Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-12-17 TNani MauO A regularly advertised hearing on the application of NANI MAU INC. (SP 73-159) was called to order at 9:13 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni CenterConference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hawai`i, with First Vice-Chairman Earl Fujikawa presiding. PRESENT:Earl Fujikawa ABSENT & EXCUSED: Fred Galdones C. Kimo Alameda William Graham Jeffrey McCall Ren² Siracusa Francis Smith Hannah Springer Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner JeffDarrow,StaffPlanner And 4 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: NANI MAU INC. (SP 73-159) Request to delete condition no. 7 (Highway 11 „ Makalika Street intersection improvements) of State Land Use Commission Docket SP 73-159 which allowed the establishment of the Nani Mau Gardens complex, including a commercial arboretum for public tours and the sale of agricultural products on approximately 23 acres of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The Nani Mau Gardens complex is located along the north side of Makalika Street within the Panaewa Farm Lots Subdivision, Waiakea, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-48: portion of 13. FUJIKAWA:On Application No. 2, were back on Nani Mau again. This is for the Docket No. SP 73-159; and its a deletion of condition no. 7 roadway improvement. They requested to delete condition no. 7 (Highway 11 „ Makalika Street intersection improvements) of the State Land Use Commission Docket SP 73-159, which allowed the establishment of the Nani Mau gardens complex, including a commercial arboretum for public tours and the sale of agricultural products on approximately 23 acres of land within the State Land Use Agricultural District. Staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, the subject property is indicated by this red dot on the overall location map. It is situated on the north side of Makalika Street. Again, this would be the Belt Highway that runs towards Puna, and this would be towards the airport direction. EXHIBIT A This particular Special Permit, and I just wanted to clarify theres also some reference to this particular permit being Special Permit No. 247. Special Permit No. 247 is the Countys identification of this particular permit. The official permit number is SP 73-159, inasmuch as this permit is issued by the State Land Use Commission. The permit was granted initially back in 1973 and there have been several amendments over the years. At one time the permit, the Special Permit covered an area of approximately 58 acres, that includes this blue area as well as this area that is shaded in yellow. Within the blue area, there is the botanical garden which would be on the east side of the property. And for those of you who have been to the Nani Mau Gardens, there is a restaurant which also has a gift shop in there. There also is a building here which has the Nani Mau Salon and Spa; and in the back there is a small office building on the mound that is the Nani Mau Inc.s administrative office building. There also is a maintenance building that is situated at the west side of the property. This particular area indicated in, outlined in yellow is currently approximately 30 acres; and that particularpermit,thisparticularareawasdeletedfromtheSpecialPermitbackin1994.There were some uses that were proposed as part of that amendment back in 19-, which the Commission, within the area that included an equestrian trail, some expansion of the retail services. Those uses were since deleted from the permit. At that time that these uses were included, however, the retail, additional retail services, a condition was imposed. That was Condition No. 7; and that was recommended by the State Department of Transportation. The condition that was adopted by both or recommended for approval by the Planning Commission and subsequently adopted by the Land Use Commission indicated basically three improvements at the Makalika Street/ State, Hawaii Belt Road intersection. One of the improvements would have been to construct an acceleration lane along the, I believe its Highway 11, if I have that correct, or the State Highway. They were also required to construct a deceleration lane that would come into Makalika Street. And the third improvement would have been to provide a street light, for additional street lights at that intersection. These improvements, as evidenced by the maps or the photographs that were circulated, have not been provided, except for the street light which was provided by the Applicant. Since the Applicant is not proposing to do the additional improvements that were granted, that warranted the imposition of Condition No. 7, they are now requesting that that particular condition be deleted. The Planning Director is recommending that, he concurs with the Applicants