Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-12-15 TDELUZ AUTOexhibitB LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 15, 2010 JASON DELUZdba DELUZ AUTO BODY A regularly advertised hearing on the application of REPAIR (SPP 06-34) was called to order at 11:12 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, Ballroom I, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Frederic Housel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Frederic Housel, Brandi Beaudet, Lani Bowman, Geraldine Giffin, Thomas Hickcox, Wayne Iokepa and Richard Nelson STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager) and Jeff Darrow (Staff And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: JASON DELUZdba DELUZ AUTO BODY REPAIR (SPP 06-34) Amendment to Special Permit No. 06-34, which allowed the establishment of an automotive body repair shop and accessory uses for a 2-year period on 6,500 square feet of land within a larger 15.24-acre parcel situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The amendment request is to extend the life of the Special Permit for an additional 3 years. The area under consideration is located along the south side of Mmalahoa Highway, across from Kakanihia Road, Pu‘ukapu st Homesteads, 1Series, Waimea, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-4-01: 04. HOUSEL: We’re going to take up the third item on our agenda today. The applicant is Jason DeLuz doing business as DeLuz Auto Body Repair, and this is an amendment to Special Permit No. 06-34, which allowed the establishment of an automotive body repair shop and accessory uses for a two-year period on 6,500 square feet of land. Anyone who would like to testify on this issue, please sign up with our staff, aswe want to include everyone. So let’s proceed. Allen, are you going to do the honors? SALAVEA: Yes, Mr. Chair. Thank you. HOUSEL: Thank you. SALAVEA: Jason DeLuz doing business as DeLuz Auto Body Repair.Amendment to Special Permit Application SPP 06-34. The subject property is 15.24 acres in size and rectangular in shape, is located in the Waimea area on the south side of orientation. T. For orientation, the subject property is located between the 54 and 55 mile markers, located across from Kakanihia Road in Pu‘ukapu Homesteads. So for your orientation, this is the site of the previous location and this is the subject parcel. County zoning is Agricultural 5 acres. A majority of the land surrounding the parcel is Ag-5. There is Ag-y and some Ag-3 located to the east. General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the area along Important Ag Land, and that will be this lighter green color; soit’s Low Density Urban along the 1 EXHIBIT B highway and Important Ag Land here. The project site, although the parcel is within both designations, the project site is located within the Low Density Urban area. South Kohala CDP adopted by the Hawai‘i County Council Ordinance 08-159 identifies the property as small farms parcel – it’s a little hard to reconnoiter with the last map –in this area, right here where the circle is. Proposed Action: Special Permit 06-34 allowed the establishment of an automotive body repair shop and accessory uses on 6,500 square feet of land for a two-year period of time on October 8, 2008; a two-year administrative time extension was granted for Condition No. 4;the applicant requests an amendment to SPP 06-34 to allow a three-year time extension to the life of the permit, Condition No. 4; this will allow the applicant additional time to seek an appropriately-zoned property to relocate the auto body repair shop. And this is the site plan submitted by the applicant. The property is 15.24 acres in size and rectangular in shape. That’s what we’ve seen previously. There is an existing five-bedroom, one- bath single family dwelling constructed, and that’s in this area, in 1943, occupied by the landowner, and a garage, adjacent garage area, that would be here – so the automotive body repair shop, 6,500 square feet, in this area. More to the south is the general parking area for overflow parking. Jason DeLuz Auto Body Repair consists of a2,520 square feet garage structure with three bays, a spray booth, office space and parking area that I mentioned – the parking area is this area here. Employees: The applicant has four fulltime employees, and the hours of operation are between 8:00 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Monday through Friday. Planning Department’s recommendation is to approve the amendment to Special Permit 06-34 to allow a three-year time extension to Condition 4, life of the permit. That’s all for our presentation. Does anyone have any questions? HOUSEL: Any questions, Commissioners? Allen, I had one question. Reading the background information, it said a special permit was granted for two years in 2006. Was there another permit issued in, an extension, in 2008? SALAVEA: Mr. Darrow has alerted me that the last condition of that permit allowed for a two-year administrative -. HOUSEL: Oh, okay, so it continued after that, then. Okay. Now, does this current provision, if it’s passed, allow any extensions? SALAVEA: The current recommendation does not allow for further extensions. