAYASHI:Well, should have been addressed at the time the initial Change of Zone application was taken up. And this goes beyond the review of the request that the Applicant is seeking at this time; and, therefore, we did not include those comments or those concerns that DPW had requested we incorporate as part of this time extension request. KUBOTA:Okay. IÓll ask a hypothetical question. Supposing, and not necessarily on this, I accept your explanation for the reason that is not in our in condition. Hypothetically, if these recommendations, the current recommendations, seem valid and necessary, would we still say it should have been addressed years ago when the initial application was submitted and, therefore, even if it is critical and it is founded, we wonÓt address it? Is that the way it goes? HAYASHI:Well, I think, the way I look at it is that what we would advertise for is two conditions, amendment to two conditions. And I think what, if weÓre looking at some other conditions to be amended or to be included, then weÓre going beyond the scope of what the request basically is and what was advertised. KUBOTA:Yeah, okay. I can see the logic in that. But I still feel that weÓre leaving some things that need to be taken care of untended, but thatÓs beside the point. LetÓs not argue about it. HAYASHI:I just also say that I donÓt think that prevents you from perhaps suggesting that these additional conditions be imposed. KUBOTA:Okay. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question? Go ahead, Commissioner Springer? 5 SPRINGER:I sometimes have shared Mrs. KubotaÓs concern that we receive agency comments and they may be outside of the scope of the particular request which is before us and that, especially if IÓm reading the material prior to coming to the table, I come with one set of expectations and they may not be properly met at this time under this application. And I guess itÓs a good thing when they present to us that sort of detail, and then the staff here from the Planning Department can help us applicability of those comments to the particular request. But I sometimes have a sense of confusion as well when I hear, see one agency making rather detail and specific recommendations and I donÓt find them reflected in the recommendation from Planning Department. FUJIKAWA:All right. Any other questions? If not, the ownerÓs representative, Mr. Fuke? You may proceed. FUKE:Hi, again. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Again, for the record name is Sidney Fuke. The ownerÓs representative is Thea Brown and sheÓs seated in the audience. The owner has had a chance to review the, the Applicant, rather, has had a chance to review the staffÓs Background Report and the Recommendations and has no objections to any one of them. I would like to note, however, just for the record that in the reference on the proposed ordinance, that bill, and I donÓt know if it needs to be corrected, but in the ordinance, thereÓs a reference to amending a portion of Parcel 10. What had happened was over the course, you know, the original parcel was designated 10, but then there was subsequent consolidation and re-subdivision. And so 10 was assigned to another parcel and the subject parcel is now Parcel 5. And I donÓt know whether that needed to be corrected or not. But itÓs really a minor thing but it could have some down-the-road kind of implications, because you donÓt want to have a property thatÓs zoned thatÓs not really intended to be zoned. I was involved in this project only in conjunction with the expansion of the B&B to the inn; and, so, as a result, when the owners asked me to do the time extension, I had elected to do that. But, at the same time, they also wanted to do the extension on the Change of Zone which I was not involved in. But I had to do quite a bit of research and, so, if you can bear it now, IÓll just give you some general background as far as like how this whole thing came into being. The property owner, itÓs basically the same property and essentially the same owners. But there was a reorganization of the ownership, the partnership; and, as a result, now you have some different members of the family thatÓs kind of doing this project. Back in October of 1997, a maximum of a 5-room bed and breakfast was app Planning Commission. And between September 1998 to April of 199 maybe I should back up, between September 19 - oh, IÓve got it a September 1988 to April 1991, they wanted to expand the bed and breakfast to an inn, put in 15 to 20 bungalows, restaurant, gallery, etc. over 14 acres o 6 reduced to 7 acres. Then in, they had quite a bit of discussion with the then Planning Director, who also happens to be here in the audience. And then, finally, what happened in the upshot is in July of 1991, the owners then agreed to down-zone a 1-acre area. If you look at the map, Jeff, if you can kind of point it out, they had agreed to down-zone a 1-acre area, and in its place zoned this area to 1 acre. This 1-acre area that was commercially-zoned was down-zoned to Open; and thatÓs all within the town of Holualoa. So, basically, it vwas a land swap, a zoning swap, yo restaurant and the shop, When that project was rezoned to Commercial, there was like a number of conditions. And one of the conditions stated that, and the conditions were tied in with