justification, reasons for the deletion of that particular condition, and is recommending approval. The State Department of Transportation also provided comments and indicated that they are agreeable to deleting those conditions. We also received a, comments from the State Land Use Commission. There are two conditions in the permit that they indicated should be amended or cleaned out for housekeeping purposes; and these are Conditions 4 and 5 with reference to those retail uses, and equestrian trails, so forth -. If you look at the Staffs Recommendation, that would be on pages 4 and 5 of the Staffs 2 Recommendation. And Condition 4 talks about the hours of operation. That condition also states the secondary uses, such as the restaurant, retailgift shop, equestrian trails, agricultural museum. Those things are, some of those things were already deleted from the permit. So the Land Use Commission had suggested that we also clean up the conditions. So well be recommending, well be making the necessary adjustments to those conditions when this is sent up to the Land Use Commission. Also, on Condition 5, they also, there are references to the fruit and vegetable stand and the agricultural museum. So those would be also cleaned up before, or we will be recommending those things be deleted from those two conditions. Again, we are recommending approval of the proposed change to delete Condition No. 7. And, as I indicated, this would be a recommendation by the Planning Commission to the Land Use Commission since this property is more than 15 acres in size. Are there any questions? FUJIKAWA:Any questions, Commissioners to the staff? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Norman, when we look at what the present operation consists and reading thematerial,likeonecomponentisthesalonandspayoureferto,butIdontseethatanywhere in the different amendments to the permit and all as a permitted used. Can you give us a little background on the salon and spa, and maybe also the restaurant activities, which we dont really see? HAYASHI:I think that was back in the late €90s, I believe. The Planning Director at that time determined that those, the massage and salon was part of the operation, related to the operation. So those uses, that particular use was permitted under this Special Permit. GRAHAM:And since it was a Land Use Commission thing, I was also struck when I was first reading about the Planning Director granting extensions and the Planning Director making this determination. Is that sort of common with Land Use Commissions decisions, that the Planning Director in the County can, you know, make those kinds of determinations? HAYASHI:Im not too sure as to the specifics about the salon, you know, how that particular approval was granted regarding the salon and spa. But initially there was a, as far as time extension, I believe the condition allowed the, the Land Use Commission allowed the Planning Director to allow an initial time extension. Thereafter, all time extension requests had to go to the Planning Commission, subsequently to the Land Use Commission. GRAHAM:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question, Commissioners, to the staff? Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:I guess, I need a little more clarification. Now, okay, were making a recommendation to the Land Use Commission on this. And Im assuming that the recommendation from the Planning Director is that without the pitch and putt course that the traffic will not be, will be low enough that these highway improvements arent needed. Now, we still have, and you made some mention of removing, there still are things about the Ag museum and a couple of other things that are still on here that youre recommending be removed also from the Land Use Commission. I mean, should these all be in our recommendation that these 3 go together, or vice, or the other thing is, I mean, if were looking, if these are still on the books when we make -. I mean, my question is, you know, if these are still on the books when we make the recommendation to remove the highway improvements, are we, you know, are we doing this prematurely or should these all be done at one time? HAYASHI:What well be recommending to the Land Use Commission, if the Commission accepts the Planning Directors recommendation, is to also include the housekeeping changes of deleting the agricultural museum, the equestrian trail, the fruit stand and couple of the other retail outlets that or uses that initially was proposed and subsequently deleted, since that particular area was deleted from the Special Permit back in 1994. So, technically, while the condition refers to those uses, those uses are not, were in the area that was already deleted. So we should have done, made the necessary changes to those conditions when the deletion occurred for this area back in 1994. So its basically a housekeeping change that well be recommending to the Land Use Commission. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question, Commissioners, to the staff? If not, the Applicantsrepresentative,youhavebeenswornin.Giveyournamesoyoumayproceed. HSU:MynameisChianHsu.ImthemanagerofNaniMau,Inc.Andnow, Norman basically talked about the whole story, but then Ill just kind of make, clarify some things. So Nani Mau is still requesting deletion of Condition No. 7 from Docket No. Special Permit 73-159. And Condition No. 7 was originally numbered as Condition No. 8 in the fourth amendment, and the condition now of highway intersection improvement, that was originally imposed upon the approved, the expansion plans. And since then Condition No. 7 has been restated in the following four amendments. Ill talk a little bit about the fourth amendment: Approved the arboretum to be expanded by an additional five acres for storage and the establishment of forest trails for a total area of approximately 58.793 acres. And, also, approved expansion of retail commercial activities from the existing 10,562 square feet up to 25,000 square feet. The 25,000 square feet activities include the main building, outdoor dining area, two proposed snack shops, proposed fruit/vegetable stand and an agricultural museum. The amendment increased the total area of Nani Mau Gardens project site to approximately 58.786 acres. Therefore, Condition No. 7 was imposed. I guess the No. 7 was imposed because of the anticipated traffic impact resulting from this expansion plan. So Condition No. 7 stated that the Hawaii Belt Highway shall be improved with a right- turn deceleration lane from the Hawaii Belt Highway onto Makalika Street; and an acceleration lane for traffic entering Makalika Street; and also additional street lighting; and the highway improvement should be constructed within five years from the date of this amendment or when traffic volumes of the Hawaii Belt Highway-Makalika Street intersection reach levels warranting such improvements as determined by the State Department of Transportation or Department of Public Works. And after the fourth amendment, the sixth amendment deleted the five-acre garden expansion area which was approved by the fourth amendment. And the following seventh amendment deleted approximately 30 acres from the Special Permit. This amendment deleted the area of the proposed 9-hole pitch and putt golf course. 4 Andour Nani Mau, Inc. current situation is we have dropped the following previously proposed expansion projects mentioned in the amendments: include the two proposed snack shops, proposed fruit/vegetable stand and agricultural museum, stables and horse trails covering 58 acres and a proposed 9-hole pitch and putt golf course on 15 acres of land. As the proposed expansion plans were deleted from the current Nani Maus development plan and will not now be pursued in the future and, we feel that Condition No. 7, which was imposed based on the anticipated traffic generated by the proposed expansion activities, is no longer justified and should be deleted. And also Nani Mau, Inc. has conducted annual traffic surveys since 1998 on Makalika Street and turning into Nani Mau Inc. between 7 a.m. to 5 p.m. The Traffic Survey revealed that the total, the average total number of vehicles using Makalika Street during the survey period was 230 vehiclesperdayor6,900permonth.TheaveragenumberofvehiclesturningintoNaniMau Gardens was about 70 vehicles per day or 2,100 per month. This is turning into the garden. And this is less than 3,500 per month, which was demanding the improvement of Hawaii Belt Highway/Makalika Street intersection. And its worth noticing that the bulk of visitors brought into Nani Mau, Inc. by large tourist buses or mini buses averages five to six buses per day during the daytime, and half of the vehicles turning into Nani Mau are Nani Mau employees cars. And, also, special functions held at Nani Mau generally occur on Friday and Saturday. On these special function days, usually from 5:30 p.m. to 11 p.m. Nani Mau generates an additional 150 vehicles per week or 600 vehicles per month above the normal daily vehicle counts. The total traffic entering Nani Mau averages about 2,700 vehicles per month. In addition, at the time of initiating Condition No. 7, Railroad Avenue, the Railroad Avenue on the other side of Makalika Street was a substandard road, but now its a fully-developed County roadway. And the vehicles are now using Makalika Street as a thoroughfare between the Hawaii Belt Highway and the Railroad Avenue. So we do a conclusion that Makalika Street intersection was dominantly used by others rather than Nani Mau, Inc. customers. The amount of traffic generated by Nani Mau has been, and still is, below the requirement for Condition No. 7, which proves that the Condition 7 