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Daryn, is there anyone who signed up to testify on this? No? Okay. No testifiers. So let’s -. BOWMAN: I have a question. HOUSEL: Sure. BOWMAN: I’m looking at the site photographs, and just historically what’s -. Do you know if that building was used for something else prior to the special permit? 2 EXHIBIT B SALAVEA: Maybe that would be better directed to the applicant. BOWMAN: That’s right, thank you. HOUSEL: Okay, let’s call the applicant and representative forward. If you would like to use the microphone, please. Raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission on this matter today? MOOERS: I do. DELUZ: I do. HOUSEL: Thank you. Would you like to give your name and address, please? MOOERS: My name is Greg Mooers, planning consultant for the applicant. My address is P. O. Box 1101 Kamuela. DELUZ: Jason DeLuz. My address is 64- HOUSEL: Thank you. Greg, if you would like to proceed. MOOERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think it’s very fortuitous that we had the discussion earlier about Mr. Caitano’s permit, because I think it really draws attention to some issues that you are faced in the Waimea community. I think of the last couple of meetings we’ve had special permits approved for ranch and farm supplies, and there was another one approved today for Mr. Olson’s ranch and farm supply. There are several issues I have personally with the South Kohala Community Development Plan. I think that these permits really illustrate this, and I think that the Director spoke about some of the issues. Having attended some of the Community Development Plan meetings, one of the points that I brought out at the meetings was that everybody in the meetings looked a lot like me –a lot of middle aged, older haoles – that didn’t seem like we were getting real broad cross-section of people in the Waimea community. And I have lived in Waimea now for 40 years. There were not representatives from east Hawai‘i,representing the small ranches and farms that appear in the Community Development Plan; there was some representation from the state farm ag lots, but there was a whole lot of representation for people who seemed to me to be a pretty well established in life, not so much worried about making a living. I think that’s something that,as a community, we are going to have to address and possibly revising that plan. Looking at these special permits, and I’m glad that there is a provision in the law for special permits, because it allows you to consider things that are unusual circumstances and you can assess them on a case-by-case basis and the community can provide input on a case-by-case basis as to whether or not it works in our community, and clearly these are certain exercises as they would have. We are not asking to put 7-Elevens out on the farm lots; what we are asking for in many cases are these agricultural parcels that have warehouses and garage to be utilized in a manner that it’s not offensive to the agricultural use, does not generate high traffic volumes, and is consistent with this type of use and noise. And I think Mr. DeLuz’s application, as being recognized by the Director in the Department, is that this is an operation that’s been going on for 20 years and it’s been consistent with the community, has not created problems for the community. It doesn’t generate high traffic, you know, you don’t allow the body repairs, you are not repairing 25 cars a 3 EXHIBIT B day; so there is not a high volume of traffic. And the type of noise and dust associated with the agricultural work is consistent with these types of uses. In reviewing the background report and recommendation, I do want to address one of the issues that was, it appeared in the revised conditions that has not previously appeared – that’s Condition 6 – and I think Daryn spoke to this earlier, and that’s the idea of – I’m sorry, Condition 5 – no exterior signs. We would ask that condition be omitted; we don’t think it’s fair to Mr. DeLuz. His signage, which appears in the photographs in my application, is very minimal; he’s got a sign on the road that is equivalent of a real estate “For Sale” sign, and then he has a small sign about three feet by four feet on the building itself, which is not visible from the road – it’s only visible from the adjoining single family dwelling. So we would respectfully request that Condition 5 be omitted. I think one of the issues that comes up, just has come up in the past in Arte’s Service and came up previously on Mr. Caitano’s application, is the issue of time limits and what is reasonable. I had to grimace lightly when the applicants said that they accepted all the conditions when he has no idea what sort of time limit you are proposing. And I’m looking at the beautiful new building that is designed with bays and a hydraulic lift and compressors, and I’m wondering what the amortization period is for those sorts of investments. My client, as I said, has been in business for over 20 years on this side, and it’s difficult to make investments and keep the property up, not knowing if you are going to be there beyond two years or three years. And I would like to request that – we understand that this request is for a three-year period and maybe the economy will improve before then, maybe other opportunities will present themselves – but we would