Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-07-21 Leeward Exh B - LDS Church LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 21, 2011 THE CORPORATION OF THE A regularly advertised hearing on the application of PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS (SPP 11-118/USE 11-25) was called to order at 9:55 a.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokalole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Brandi Beaudet, Chair Pro Tem, presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Brandi Beaudet, Thomas Hickcox, Wayne Iokepa, Richard Nelson and Thomas Whittemore ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Lani Bowman and Geraldine Giffin STAFF PRESENT: Julie Mecklenburg (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager, until 10:30 a.m.), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Deanne Bugado (Staff Planner) And approximately 13 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: THE CORPORATION OF THE PRESIDING BISHOP OF THE CHURCH OF JESUS CHRIST OF LATTER-DAY SAINTS(SPP 11-118/USE 11-25) Applications for a Special Permit and a Use Permit to allow the construction and establishment of a church meeting house and related improvements on 5.273 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District and the County’s Single Family Residential (RS-15) zoned district. The property is located at 81-6493 Hawai‘i Belt Road, which is at the northwest corner of the intersection of Hawai‘i Belt Road (Māmalahoa Highway) and Onouli Road at Onouli1st, South Kona, Hawai‘i, TMK: 8-1-004:005. BEAUDET: Next on the agenda is The Corporation of The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Use Permit Application 11-000025. Would the applicant or representatives please come forward? DARROW: Could we -? BEAUDET: Oh, I’m sorry. Staff will do the presentation first. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Members of the Planning Commission. Good morning, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to our presentation. Our next application is the applicant is The Corporation of The Presiding Bishop of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. They are requesting a Special Permit and a Use Permit to be able to establish a church meeting house and related improvements on 5.273 acres. The location of our application is within the South Kona District. More specifically, we are looking just south of Kealakekua. This is in Onouli, in fact, it’s on the corner of Onouli Road and 1 EXHIBIT B Māmalahoa Highway. The property is outlined in black. And you’ll notice that it has two different colors on the property. This represents split-zoning; the darker yellow is representative of Single-Family Residential 15,000-square foot zoning and the lighter green represents Agricultural 5-acre zoning. This particular property is located just next to Konawaena Elementary School that’s located on the parcel just to the west. The other colors on the map represent the different zonings in the area; a majority on the mauka side of the road is Agricultural-1 acre, a majority on the makai side of the highway is Agricultural-5 acres, along the highway you’ll notice the Residential, as well as Commercial zoning. This is the State Land Use Boundary Map for this particular area. What appears to be purple is the Residential zoning, the green represents Agricultural zoning, and again on the property you’ll see the split-zoning that matches with the County zoning. And again you can notice along the highway the Urban zoning. This is the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map for the County. The yellow represents Low Density Urban, the light green to the mauka side of the highway represents Important Agricultural Land, and then the darker orange-yellow on the top of the map represents your Medium Density Urban where you’ll see more commercial uses. And so this particular property is mainly located in the Low Density Urban area. And this is an aerial photo – I apologize for the darkness – but through the right side of the map going through the middle we have the highway; just to the mauka side of the property you’ll see the actual Konawaena School. This is the location of the property, which is currently undeveloped. And then we have the Onouli access to the property, which has a channelized intersection. The applicant is requesting a Special Permit and a Use Permit to allow the construction and the establishment of a church meeting house and related improvements on 5.273 acres, situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District and the County’s Agricultural zoning, as well as the County’s Single-Family Residential and the State Land Use Urban District. The proposed improvements include a meeting house, which is 17,247 square feet in size, one-story structure, a storage building, as well as parking and perimeter fencing and landscaping. This is the applicant’s site plan that was submitted with the application. On the top of the map, you’ll see Māmalahoa Highway. To the right side, you’ll see Onouli. Proposed access is from the lower portion of the property, the mauka (sic) portion. Konawaena School is located in this general area. The applicant is going to be providing access from this point only; access is prohibited along the highway. And then you’ll notice parking areas on the property, as well as the meeting hall structure. This is some site photos, this is looking mauka on Onouli at the channelized intersection on Māmalahoa Highway and Onouli Road. This is looking mauka again a little further back on Onouli Road; the subject property is on the left side with curb, gutter, sidewalk, as well as a guardrail that’s