is not justified and should be removed. And, furthermore, we received a letter of approval from Department of Transportation on September 8, 2004. The Department of Transportation has agreed to remove the two conditions stated in Condition No. 7: A right turn deceleration lane from the Hawaii Belt Highway onto Makalika Street, and an acceleration lane for traffic entering the Hawaii Belt Highway from Makalika Street. Nani Mau, Inc. is requesting the deletion of Condition No. 7 from Docket No. SP 73-159 based on the deletion of proposed expansion plans, economic reasons, as well as the insignificant amount of traffic generated by Nani Mau. And based on the aforementioned reasons and the facts, Nani Mau is requesting the deletion of Condition No. 7 from Docket No. SP 73-159. Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any question with the Applicant? SIRACUSA:Yeah. 5 FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Siracusa, go ahead. SIRACUSA:Thank you. I have been to quite a few events in the evenings, special events at Nani Mau Gardens, and I have never experienced any problem accessing from the highway or leaving the highway, whether I was turning right or going across the highway to make a left -- I was wondering if the Applicant has ever had any complaints -- and this was during the time when they were, you know, like maybe 100 people for an event. So there will be a lot of traffic coming in and leaving at about the same time. I was wondering if you have had any comments from any of your visitors or customers regarding problems with either coming off of the highway onto Makalika or the other way around leaving. HSU:Most special functions are from 5:30 p.m. to 11 p.m., so usually the tourists will visit the garden between 9 oclock and 4:30. So I dont think well have an impact onthetourists. SIRACUSA:Thatsnotmyquestion. HSU:And,also-.AndusuallythespecialfunctionsisontheFridayand Saturday only. From Monday till Thursday, usually we dont have functions. Only the two days, and traffic -. SIRACUSA:Im aware of that. Thats not my question. I have attended special functions there, and I said that I had no problem with the traffic at the highway, either going into Makalika or leaving -- and I was wondering -- and I have done it at a time when there was a special function, which means that a lot of people are arriving at the same time and a lot of people at the end of the function are leaving at the same time. So if I didnt, Im wondering if anyone else had problems and if you had ever had any complaints or comments from your customers that they had problems from, between Makalika and the Highway. HSU:No, so far we havent got any complaints. SIRACUSA:Thats all I wanted to know. HSU:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Any other questions? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Thank you. Given the recommendation by the State Land Use Commission that those, that mention of the two snack shops, the fruit/vegetable stand and the agricultural museum and the equestrian stables and trails, given that that amendments be made to Conditions Nos. 4 and 5 to delete references to those specific uses has been made, does the Applicant have any comment on that? FUJIYAMA:We had looked at that amendment; and when we got it, it was little late for us to put it into, for this hearing. So our thinking was to request at a later date to do some amendments. But as far as the cleaning out of the document itself, the areas in question have already been deleted from the Special Use Permit, you know, the back section. So it was already 6 taken out. Technically, its not on the permit, but its still on the original form. So thats all we have do, is take it out of the original form. SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Go ahead, Springer. SPRINGER:Would you have any objections to us doing that today then? FUJIYAMA:If it can be done, its fine. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Would we have to do a separate motion first to delete the references in Conditions4and5toequestriantrailsandtwosnackshops,andthatsortofthing,andgetthat cleared up first before we make a motion on the general deletion of Condition No. 7? Im wondering if Corp. Counsel would care to comment on the proper or the most expedient way of doing this? TORIGOE:Well, in terms, you know, on the status of those other uses, youre saying that they were already deleted in some fashion or -? HAYASHI:Those uses were proposed in the area in the back, which is al -. This particular area has already been deleted from the permit. So the Special Permit only is for, includes this blue-shaded areas. The uses that the Land Use Commission had requested that they be deleted in Conditions 4 and 5 were in these areas here. So, technically, this portion is already out. So when the permit was amended back in 1994 to delete