the bed and breakfast, so thatÓs why itÓs all kind of related. And they said that, you know, you could not expand the bed and breakfast until you do certain roadway improvements. And one of the roadway improvement conditions said that, you know, you h improvements to the old Holualoa Road, the Mauka Road. Well, this was done at a cost of about $90,000 plus dollars in 1994. And when that happened, they were then in a position to apply for the permit to expand the 4-bedroom or the 5-bedroom B&B up to a 10-room inn. The inn was granted, the permit for the, the Speci approved in October of 1997. Then they applied for an extension back in 1999; and the requirement was that they had to complete it by September of 2002, that is to say the 5 rooms. What they have completed so far is a total of two additional rooms, well, they had like 4 rooms and they completed 2 rooms. It was already finaled today is what Ms. Brown told me this morning, so they were granted Final Approval. So they basically have 4 more rooms outstanding that they need construct; and they just need the additional time. If you look at the presentation map, the 4 additional rooms would be located on the right- hand side of the Holualoa Inn, which is kind of shaded in orange, thatÓs where the 4 rooms -. The two additional rooms that were constructed were actually renovations within the existing structure. Relative to the questions that, I guess, first of all Commissioner Kubota, you had raised about the 5-foot additional road setback along the highway, when the bed and breakfast permit was approved to a 10-room inn in 1994, there was a condition that stated as follows and IÓll read it to you: ÐThe Applicant shall comply with the Department of Public Works Building Division, Traffic and Engineering Divisions, relative to the proposed structural additions, driveways, site distance, slope drainage and any other necessary requirements for this proposed use.Ñ So, by virtue of that, I believe like if, when they applied for the additional improvements that the Public Works Department wanted to require, like the 5-foot additional setback, that they would be in a position to do that. That would also be supported by the fact that they had already written a letter to the Department in response to that comment stating that the Applicant had no objections to setting aside that 5 additional feet along the highway for this road improvement. 7 The other question I think that you had raised, Commissioner Springer, you know, dealt with this 12-foot wide trail. I do have a copy of a map that was prepared by Wes Thomas Associates which showed an existing trail thatÓs 12 feet wide that abuts the north end of the subject property. Why it wasnÓt picked up in that presentation map, I donÓt know. But when Wes Thomas Associates prepared the rezoning exhibit, you know, for the commercially-zoned area, they did reflect a 12-foot wide, the trail running mauka-makai. Again, you know, the Applicant, you know, because you already ha requirement of 20 feet because adjoining properties are zoned agricultural -. And, so, based on the zoning ordinance, you have to respect the setback of the adjoining property owners if itÓs less. So in this situation here, because itÓs agriculturally-zoned, the required setback is 20 feet, you know, from any of the proposed as a result, you know the trail, whether itÓs legal or otherwise, but weÓre conceding that it is, it exists, would not be impeded by any of the proposed improvements. And if you want a condition along that line, I do have a proposed condition itÓs necessary. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other questions from the Commission to the ApplicantÓs representative? Go ahead, Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:Mr. Fuke, do you anticipate that the Applicant will be conducting any activities with or without the condition that would remove the trail from the landscape? FUKE:No. SPRINGER:Does your proposed condition indicate the protective nature of their intent? FUKE:Well, what I was going to suggest was something along this line -. Since the minimum setback requirements are already 20 feet, that maintain a minimum setback of 20 feet along the north property line and there shall be no other improvements, including landscaping, within 12 feet of the north property line.Ñ ÒCause sometimes you can have landscaping within that area and that could impede the flow. SPRINGER:Jeff, could you point out where the trail alignment is on the map on the wall? DARROW:Sure. ItÓs identified along the northern boundary of this area here, and it also runs up to Old Mamalahoa Highway, and continues down SPRINGER:And is immediately adjacent, the boundary? ItÓs virtually on the boundary? 8 DARROW:ItÓs on the, itÓs actually located, if IÓm not mistaken, on the ApplicantÓs property along the northern boundary, 12 feet in. SPRINGER:Twelve feet in? DARROW:Correct. From the boundary 12 feet in. SPRINGER:And thereÓs a 20-foot setback? DARROW:Correct. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other question from the Commission? Staff or the Applicant? If not, Commissioners, we are looking at the Conditions B and 5, right, for the amendment? DARROW:B and C for the rezone and Condition 5. FUJIKAWA:Right. YUEN:On the trail -. FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. YUEN:I would suggest, after reviewing this, saying more directly that the trail running on the northern side of their property, 12 feet wide, shall not be disturbed. FUJIKAWA:Add that to it. Did you get it, staff? DARROW:Correct. You want me to put together a condition? YUEN:No, just as I said it. FUJIKAWA:Okay. YUEN:The trail, the 12-foot wide trail running on the northerly side of the property shall not be disturbed. DARROW:Now weÓre going to be adding this as a condition to the amendment. And, so, we would be looking at L, okay, Condition L, and, as well as the revised Condition B and the elimination of C, IÓm sorry, the previous C. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer? 9 SPRINGER:While I commend the ApplicantÓs representative and the Director for the initiative on this, itÓs just that the trail isnÓt contained only on this property. So the issue of the trail, whether as an access-way or historic site, presumably continues beyond the boundaries of this property; and we may hear of it again and take it up under other applications. And I noticed that State Historic Preservation Division signed off that no historic sites would be impacted by this undertaking, and there hasnÓt been a discussion of the trail as a historic site. But does this record, the record of this proceeding then constitute that discussion of the trail as a historic site? FUJIKAWA:Okay, any other? KUBOTA:ThatÓs a question she posed. YUEN:Let me make a suggestion. Maye we can do this on the staff If we would write a letter to the Na Ala Hele Program asking them, enclosing Ms. InabaÓs letter in that, and asking them for a letter we believe this is would look into why it was removed from the tax maps and possibly re-enter it on the tax maps. At this point, to figure out the legal status of a trail like this is a, it can be a major undertaking and require abstracting. We donÓt have it, the staff to do that in the Planning Department. Na Ala Hele Program has somebody assigned to do tha do that or not, I donÓt know. But thatÓs really, I think, the best thing to do right now. If itÓs erroneously, the problem is that once itÓs removed from the tax -, people tend to rely on the tax maps, they, for all kinds of information. And, so, w removed from the tax maps -. Although it may be on an early tax the drawer, itÓs not a new tax map, people gradually forget and you lose any indication that this is, there is a trail here. So, there may have been a good reason, there may have been, it may have been purchased out. Something else like that might have happened. But I think this is the best way to investigate this, and see whether it should be re-entered onto the tax maps. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Very good. Any other question from the Commission? KUBOTA:I had a question -. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Kubota. KUBOTA:That I wanted to ask. So the status of Condition L stands for this application only, is that my understanding? YUEN:Yes. We canÓt, without knowing what the legal rights are, I canÓt say they should keep it -. KUBOTA:Yes, I understand. 10 YUEN:That they should dedicate it, or recognize it as a public trail. KUBOTA:But it does, you want to insert it as an addition to conditions and label it L? YUEN:Right, to -. KUBOTA:Okay. YUEN:To require the width, the physical width, physical remnant of a trail be kept, pending our inquiry as to whether itÓs still a legal public right-of-way, if it was one in the first place, for that matter. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners? KUBOTA:Yes, IÓm ready. DARROW:Could I interject? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, staff. DARROW:Do we, we also want to be able to place the same Conditio within the Special Permit as a Condition 14. FUJIKAWA:Mr. Yuen? YUEN:The Special Permit goes on the same, the trail goes on the property, the trail is on the same property. DARROW:Correct. YUEN:Okay. Yes, I would, yes. DARROW:Thank you. KUBOTA:Is that No. 14? Because we donÓt have the conditions -. which, is being amended. DARROW:Commissioner Kubota, I believe the, within the Background and the Recommendation, there was an exhibit of the previous Special Permit and ordinance. FUKE:ItÓs actually found in the report that I prepared as Appendix A. DARROW:Is that going to be a problem, Sidney, being able to continue? The trail continues on Parcel 5 and so we would -? 11 FUKE:Well, I think that if I understand the Planning DirectorÓs proposed condition, I think itÓs acceptable. What heÓs saying is that that trail which runs along the northern end of the boundary, the 12-foot wide trail, shall not be disturbed. And theyÓre not making any claims about access or otherwise until it has to be definitely proved. But, I guess, until that time it should not be disturbed, so -. FUJIKAWA:Do you, you were able to find it? KUBOTA:Yes, I found it. ItÓs in our, itÓs not an ordinance. DARROW:No, itÓs not. ItÓs a special permit. So we would be adding the same condition to the amended ordinance, Condition L, as well as Condition 14 to Special Permit 649. KUBOTA:And that would be No. 14? DARROW:Correct. KUBOTA:Mr. Chairman, are we ready for a motion? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, go ahead. TYLER:Mr. Chairman, point of order. May I testify before you ma motion? I did submit, or were you intending for me to testify on another time? FUJIKAWA:No. You have something to say on this matter? TYLER:Yes, sir. I sent you a request. FUJIKAWA:Yeah, go ahead, Mr. Tyler. TYLER:Thank you. Yesterday, I received a telephone call from Mr. Goro Inaba. I was unable to speak with Mr. Inaba, but he did tell my staff people of his concern regarding this trail. I was unaware of this letter by his daughter; and Mr. Hayashi has been kind enough to loan me his copy, so IÓve had a chance to read it a few minutes ago. I hope the Commissioners have had a chance to read it as well. Mr. Inaba is a long-time resident and very well respected resident of Kona. And I speak actually, in this case, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission, outside my district because this is in Mr. ReynoldsÓ district. But I understand he has also spoken or his daughter has spoken to Mr. Reynolds. So I think many of you know, either from hearing from me, Commissioner Springer or others in the community, mauka-makai trails have been under attack for many years; and quite a few of them had be Sunday afternoons, Saturday nights, early mornings, etc. And for those of us who have lived here all of our lives, these are very valued assets of this community. And I would suggest, by looking at Mr. InabaÓs map, that, indeed, the trail is not part of this property. 12 And if you look to the south, you will see another similar trail numbers of them to the north as well as further to the south. And I would, I thank the Director for making the suggestion that no disturbance occur. The information he received yesterday through my staff from Mr. trail has been bulldozed. I donÓt know that because I have not had an opportunity to visit it. But Mr. Fuke has represented that there will not be any disturbance. IÓm just reporting to you what I heard yesterday, what I believe, you know, has occurred in accordance with what I heard. Now it may be it was in juxta pos not actually on the trial, I donÓt know that. But this is a historical long-standing and obviously traditional and customary use trail, no question. And Mr. Inaba, IÓm sure his testimony would be well received, or that of his daughter, through his daughter would be well received by the State Historical Preservation Division. Certainly I would support him, having known that family all my life. So at the very least the condition that the Director proposes would be a minimum condition. I would caution this body to determine, as suggested by Mr. Inaba here, that a determination be made on whose property that is. Because if it is a 12-foot trail and it is government property, the 20-foot setback does not start from the northern boundary of the trail. It starts from the southern boundary of the trail. And itÓs very important to distinguish this before building activity commences, because there will be a significant difference, 12 feet, which I would regard as quite significant. And the map that Mr. Inaba gave to his daughter and spoke to my staff about on the telephone clearly shows a separate parcel, but I donÓt know this for a fact. So I would urge the Planning Department to, as Mr. Yuen has said, talk with Na Ala Hele, etc. The tax maps that I have in my office which are very old show all these trails in here, or most of them. So I would mention that. And, of course, the rezoning condition extension will come to the Council I understand that. And I want to thank Mrs. Kubota for her questions because, in deed, I think the memo from the Department of Public Works which Mrs. Kubota referred to in her first questions regarding this matter are on target. Because if one reads the 1991 ordinance one notices that certain things cannot take place until certain other things take place; and indeed the ordinance as it currently stands says that should these conditions not be met in a timely fashion, that the Director shall initiate rezoning. This is a major question, as some of you know, that the Council has been undergoing right now; weÓve been talking with the Deputy, with the Director. Some contain Ðshall,Ñ and the old ones contain Ðshall,Ñ and the new ones contain Ðmay.Ñ And so the Council is wrestling with this right now, whether or not youÓre aware of it, I know the Director is. And so the issue is, from my perspective, as one of your legislators, is have these conditions been fulfilled? And if they havenÓt, why havenÓt they been fulfilled? There was a question about occupancy permit not having been granted, the building permit not having been closed; and I donÓt know what the status of the annual progress reports are. And I will speak with Mr. Fuke. As I say, I just received this information this morning from my staff; and I thank the Planning Department staff for providing me 13 with it. And I had no idea what Mr. Inaba was calling about except this trail. And so I thought I wonder what heÓs calling about; and then I saw this morning, and now it makes sense to me. So I will talk with Mr. Fuke. But, in the meantime, on behalf of one of my friends and long-time respected families in this community, I just wanted to share that manao with you. Commissioner Springer, obviously, was thinking much along the same lines, although perhaps she didnÓt have a similar call. And, finally, I would call your attention to the request of Georgene Inaba in the last paragraph in the first page, and she makes some recommendations or suggestions to you. And I canÓt speak for her except to say that I call them to your attention because she was a notified property owner; and what you do with that is, of course, at your discretion. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. IÓm sorry to have interrupted you, sir, but I want to make sure I didnÓt otherwise have to interrupt you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any question from the Commission to the Counci Tyler? None, staff, are you okay? You got everything up-to-date? I guess weÓll hear a motion. KUBOTA:YouÓre waiting for a motion? FUJIKAWA:Yeah, go ahead. KUBOTA:Before I move -, IÓll move. I move the Change of Zone Or No. 91 91, Rezoning No. 694, amendment to Conditions B and C by and C, and renumbering the subsequent conditions to follow, with an addition of a Condition L that speaks to the preservation of the trail as worded by the Planning Director, I did not get that, and all other findings submitted b FUJIKAWA:Fine. Do I heard a second? SPRINGER:Second. FUJIKAWA:Okay, it has been moved Commissioner Kubota, and seconded by Commissioner Springer, that this Change of Zone Ordinance No. 91 91 (REZ 694) be approved and forwarded to the County Council. Any questions? If not, staff, go ahead with roll call. GRAHAM:Earl, Earl? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Graham. GRAHAM:I just had one thing. I think Commissioner Kubota said consolidation of B and C, but I thought it was the Change of Zone Ordinance is amending Conditions B and C but C and D were being consolidated, if I remember we were saying, unless I got that wrong. 14 KUBOTA:No, I think itÓs -. GRAHAM:B and C? KUBOTA:Yeah, the former B and C that were consolidated into new language B. GRAHAM:Okay. And as long as IÓm talking, I might as well say th motion, the suggestion of the Planning Director was that ÐThe 12-foot wide trail running on the northern portion of the property shall not be disturbed.Ñ KUBOTA:Thank you. It has been corrected. FUJIKAWA:Okay, it has been corrected. Any other questions? Staff, to ahead. DARROW:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes six to zero. FUJIKAWA:Okay, weÓre on Item No. 4. KUBOTA:Are you ready for a motion? FUJIKAWA:Oh, IÓm sorry, yeah. 15 KUBOTA:Or discussion? FUJIKAWA:Discussion? No? WeÓre okay. YUEN:I think the wording though, on the trail condition, on this one needs to be a little bit different because I donÓt think that -. We should say ÐThe trail through the subject property,Ñ rather than Ðon the northern side,Ñ because on this property I donÓt think it runs on the northern side. ItÓs a different parcel. It runs through this property. FUJIKAWA:Staff, okay? DARROW:Are we wanting for the motion? FUJIKAWA:Yes. Do I hear a motion? YUEN:I thought we would, we just did an amendment to the Change Zone, right? FUJIKAWA:Right. YUEN:And then you need to do an amendment to the, we need a moti amending this time extension to the special permit. ThatÓs the last yellow, the last amber item on Item No. 4. IÓm sorry. KUBOTA:IÓm sorry, IÓm not following you, Mr. Director. YUEN:Okay. We just did a, we just did No. 3. Oh, IÓm sorry, we havenÓt actually gone to No. 4, agenda Item No. 4. Okay, all right. IÓ KUBOTA:WeÓre on Agenda Item No. 4 now. YUEN:Okay, IÓm sorry. IÓm jumping ahead. KUBOTA:ThatÓs all right. FUJIKAWA:WeÓre on Item No. 4 now. KUBOTA:Yes. FUJIKAWA:ThatÓs the amendment to Condition No. 5. HAYASHI:Mr. Chairman, I think the Director stepped out when I indicated that we would like to hear both 3 and 4 simultaneously since itÓs the same property involved. So I think this is where the discussion was both on the Change of Zone as well as the SMA. And I believe Jeff had indicated that we were also, that the condition the 16 Director has proposed regarding public access would also be incorporated in this amendment to the SMA. So I think itÓs a matter of just taking a vote on the SMA Use Permit. FUJIKAWA:Okay, so weÓre going to take a vote on the -. FUKE:Special Permit. HAYASHI:Special Permit, IÓm sorry. FUJIKAWA:ItÓs not a SMA, itÓs a Special Permit No. 649. GRAHAM:Earl, should I make a motion or -? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead. GRAHAM:Okay. I would like to move that we approve Special Permi 649 that we have before us as written by the Planning Department amend Condition No. 5 as they have given it to us, and add a new Condition No. 14. And the new Condition No. 14 says ÐThe 12-foot wide trail running through the property shall not be disturbed.Ñ MINA:Second. FUJIKAWA:Okay, it has been moved by Commissioner Graham and seconded by Commissioner Mina that SPP No. 649 be passed. Right? GRAHAM:Yes. FUJIKAWA:On Condition No. 5, amend Condition No. 5. Any questio MINA:Call for the question. FUJIKAWA:If not, staff, go ahead. DARROW:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Mina? MINA:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA:Aye. 17 DARROW:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. DARROW:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. DARROW:And Mr. Chairman? FUJIKAWA:Aye. DARROW:The motion passes six to zero. Thank you for your patien that. The discussion ended at 3:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 18