in place at this time. This is looking makai on Onouli; the subject property is on the right side, and the access is in this general location. This is the actual property here again undeveloped at this time. The Planning Department is recommending approval for the Special Permit and the Use Permit with conditions. We do have some added conditions, and we want to make a revision to one of our conditions. These have been passed out to the Planning Commission; we would be adding a new 2 EXHIBIT B Condition No. 2, as well as a new Condition No. 13, and renumbering all the other conditions. The main reason for these added conditions has been through correspondence from an adjoining neighbor with the applicant, as well as with the Department of Education, and the applicant having some discussion as well. But mainly the concern is for Condition No. 2 is that the applicant be able to construct the project in substantial compliance with the representation that they’ve made in the application, and mainly I think the concern was access that it be in the location that they are proposing rather than it be in another location. Additionally, there was a concern regarding possible events that may have some negative impact to the surrounding properties, and so they wanted a condition added that would allow an opportunity, in case there were some situations or maybe there were events that got too noisy or something, that they have an avenue that that can be addressed – so that would be our Condition No. 13. Additionally, looking at current Condition No. 8 on both permits – just for your information, both permits contain the same conditions, so these would apply to both permits – Condition No. 8, which I’m sure will be renumbered to No. 9, states, “Driveway connections to Onouli Road including the provision of adequate sight distances, shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works and/or the Department of Transportation.” It was our understanding that Onouli Road was State-owned; therefore, we were under the impression that it was monitored through the Department of Transportation. We’ve learned that it’s actually owned by the Department of Land and Natural Resources. And so what we’d like to do is change the Department of Transportation to the Department of Land and Natural Resources – that would be on both permits. Additionally, we’ve received correspondence from the Department of Education, as well as from Mr. Ken Melrose, which both correspondences have been passed out to the Planning Commission. With that, that concludes the presentation. Are there any questions? MASUNAGA: Do you have an extra copy of the DOE letter? DARROW: Sure. Do all the other Commissioners have all the correspondence that we have noted? If anyone needs one, just let us know, and we can provide that. BEAUDET: Thank you. Could the applicant and representative please come forward? Thank you. If you could each raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i Leeward Planning Commission? APPLICANT/REPRESENTATIVES: I do. Yes. BEAUDET: Thank you. If you could please introduce yourself, state your name, resident address, and proceed after that. If we could start from your right. PHARIS: My name is Jon Pharis. I’m the architect representing for the Church. My address is 2104 Hoohai Street, Pearl City, Hawai‘i. Last name spelling is P-H-A-R-I-S. First name is without an H, J-O-N. BEAUDET: Thank you. SNIDER: My name is Rocky Snider, S-N-I-D-E-R. I’m the Church project manager and authorized agent of the LDS Church based in Southern California. Do you need the residential address? BEAUDET: That’ll be fine. 3 EXHIBIT B TAKEMOTO: Roy Takemoto. I’m with PBR Hawai‘i. We are the planning consultants to the applicant, the Church. Address: 1719 Haleloki Street, Hilo. BEAUDET: Please proceed with your presentation. TAKEMOTO: The applicant is in agreement with the staff report, the recommendations and the conditions, as amended. We have also seen the letter from DOE, and we can address those now or after testimony from the DOE, however pleases you. Maybe, let’s, we can quickly address those since it’s before you now. You have the testimony. BEAUDET: I would prefer that we address them now. And then if we feel that there is need for comments subsequent to testimony, then we can ask you to return. TAKEMOTO: Okay. There are three concerns. On concern No. 1, the access, the site plan that we showed, maybe not on this one but another exhibit in the application, it showed an Easement A and an Easement B. So this is Lot E-4 that is the subject of the letter, and Easement B is this one and Easement A is where the driveway would be located. Lot E-4 is intended to be part of the Onouli Road right-of-way; so eventually, although DOE owns it now, I think the idea and the hope is that Onouli Road and Lot E-4 would be dedicated to the County at some point. But at this time Easement A has been created and we’ve given a copy of the warranty deed that gave title to the Church that included Easement A, easement rights to Easement A. Easement B was something desired by the Church but never pursued and there was no grant of easement, so Easement B does not exist. So easement rights, the only question would be Easement A and the rights had been secured. On concern No. 2, which is the traffic, the concern raised in the letter was the potential concurrent activities with after-school and high traffic activity at the church. Those times would be, if they ever occur, would be very rare. The mitigation offered in the letter is to comply with the six conditions of the Traffic Impact Report, the TIAR, which is also Condition No. 5, I believe, of the existing conditions – no, let’s