this portion here, the Conditions 4 and 5 should also have been amended to take out those uses that were proposed. TORIGOE:So youre saying this isnt a really substantive change at this point, its just a formality to change and approving the paperwork -? HAYASHI:Yes, I would think so. Thats correct. TORIGOE:If that is the case, then, I think you can explore the motion, and include the proposed amendments as stated by staff at this point. FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Ms. Hsu, you spoke of -. FUJIYAMA:I would have a question with staff. On Condition 4, there was one area that we didnt want to totally delete Condition 4, because it had in there a section that says -. One second, I have to find it on here. Yeah, if we can, we would have no objection to delete the secondary uses. Okay, thats fine. 7 HSU:Question is Condition 4, or Condition 5, or both references? FUJIYAMA:No, just -. SPRINGER:Just for clarification. Hearing what Norman has indicated and looking at Mr. Chings letter, the only thing that would be considered for deletion would be the references to the equestrian trails, the agricultural museum, and -. FUJIYAMA:Fruit stand, yeah -. SPRINGER:And stables and trails. FUJIYAMA:Thatll be fine. FUJIKAWA:Isthatclarified? FUJIYAMA:Thatsfine. FUJIKAWA:Okay.CommissionerGraham,youhaveaquestion? GRAHAM:Yeah,IwantedtoaddressmyselftoMs.Hsusrepresentationbeforeusas to the reasons for this request, the deletion of Condition 7. I made a note that you mentioned in three ways: One is for the deletion of certain permitted activities, the second was for economic reasons and the third was for the actual amount of traffic being less, perhaps, than what would require it. So Id like to, if you dont mind a few minutes, kind of take them one at a time, just to answer a few questions I have. Also, I want to let you know we have some copies in our material of the Land Use Commission Findings and all, but we dont have a copy, as far as I can tell, of the 1991 Findings when these conditions were put on you that conditions improvements to the road. So its hard for me to know exactly what triggered the Land Use Commissions decision to impose this condition. What we do have is we have a list of what the changes were in 1991, which is when the condition was added. HSU:Yeah, the first time -. GRAHAM:Do you have the same background report that we have here? HAYASHI:They have the same material that the Planning Commission receives. GRAHAM:Okay. We have this one called the County Background Report. Do you have this? HSU:Oh, yeah, I have that one. And I also have this one, it has the summary of the different amendments. GRAHAM:Right, but this is from 1997. This is not the 1991 meeting, as I was indicating. HSU:You know what, maybe I dont have it. 8 GRAHAM:No, I dont have it either. But I would like to discuss with you, you know, based on what we have on this one on pages 3 and 4. Okay, on pages 3 and 4 of the County Background Report, starting at -. SIRACUSA:The chronology? GRAHAM:Yes, its called the Chronology, July 24, 1991. FUJIYAMA:Is that Item No. 7? GRAHAM:Yes, Item 7 there. Okay, so what Im trying to do is look at the three factors that you put forth here and just try to evaluate the justification of the factors for removing that condition. And since I dont have the 1991 documentation complete on what was decided at thattime,ImsortofgoingbywhattheygavemehereinthisChronology,sothethingswhich were added at that time which presumably are the reasons for the traffic requirement. The first thing it says, ‚a 5-acre expansionfor stockpiling, storage and establishing forest trails on an adjoining parcel.ƒ So is that 5-acre expansion -? HSU:Deleted -. GRAHAM:Being removed? FUJIYAMA:We dont have it -. HSU:That was removed -. NOMURA:Please use the microphone. HSU:The amendment. FUJIYAMA:It was a proposed leased parcel from an adjoining owner; and we dont have that lease, so it was never consummated. The lease was never consummated. GRAHAM:Okay. And then the second one it says, ‚amend hours of operation for secondary uses (restaurant and commercial uses) from 8 a.m. to 11 p.m.ƒ So that amendment stays, youre not deleting that amendment, correct? FUJIYAMA:That stays because thats primarily our restaurant use. GRAHAM:Okay. And then the third one here says, ‚expansion of retail activitiesin an area no greater than 25,000 square feet.ƒ And, so, that expansion also stays? FUJIYAMA:Yes, we want to keep that. GRAHAM:Okay. And then the fourth one say, ‚additional access from Makalika Street for special events parking.ƒ Does that also stay? We still have that additional access? 