like the option of coming back at some point in the future and request an extension, if the use is not offensive to the community, as it hasn’t been for the last 20 years. So even though there is no condition that prohibits it, there is a mention in the recommendation that no further application, or no further time limit (sic), will be allowed. Anyway, at that point, I guess I’m willing to answer any questions you may have. In addition to the applicant, Mr. DeLuz, today we also have Melvin Masaki who is the landowner, or the trustee of the property. HOUSEL: Commissioners, any questions of the applicant? BOWMAN: I do. HOUSEL: Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question. It appears by the photos that, you know, this property is committed to this type of use with all the pavement and everything. I’m just, historically, what was the building used for prior to the -? DELUZ: Farm repair, tractors -. BOWMAN: Farm repair. DELUZ: Yeah. BOWMAN: And do you still repair farm equipment? DELUZ: Just my own. Sometimes we used to do when they had KM Seed down in town. We used to repair and paint their tractors, but now they are no longer existing. 4 EXHIBIT B BOWMAN: And in the back where you store the extra cars, that’s gravel, right? DELUZ: Yes, it is. BOWMAN: And you have no thoughts of paving or anything. DELUZ: Well, that’s another expense. And we, if we had more time there, probably we would want to pave it. But right now, no it’s still gravel. BOWMAN: Yeah, it just appears to me that paving in concrete commitsthe land to a certain type of use. That’s just my comment. MOOERS: One thing: the photographs unfortunately don’t show very well – I used to do this in color, but I found that by the time they got to you guys, there was no color, that they just would make black and white copies of the application booklets – but the vast majority of that property is in active agricultural use. And so that whole southern section, and if you recall in the application there is a drawing showing the areas that are in Low Density Urban and then the areas in Important Ag, all there is in Important Ag is in an active agriculture. So that’s really only the portion up by the road that has the warehouse and the improvements. And if you look at the site plan, it’s in the application, you notice that only that small area up by the road has been disturbed, but the balance of the property is actively farmed. BOWMAN: Okay, and just for clarification, I guess the last picture, “Agricultural Area on Southern Portion of the Subject Property,” so that’s all like little cabbages or lettuce or something back there. DELUZ: Correct, yes. BOWMAN: Okay, yeah, it doesn’t -. Thank you for clarifying that, because it appears that it’s a barren long strip of land. MOOERS: I know. If it were in color, it would have been better. But years ago I quit doing color because by the time it got to the decision makers, whether it’s the Commission or the Council, you know, we were like three generations of photographs that have been copied and they were just, you know, it doesn’t justify the expense. BOWMAN: Thank you. HOUSEL: Any other questions? Commissioner Giffin. GIFFIN: Greg, somewhere, I don’t know if it was in the background report or a part of the recommendation, there was some discussion about why the term was for three years, and it had something to do with looking for suitable property elsewhere. MOOERS: Right. Previous to this application, the client, Mr. DeLuz, had acquired property in Haina and was considering moving his auto body repair shop there. And at that time he was under the impression that, because it was part of the old mill area, that it was industrial in use and industrially zoned. And then as they started moving forward, it became apparent that it was not; it was,I believe, residential. So that use was not permitted there. So that foreclosed that option for 5 EXHIBIT B him. So he’s basically trying to stay where he is now. There are other lands, as the background report, recommendation points out, you know, there are lands that you can, you know, you can go into Village Commercial; but to be honest the Village Commercial property in Waimea is going to cost considerably more than this. And right now he’s had to reduce staff – he’s down to four. In the previous application there were five families that worked there. So, you know, the economy is tough, and now is maybe not the best time to try and get a new lease. And really the justification for not granting the additional time is, it seems to be based primarily on this Community Development Plan and the issues raised there. And I certainly understand the Planning Department’s position that that’s an ordinance, you can’t disregard it, you know, we have to deal with it. And that’s something that I think, as a community, you know, we need to address because, I think, you know, we have many special permits in the Waimea community, as I’m sure in other rural areas, commercial areas. So these uses are depended upon special permits. And I think looking at the criteria of the special permits that you have to meet in order to have them granted, they are justified. I think it gives the Commission the authority to evaluate each application on its face and say, okay, is this something that’s consistent with