see, not that one, No. 3, No. 9 – it’s existing Condition No. 9. And the sixth condition of the TIAR addresses that; that should there be an exceptional queuing along Onouli Road due to the traffic occurring either at the church or the school, if there is queuing caused by the church, that there would be an attendant at the access point to help guide the traffic in and out to moderate and mitigate the problem during that event, which should be very rare. The third concern was drainage. The school experienced flooding in their parking lot in this area here, and it was apparently an extreme flooding event, a 100-year storm. And we believe that the Church will actually mitigate a recurrence of the flooding in the following ways. One is that although the engineering standard and what is required by the County is to accommodate the 10-year flood on site, the Church actually would be doing more; they would be intersecting some of the flow, off-site flow, that’s coming onto the property, which they by right can just pass through, but they will be intercepting some of that, and accommodating that flow onto their drywells on site by designing the drainage to a 50-year storm rather than a 10-year storm. Additionally, there would be -. In the previous flooding, the existing condition, the undeveloped condition, brought a lot of debris with it. So by developing and maintenance of the landscaping and the yards here, there will be a substantial reduction in debris. And there also will be, as a possible buffer, there will be a retaining wall on the boundary, the easement boundary, with the school. That retaining wall is necessary to provide the access to the church, but the retaining wall will be raised about a foot above grade where it would be able to, whatever flow does make it down to this point, would be, 4 EXHIBIT B the wall would divert some of the flow onto the road drainage way – it will probably just have to flow over the sidewalk. But there will be events where, no matter what the Church does, in those extreme events, the water may overtop the wall and it will go into the school property, which is expected because every property owner is obligated to handle their own flood events and our engineer believes that the cut-off ditch may have been designed to a 10 or 50-year storm; so it’s expected that overtopping of the cut-off ditch would occur during extreme events, a 100-year storm and above, and that the parking lot actually does serve as a buffer for those extreme events. So what may have occurred in the flooding of the parking lot may actually have been a designed built-in buffer to accommodate those extreme events. But that recurrence should be substantially reduced by what the Church is doing. So all of these design mitigations would be committed during approval of a drainage plan by the Department of Public Works, which is a condition of approval prior to Plan Approval, and that condition is existing Condition No. 5. Okay, so that is how we are responding to the department’s letter. BEAUDET: Any questions or comments from the Commission? IOKEPA: Mr. Chair, I have a question regarding the traffic mitigation. What’s going to trigger the Church getting someone to control the traffic? Is that an event that’s planned at the church, or -? Just a question TAKEMOTO: Actually, they wouldn’t expect a problem at the access point because most of the events occur, you know, it’s off the peak times – so it’s on Sundays. So the peak, I guess, can be discussed in several ways: The peak in the traffic report is the commuting traffic along the Belt Highway, so the operations of the Church definitely don’t coincide with the peak commuting traffic in the morning and afternoon; the peak of the school, the normal peak, is after school, so starting from, say, 1:30, and the Church does not expect regular activities to occur during that time. There may be a very rare funeral or something like that; but it would be very rare that it would occur on a weekday during that time, particularly because they would try to avoid school traffic as well. But in an unavoidable event where there is coinciding, then either it will be something that can be anticipated so Church official can be there to monitor the traffic and guide it, or if it wasn’t anticipated and somebody sees a problem, I’m sure there will be a response because someone is always there in charge, supervising their activity. Rocky, do you want to add anything more? SNIDER: I think the only thing I would add – I think Roy has done an excellent job describing that – the concern being a concurrent high volume use of the school and the church, again, just there is nothing planned, there is nothing on a regular basis that the Church does that would cause that to happen. All of our regular events take place either on Sundays or in the evenings during the week; so there are no regular Monday-through-Friday midday activities that take place in the church. So the only time that would occur would be if something unexpected, like a funeral, came up. That’s really the only thing I can think of that might ever cause that concurrent high volume use. WHITTEMORE: Mr. Chair, I’ve got a question on the runoff. Where you got your ingress and egress on the site there, there is a lot of drop-off, I notice, and I’m just curious, with your site, how much you are anticipating you are going to handle the catchment or the runoff on site with your drywells versus water that would flow then, I’m assuming, down that easement into the roadway. Because you’ve got a rock wall on the makai boundary, I think it’s going to divert the water down that roadway. Am I wrong? 