9 FUJIYAMA:I think right now we have three accesses from Makalika Street. GRAHAM:Okay. FUJIYAMA:But just two into the restaurant area. GRAHAM:So what my concern is, when I look at the conditions, when I look at the expansion that went in in 91, which is what provoked the Land Use Commission to make this additional requirement for you that were looking at today, maybe deleting that, many of these are still in place. And, in fact, since then we also have the salon and spa which was, you know, permitted by a decision by the Planning Director. So, in my mind, its not clear that the deletion of the two snack shops and what have you, you know, is, is really getting into the heart of what the expansion was all about, given that much of the expansion, including the commercial area, is stillinplace.Soitsnotclear,tome,thatthereasonsforgranting,forrequiringthatconditionof road improvement is really being alleviated by you making this particular deletion that were talking of today. I just want to express that to you. And if Im incorrect in any of the stuff that Ive said, I - Can I move on to the second one so we can keep moving? FUJIYAMA:Okay, go ahead. GRAHAM:Okay. The second reason was for economic reasons. When I read your annual reports which were included here, theres one of them which, these are not well paged numbered for me but it has general report from August 17, 2002 to the present. So thats probably one you put out in 2003; and, so thats like about 12 or 15 pages into the Background Report here. Anyway, in that special report, it says on the third page of the report, ‚The salons construction work, purchase of equipment and supplies and the hiring of 20 new employees incurred a large capital outlay for Nani Mau, Inc. this year. It is estimated it may take Nani Mau six to eight years to cover this investment.ƒ So, you made this investment that is going to take you six or eight years to recover at a time when this particular requirement to improve the highway was still in effect. So, to me, the economic hardship wasnt so great that you couldnt make a capital investment of this nature but it is so great that its a problem for you to improve the highway, which was already a requirement at that time. So that kind of concerns me. FUJIYAMA:Can I answer that? GRAHAM:Certainly. FUJIYAMA:Okay. If you look at, well, our present operation, the way it is right today, is still taking a big loss. And the only way we can probably turn this business around is to increase the operation so we can generate more revenues; and so that was part of the risk that we took. We tried to invest capital so we could increase our revenues. But if we just stay status quo, wed always lose there. You know, and its just the nature of the location. 10 And, I guess, Mrs. Siracusa asked the last time about complaints. The biggest complaint we have at Nani Mau and our biggest problem is location. Very few people can find us, even local people, you know. So we have to think of something that can, you know, create a steady type of business there. And this is why we need to, were looking at, you know, what other things can we do to make it viable. But if we just leave it at status quo, its, were really taking a loss here. Even the salon, you know, we had good intentions of, you know, making it viable with 20, almost 30 employees we hired. We hired nearly all the JC Penny salon people just to see if we could use that. Right now, we have four left. So, even that has been very difficult, you know, to generate the business there. Okay. GRAHAM:And then the third of the three items you mentioned was the amount of traffic. My sense is that when this requirement was put in place, this was put in place based on the Land Use Commissions sense of what kind of traffic could be generated from the permit theywereputtingforth.Andwhatyouresayingisthattheamountoftraffichasnotbeenso high, in your estimation at least, as to justify making this traffic, making these improvements on the road. And my sense is even now youre saying we need to expand in order to make it viable. So the condition on the road basically goes with the permit. If we remove the condition on the road now, the success of your operation or whatever may increase your traffic a whole lot, or may not. But the condition goes with the permit, not with how successful youve been so far. So by removing it as opposed to having an extension or something, were foreclosing any options, or the Land Use Commission would be foreclosing options to enforce what they thought was a possible traffic scenario from this permit. FUJIYAMA:As Chian had mentioned earlier on our business, probably, or the bulk of the business are through groups. You know, we deal with wholesalers; and so most of our traffic comes by buses. You know, so were not looking at large vehicle counts. In fact, we have almost have a zero advertising budget to go after the FIT market, you know. So thats not our plan. You know, were not looking at going after the people that drive cars, as far as tourism or things like that. We definitely want to increase our local business because thats a