the surrounding agricultural uses, is it consistent with the nature of the land, does it damage or potentially damage agricultural uses, does it create traffic problems – and I think those are all very legitimate questions. And like I say, I don’t think these special permits that you’ve been dealing with over the last two or three meetings, are inconsistent with the surrounding uses, and I believe they should be continued. I think we need to employ as many people as we can. I think we need to protect our agricultural resources. And I don’t think that the proposals by the ag uses for, you know, Mr. Caitano or Mr. DeLuz or Parker Ranch or any these others are inconsistent. BOWMAN: I have a quick question. In the background report, you mention that the Parker Ranch permits were of this type for their headquarters – I know this is yet to come. If there were something like that that opened up that was reasonable, would you consider relocating since Haina isn’t available? DELUZ: Well, when I did relocate in Haina and what happened, it really put me in a burden, really cost me a lot of money, attorney fees, and right now I’m still in the hole. So where I’m at, it’s a very comfortable place for me now so I can regain my business. But it was really difficult when I did relocate. BOWMAN: Thank you. HOUSEL: Greg, I hear and I understand your arguments as far as the current economy and keeping people employed, and I’m way behind, all the way behind you on that. I think the Community Development Plan also looks at the best and most reasonable uses for land, and obviously in this area being agriculture that’s the most appropriate to be done there. And this, you know, permit has been extended numerous times. So I guess I’d like to understand what the applicant’s long-term intention is to, with this business, to keep it there or try to find another location that is more appropriate. DELUZ: I would like to keep it there. HOUSEL: Okay. Then you might, you know, want to consider rezoning it, you know, to make it appropriate use there. 6 EXHIBIT B MOOERS: Well, the problem is, this is what I think is a value of the special permit. If you were to rezone the property for example to a Village Commercial, which is consistent with what’s in the Waimea community, I don’t think the Community Association would support that because that would then allow 7-Elevens, office buildings, uses which truly aren’t compatible. I think one of the big advantages to a special permit is that you can look at it and you can condition it in ways that you can’t with zoning. So, I mean, he might come in and say, hey, you know, I’m going to do my auto body shop, so I’m going to get the CV zoning, and he gets the CV zoning, there is nothing then to prohibit him from opening up a 7-Eleven and a gas station. So that’s why, you know, I know the previous Planning Director was, you know, was deaf to special permits; he didn’t believe in them at all. I guess I’m on the other end of the spectrum; I’m saying I think they are great because it allows you to look at the area, the specific area, and apply conditions that are unique to that property that will protect the neighbors, protect the property. And I think each one is unique – maybe the issue is noise and so you need a noise buffer. When we did the ranch business for the Hannekens, there was a concern about visual impacts – you can address that. So I think there are certain advantages to special permits over zoning, you know, because once you grant zoning, then you are opening up the door to the whole list of permitted uses in the Zoning Code, where in this case you are saying, you’ve got hours of operation, only so many cars per day, the signage can be this, a landscape requirement has to be that. So I think in many ways it protects the agricultural uses much better. The reality for many of these businesses, there’s Arte’s Service or this one or Caitano’s or some of these businesses, if they are not allowed to continue here, in all likelihood they won’t continue; I mean I’m not saying that that puts down business, but that’s,in many cases, though, the financial realities of these operations is that they are not generating enough income to locate to an expensive area. And maybe that you’d decide that, well, that’s too bad, you know, I mean it really is, it’s not an appropriate use, it’s inconsistent with the agricultural area, they should go. And that’s, I feel very comfortable in coming before you with the criteria as written and say, okay, we think we’ve met the criteria for a special permit to be granted here. And my belief is, if you believe that, then you’ll grant the special permit and allow the business to continue, you know; but if it is inconsistent and if it does damage the surrounding properties and does, you know, discourage agriculture, then it should be denied. And I feel very comfortable, like I say, having you make that decision. HOUSEL: Okay, thank you. Would the Planning Director like to comment? LEITHEAD TODD: Well, the difficulty with all plans and permits that come in -. If you looked at the one that was just approved, Caitanos, farther out of town, right, Rural on the LUPAG. This one, closer to town, existing since ’95 as automotive repair, prior to that, facilities were used for farm equipment repair, right, the