5 EXHIBIT B PHARIS: What we’ll accommodate is, by regulation, we are to take care of any of our, the impervious areas we’ve created – the roof, the parking lot, the sidewalks – all areas that are, we are to handle all those increase runoff, which we’ve done. In addition to that, we’ll handle some of the offsite that’s traveling through the site. We’ve -. The top portion is right here. It’s similar to what Roy was talking about. The school has an intercept cannel down here. We’ve done the same thing up here – intercept some of the water that’s coming from up above by the high school and down and so forth. And then we have some drywells at the bottom; there’s drywells along here, there’s drywells inside the parking lots, and there’s a drywell down in here. So we’ve, besides the roof area here and all the parking surface area, we’ve accommodated beyond the required amount. We are only required to do a 10-year flood when we are in excess of, we’ve done a 50-year. And we have a margin of safety even beyond that accordingly. As far as handling a 100-year, we have not; that’s not required of us, although we’ve handled some of it. We expect that the flow pattern, which we’ve designed, it already came through the site, and we expect that to still, we have not altered that. With the exception of that retaining wall down here we have had, we’ve increased it by one foot above the adjacent grade, which will deflect some of the water, based on the grade, will flow towards the street, and it will help, again, help the school from receiving water. When it’s inundated, it’ll go over that wall and continue on through, as it had before. BEAUDET: Thank you for the testimony. And I’ll be calling up, we have four people who have signed up for testimony, so I think with that, I’ll call up the first two. And if you could take your seats. The first one on the list is Ken Melrose and Curtis Hartling. If you could both please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i Leeward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. BEAUDET: Please state your name, resident address, and proceed with your testimony. We’ll start with you. HARTLING: My name is Curtis Hartling. I live at 73-4615 Kaloko Halia Place here in Kailua-Kona. Now, first of all, thank you for the opportunity to sit here before you. I’m here on an assignment from our local Church leader, Judge Aley K. Auna Jr., who wished to be here this morning but is currently in session, so he asked that I come here and represent him. Now, we’ve heard testimony from the professionals regarding the architectural standpoint, the design of the building. President has asked that I, or Aley K. Auna Jr. has asked, that I share with you perhaps from the human element in just a few minutes regarding the Church. As members of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, and many of you probably have friends or associates who you know who are members of the Church, here within the Stake, we have eight different jurisdictions, or Wards, and they stretch from the Captain Cook area, or Kealakekua, for the building that we are speaking about now, to Kohala and also to Honoka‘a and points in between Waimea and of course Kona. We have membership that is just under 4,000. We believe that a community is as strong as its weakest family. We are committed to building families within the Church. Obviously, we have a set of tenets, spiritual belief, but also that we have responsibility within the communities where we reside. Our instruction for our membership is that we be self-sufficient, that we be industrious, that we strive to be positive influence within the community, within the school systems, within the volunteer organizations. And so just for the possibility of having another building constructed for the benefit of our membership there locally is a great boon for us and we appreciate your consideration in this. In speaking on behalf of those who would be affected by the location of the building, there is a large population of the membership who lives there in the area, but they drive to 6 EXHIBIT B Kona to the Stake center near the temple where I think you are all familiar where the temple is. And so they are on the roads constantly to attend their meetings on Sunday and also for the youth meetings or other meetings that take place in the evenings during the week. It would be advantageous to them when the building is completed in Kealakekua that they could more readily attend their meetings and be off the roads and take away some of the traffic congestion that currently exists. And of course for those who live there and just south of there in the Captain Cook area, who are using the building currently, an older building, they would have an updated building there and it will be a great benefit for everyone involved. So once again, I thank you for this opportunity and grateful to be part of this process. Aloha. MELROSE: Good morning. My name is Ken Melrose. And along with my wife, Maile, we reside at 81-950 Onouli Road, being Tax Map Key 8-1-4:36, in Kealakekua, which is immediately across the Onouli Road from the subject application. Maile has lived in the house there since it was built by her parents in 1954. The LDS Church, Rocky and Jon Pharis and their consultant, Roy with PBR Hawai‘i, have been working with us to mitigate what we perceive as impacts of their project in three areas of our concern: One was increased traffic access to the subject property by locating it at the Easement A location, noise during operations, and landscaping. I have submitted you written testimony and I’m not going to go back through it. The Church and the Department have done an excellent job at amending the conditions to address our concern, and