good base, you know, but from an overall tourist attraction, our main focus is by large movement vehicles. GRAHAM:Just finally, you know, I would also indicate that when I looked at the pictures that went around, the intersection looks reasonably okay to me, it doesnt look like a particularly dangerous location. And, also, what Ms. Siracusa said her own experience was that it didnt feel dangerous to her. Im just, you know, these reasons for the change, to me, theyre all a little iffy in my mind, thats all. FUJIYAMA:Okay. FUJIKAWA:Is there a question? Springer? SPRINGER:Im wondering if the Planning Director can respond to the concerns that Commissioner Graham has raised, particularly with regard to the traffic, both as it is now and as it may be if business does increase. YUEN:We did look at the same point. I accept what the Applicant is saying about the past record of business and the likelihood of future expansion. Many of the things that were 11 contemplated and would have been possible traffic generators have been already dropped from the permit. The level of activity now is nearly far below what would trigger the need to upgrade, for this operator, to upgrade the intersection. The timing of the uses, it does, it tends not to conflict with the major traffic along the highway. That side of the highway, you, the primary, most of the traffic on that side is heading into Hilo in the morning, the busier side is going out in the afternoon. Their large functions tend to be in the evening, after all the traffic, in fact, after the major traffic in the area, and in a different, and not interfering with the major flow of traffic. So we felt reasonably comfortable with eliminating this condition. SPRINGER:Thank you. FUJIKAWA:Is there any other question, Commissioners, with the Applicant, or the staff, or the Director? HAYASHI:Mr.Chair? FUJIKAWA:Goahead. HAYASHI:IlljustmakeoneclarificationregardingtheresponseIgaveto,Ibelieve was Commissioner Grahams question regarding the salon; and my response was that it was established sometime in the late 1990s. The salon and beauty shop, hair salon was established within the main building, which also included the restaurant back in the late €90s. Just recently, I believe, back in 2001, the salon and spa was moved to the building that is situated adjacent to the main restaurant building. So I just wanted to clarify that. Were proposing that Condition 4, only the words, ‚and equestrian trails, agricultural museum,ƒ be deleted. And as far as Condition 5, were proposing that the ‚two proposed snack shopsthe proposed fruit/vegetable stand and the agricultural museum,ƒ and at the very end it says that the ‚equestrian stable and trails,ƒ those should be deleted. And the reason why, again, is that those activities were proposed in this particular area shaded in yellow which has since been deleted from the Special Permit. SIRACUSA:Question? FUJIKAWA:Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Norman, what about the coin-operated dispensing machines and mobile vendors, have those been deleted as well? HAYASHI:No, those are left in; and the reason why is I believe those coin-operated vending machines are situated or will be situated in front of the restaurant, or as part of the restaurant complex. SIRACUSA:Okay, €cause I noticed you hadnt mentioned them. I was just wondering if it was an oversight or if there was a reason for it. Thank you. 12 FUJIKAWA:Commissioners, any question with the staff, or the Applicant? Were all on Item No. 2, Nani Mau, Inc. (SP 73-159). Any one of you in the audience would like to testify on this Item No. 2 application? If not, Commissioners? SPRINGER:Mr. Chair? FUJIKAWA:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Regarding Agenda Item 2, by Applicant Nani Mau, Inc. regarding Docket No. SP 73-159, which is the deletion of Condition No. 7 roadway improvements, taking the Findings, Conclusions and Recommendations made by the Department and the Director, including the recommendation to amend Conditions 4 and 5 as stated by Mr. Hayashi, I move that the Hawai`i County Planning Commission forward a favorable recommendation to the State Land Use Commission. FUJIKAWA:Any second? ALAMEDA:Second. FUJIKAWA:It has been moved by Commissioner Springer and seconded by CommissionerAlamedathattheApplicant,NaniMau,Inc.(SP73-159),beapproved.Any question? If not, staff, go ahead. HAYASHI:Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham GRAHAM:No. HAYASHI:Commissioner McCall? MCCALL:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Smith? SMITH:Aye. HAYASHI:And Chair Fujikawa? 13 FUJIKAWA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, vote was six to one, motion carries. FUJIKAWA:Thank you. Youll be informed by the County of Hawai`i Planning Department. The discussion ended at 10:00 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 14