tractors, so the buildings already existed and were used for a type of automotive repair, which was more related to agriculture; so he’s trying to make use of the facilities that were there. I don’t know that we’ve had any complaints. I didn’t, you know, see the community complaining or saying shut it down. This is Low Density Urban as opposed to Rural, which was just approved. And typically, when you are looking at applications and uses, something that’s located in Urban, is more appropriate for this particular use than in the Rural area. But what we were looking at, when we looked at this, is this originally came in in ’95 and they were given a time limit, you know, it was like you can do this for a while but you need to move, because the vision back in ’95 was that there was going to be created more commercial land and more opportunities in Waimea. The reality that I think has occurred is that those areas that are commercial, because they are developed for not just somebody doing automotive but also for retail, which you get much more traffic and much more revenue, that it becomes unaffordable for guys that are doing small businesses like this where they’re basically just handling a handful of cars, like the Caitanos. The other, I think, thing that has become difficult in terms of Waimea is trying to 7 EXHIBIT B balance a rural agricultural lifestyle with some urban needs for the, you know, the commercial areas. And I don’t think that we’ve done as good a job of addressing it as we could have. The CDP didn’t even recognize that there was an existing business, there were existing buildings; just like if, okay, if you shut down the automotive business, what becomes of those buildings, what do you do with those existing buildings – they predate. So it’s a tough balancing act. We were trying to be consistent with the earlier permits that had this vision that the business would move; but in light of what the Commission has just done with the Caitano application, I think you have to take a look at the specifics of Mr. DeLuz’s application and determine what is equitable and fair under the circumstances. GIFFIN: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to ask the Director a question. Then going back to the new Condition No. 3, are you still recommending that? On Page 4. LEITHEAD TODD: I’m having a tough time with this, I’m having a tough time with this because, you know, on one hand a vision of the CDP is that you try to have discrete areas where you direct your more commercial types of businesses; on the other hand you have an existing business in buildings that existed before the business was created and which existed for the purpose of repairing agricultural equipment, so those buildings were there. This allows the continued use of those buildings. And in light of Caitano being approved, farther out of town in Rural, whereas this is closer to town and Urban on the LUPAG, and LUPAG is supposed to trump, basically,the CDP. And so I’m trying to balance this, because the bulk of the property is in active agriculture, which is consistent with the vision of the CDP, but this allows the continued use of the existing buildings and doesn’t allow you to do a 7-Eleven. And so, given what the Commission did in Caitano, I think it is more reasonable and more fair to grant the special permit to Mr. DeLuz without the time limit, since you did not put a time limit on the Caitanos’. My level of discomfort is that this has been a condition that has been in place for a long period of time, but I’m somewhat concerned about disparate treatment of similar applications. And with the Caitanos, you had something brand new that didn’t exist that, you know, they proceeded to build before they got the permit. You have something here that has been in existence and is utilizing existing buildings that have previously been used for agricultural equipment repair. And so trying to balance that, it actually makes more sense for this one to have the permit than the one that the Commission already approved. MOOERS: Mr. Chairman, may I make a comment? In understanding the Director’s concerns which I obviously share as a member of the community, I think under Condition 8, it allows the Director, you know, saying “the Planning Director may, as part of any enforcement action, refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review,” so it’s not forever. If this use becomes disruptive or offensive, I think there is a provision in this permit that the Director or the Department can come back and say, wait a minute, this is creating a problem now that either we didn’t anticipate or didn’t exist previously. And it would, you know, cause the applicant then to show cause that it wasn’t disruptive, or if it was, the permit could then be revoked. But what it would do is it would prevent the applicant from having to come back every two to three years, you know, and reapply. It’s basically, hey, if it’s not a problem, you know, and the use continues, then he doesn’t have to come back; but if at any time under Condition 8 it is a problem, the Commission would review, or the Director would ask the Commission to review the permit. And so I think it provides a certain level of checks and balances here that it couldn’t just, well, it’s got the permit,he can do whatever he wants. BOWMAN: I have a -. Maybe the staff can clarify. So the special permit is, if it’s given like, say, with Caitano, in perpetuity, that is just with the applicant itself, right? 