we greatly appreciate the participation in that dialogue by both. And they have been genuine and very forthright. The Church has been really up-front with us in that. And perhaps, in looking at this, the last one we’ve asked them for is not in the condition so you know, is that our driveway is right here, and right across the street from us is a group of Jacaranda trees that happen now to be in full bloom, and it appears, as you look at the site plan, that it’s right in between where they would do their cut and fill. And they have an opportunity to and they’ve agreed to, if they can, to leave those trees. It would be a good buffer for both of us and it would be a wonderful neighborly thing to do. And perhaps, it feels a bit like Chinese water torture, but I would ask that if – in the site plan, Jon, as you look at this, that a dumpster is located at this upper corner – if there is an opportunity, that perhaps take it off the street and use it in the back corner where it is less visible to the community; that would be greatly appreciated as well. But based upon the amended conditions that you have and the cooperation of the Church, we have no objections to the application and we welcome them to our neighborhood. BEAUDET: Commissioners, any questions or comments for -? NELSON: Yeah, Ken, I just want you to explain. There is a one-foot division wall at the end of the slope that takes the water from the roadway in front of it down to the main road. Am I hearing that right? MELROSE: Well -. NELSON: I’m trying to get a picture of that, that flow. MELROSE: Yeah, and I appreciate that. What happens in this site is that right near the U here on Onouli, the road changes from a fairly flat gradient that they created close to the intersection of 7 EXHIBIT B Māmalahoa Highway, and it’s right at that point that it turns to concrete because of the steep – I believe the grade is 15 to 18 percent – it’s quite steep. And so that’s why the Church originally proposed their point of access up here where it was less grade transition for them to deal with, but that turned out to be an access that’s not available to them, so they’ve gone with the one that’s always been for the site. So there is a fair amount of grade transition that goes here. And even on the school site, there is a large transition of grade from their property line down to the school parking lot, I’ll bet, at least 15 feet. So as I understand, what they are proposing to do in this adjustment and these two easements, Easement A Part 1 and 2 here – 1 is a flag that goes through to the neighbor’s property that actually sold them the land, Jack Greenwell Trust, and then together with an easement they share for mutual access improvements – there is going to be a great transition wall right here. And I believe what Roy meant was that that wall was going to be a foot above the new grade, not above the existing grade, so he can control it more within their property – I believe that’s what I heard Roy say -. NELSON: So my question was that would be sufficient to capture the water and redirect it. MELROSE: Probably. Well, a foot would be plenty. I don’t know that I’ve ever seen a surface flow more than a foot deep, but -. And they are correct in what they say is that the water does sheet off the highway; I mean it comes down Māmalahoa from Konawaena High School road and does breach and come into the property at that upper corner right by the old calf barn, so -. Any other questions? Thank you. BEAUDET: Thank you. I would like to call the next two testifiers up: Gregory Hendrickson and Philip Harris. Could you please each raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai‘i Leeward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. BEAUDET: We’ll start to your right. And could you please state your name, address and proceed with your testimony? HENDRICKSON: My name is Gregory Hendrickson. I reside at 81-6580 Māmalahoa Highway in Kealakekua. Chairman, Commissioners and staff, my name is Gregory Hendrickson and I’m the Bishop of the Ke‘ei Ward, which is the South Kona congregation of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. This building that we are referring to will accommodate two Wards: the Kealakekua Ward, which has its boundary running kind of right in the middle of Kealakekua north, and the Ke‘ei Ward, which runs from that boundary south to the Ka‘ū District boundary. So I’m the Bishop of that southern Ward. I’m testifying today on behalf of myself and the members of the Ke‘ei Ward. At present, there are 465 members of the Ke‘ei Ward, 84 of which are young children and youth, and another 76 of which are seniors including several widows and widowers. Currently, we meet in a building in Hōnaunau, which has been used by the Church for nearly half a century as a meeting house for South Kona congregations of the LDS Church. The size of the building, however, is no longer sufficient for the needs of our congregation. We are increasingly unable to accommodate important events such as the funerals of our members. And the limited parking and small size of our chapel keep some members at home on Sundays that would otherwise be coming to church. While the building in Hōnaunau fits the heavily sloping location well, because the structure is built on three levels, it does not render itself to accommodating many members of the Ward particularly our 8 EXHIBIT B seniors who must manage a significant number of steep slopes or steps to reach the chapel. Additionally, the current facility in Hōnaunau does not provide much room for youth activities, which are conducted at our buildings on both Sundays and Wednesday evenings. The new proposed building plan would resolve these issues for our congregation. Finally, due to the earthquake a few years ago and the natural wear of time, the building in Hōnaunau is rapidly deteriorating and would soon need to receive major renovations in order for it to be fit for its continued use. This new building will be a great opportunity for us to update our facilities to provide sufficient class space and to accommodate our members in a great way. Our congregation is excited for the prospects of a wonderful new building in Kealakekua. We believe that it will enable us to serve the needs or our members in ways that are currently not possible. We appreciate your consideration for this use request, and encourage you to act favorably on it. HARRIS: My name is Philip Harris. I reside at 82-5844 Māmalahoa Highway in Captain Cook. I am obviously a member of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints. And I am a member of Bishop Hendrickson’s Ward and will attend at this new facility. Part of the challenge of being the last to speak is that everybody else covers what you were going to say, so I’ll try not to be redundant. Obviously, the existing building has served the Church community in the south area very well. But the reality is we have outgrown this facility and, as the Bishop mentioned, we have a challenge because of the fact that the building is on three levels, which makes it very difficult for some of us senior members to climb up and down those steps or get to the parking area. The cultural hall in this building is rather small compared to other facilities, and so whenever we have any activities of any size such as funerals or wedding receptions or cultural events, that is moved to the outside to the upper parking lot where tents are erected to be able to accommodate the number of people that’s there, which frustrates even further our limited parking areas. In fact, there are times when that parking lot is so full that it becomes very frustrating to be able to get out because there are people parked in different ways where you can’t get out readily, which makes it even more frustrating or dangerous. Our lower parking lot is adjacent to the highway, and in my opinion, is an accident waiting to happen; all it takes is for one of our keiki to walk out into the highway and who knows what may happen from such an occurrence. And so the new facility will accommodate our, as the Bishop mentioned, will accommodate not only our worship time but our other activities and social events, which not only accommodates the members of the Church but also the community in general because we have had funerals within the community at our facilities. And so I guess we are here -. And one other point, the Church is very meticulous in its maintenance of its buildings. I think that if you travel around Hawai‘i, or any place for that matter, you will see that the Church buildings are well maintained. And so this building will not only be a building for us but it will enhance the area. And so I guess we are here in essence as law-abiding productive citizens of this community, asking for your approval of this process so that we can begin building this facility. Thank you so much. BEAUDET: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions or comments for the testifiers? If there should be anyone else in the audience who wishes to testify, please come forward now. You may be seated. Any more questions or comments from the Commissioners? Okay. With that, Commissioners, call for a motion. 9 EXHIBIT B IOKEPA: Mr. Chair, I’d like to propose a motion to approve Permit Application 11-00025 to allow the construction and establishment of a church meeting house and related improvements. BEAUDET: Thank you. MECKLENBURG: To clarify, Commissioners, your motion to approve subject to the conditions -. IOKEPA: Yes, sorry. MECKLENBURG: Mentioned by the Planning staff and as amended? IOKEPA: Correct. MECKLENBURG: Okay. DARROW: Also for clarification, so we would be taking one permit at a time, and maybe we can begin with the Special Permit, and then we can vote on the Use Permit second. Does that sound okay? BEAUDET: Yes. IOKEPA: I’d like to amend my proposed motion to approve Special Permit Application 11-000118, which allows the construction and establishment of a church meeting house and related improvements, with conditions. BEAUDET: Ask for a second. HICKCOX: Second. BEAUDET: Second motion for the second application? MECKLENBURG: Vote on that one. BEAUDET: I’m sorry. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the Special Permit with the added Conditions No. 2 and 13 and the amended new Condition No. 9 replacing DOT with DLNR. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. 10 EXHIBIT B DARROW: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. IOKEPA: Mr. Chair, I would also like to propose a motion to approve Permit Application USE 11-000025 to allow the construction and establishment of a church meeting house and related improvements, with conditions. BEAUDET: Can I ask for a second? NELSON: Second. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the Use Permit with the added Conditions No. 2 and 13, as well as the amended new Condition No. 9. With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Iokepa? IOKEPA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Nelson? NELSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Hickcox? HICKCOX: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Whittemore? WHITTEMORE: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? BEAUDET: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes, five to zero. The discussion ended at 10:42 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 11 EXHIBIT B