8 EXHIBIT B MOOERS: Runs with the land. BOWMAN: It’s with the land. LEITHEAD TODD: For the specific purpose that the permit was granted. If the Caitanos for some reason were to sell the property to someone else, they could only use that for anautomotive repair; they could not convert it into a commercial building, a7-Eleven or anything else, because it’s a special permit and it limits the use. BOWMAN: Okay, so that the use goes with it but not the landowner, so, okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Isn’t there distinction between the type of repair that’s done–in this case this is auto body repair versus, you know, mechanical repair? MOOERS: That’s correct. HOUSEL: Which, you know, mechanical repair is Caitano, was beneficial to the neighbors that they need that. Is it really necessary and needed in this community to have auto body repair? MOOERS: Well, for 20 years they apparently needed it because he stayed in business. HOUSEL: Okay, but not necessarily farm related, right? MOOERS: That’s correct. And I would question that Mr. Caitano’s is necessarily farm related. I think the testimony was that it was not an offensive use and these are good neighbors and we need this type of service in the community. And I think the fact that the service is needed is really spoken to by the fact that Mr. DeLuz has been in business for 20 years. And speaking as someone in the community, I mean there are certain businesses you can count on. There really aren’t a lot of automotive repair. I think you asked how many people do safety inspections in Waimea. There’s two – the Shell station in town does them for like an hour and half every morning and it’s a very, very unpleasant experience, and many people drive to Kona or Hilo just to get their safety inspection, and the other one is down by Lex Brodie. So we do have limited services in Waimea. HOUSEL: Commissioners, any other questions you’d like to ask of the applicant? Commissioner Bowman. BOWMAN: I would like to also commend the applicant. I believe -. And I thank you for clarifying that you did make an attempt to move your business to Haina. So I think that was a good faith in carrying out. So, have we decided the life of the permit? What are we going to do about that? HOUSEL: Well, do you want to make a motion? BOWMAN: Sure. I move that we recommend the amendment to the special permit application, SPP 06-000034, with the deletion of Condition No. 3 – either the deletion or to put the same condition that we had in the previous, which was in perpetuity, no? 9 EXHIBIT B ARAI: Just remaining silent and deleting that condition, it’s understood that the permit runs with the land. BOWMAN: Okay, so, with the deletion of Condition No. 3. HOUSEL: I want to ask you just to be clear, the applicant asked about Condition No. 5 also. Is that in your motion? BOWMAN: I’m sorry, and the deletion of No. 5. MOOERS: Thank you. HOUSEL: Okay. BOWMAN: Sorry. HOUSEL: Okay, so we are -. Okay. BOWMAN: It’s the old No. 4, the new No. 3, right? So it’s the new No. 3 and No. 5. NELSON: Second. HOUSEL: Okay.Is everyone clear? Perhaps, is there any discussion before we ask Daryn to tell us exactly what the changes are? Okay. ARAI: Who seconded? I’m sorry. HOUSEL: Commissioner Nelson, yeah. Daryn, would you like to clarify, just so we are all clear about this, what those conditions are, what the changes in the conditions are? ARAI: Sure. The motion on the floor is to approve the proposed amendment to the special permit as recommended by the Planning Director, with the deletion of the new Condition 3 regarding the life of the permit and the deletion of new Condition No. 5 regarding no exterior signage. BEAUDET: Comment. I just needed to ask the applicant if they were in agreement with the new Condition No. 6 with the time limits. I know you made a comment, but I didn’t get clarity on whether you were in agreement with it or not. MOOERS: Yeah, that is an accurate representation – the 8:00 to 4:00 p.m. That’s correct. Thank you. HOUSEL: Okay. Any other comments? No? Okay, Daryn. ARAI: Okay, a roll call. Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Nelson? 10 EXHIBIT B NELSON: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Beaudet? BEAUDET: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Giffin? GIFFIN: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. ARAI: Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. ARAI: And Mr. Chairman? HOUSEL: Aye. ARAI: Mr. Chairman, motion carries with seven aye votes. HOUSEL: Thank you. You’ll be receiving the documentation very shortly. MOOERS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to thank the Commission and the Director for being thoughtful in the consideration of this. I think there are so many issues that you folks have to consider, and I think you took a lot of time and some careful consideration today. We certainly appreciate your effort. Thank you very much. HOUSEL: Thank you, thank you. You’re welcome. DELUZ: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 11:54 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 11 EXHIBIT B