Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2012-02-02 Windward Transcript Galan PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 2, 2012 KAREN AND ADRIAN GALAN (REZ 11-145) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 10:10 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Wallace Ishibashi, and Raylene Moses STAFF PRESENT: Ivan Torigoe (Deputy Corporation Counsel), B. J. Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Kelly Gomes (representing Chief Engineer from 9:36 a.m.), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) And 8 people from the public in attendance. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Stephen Ono APPLICANTS: KAREN AND ADRIAN GALAN (REZ 11-145) Application for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet (RS-10) to Village Commercial – 7,500 square feet (CV-7.5) for approximately 17,994 square feet of land. The subject properties are located on the north side of Pahoa Village Road, across from the Pahoa Cash & Carry Store employee's parking lot at Nānāwale Homesteads, Pāhoa, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMKERN: 1-5-011:008 & 009. KERN: Application No. 5, Karen and Adrian Galan (REZ 11-145), Application for a Change of Zone from Single-Family Residential – 10,000 square feet to Village Commercial – 7,500 square feet on TMK: 1-5-011:008 & 009. Before we actually do staff presentation, as I’ve stated previously I’m recusing myself just so I don’t even have the appearance of any impropriety, I’m continuing to do that. But what I would like to do is give the applicant the option to either allow me to still continue to chair the meeting or to step out. And it will be your guys’s choice. So I can either facilitate it - I won’t be involved in any discussion, anything like that, I’ll just be facilitating - or I can step to the side and the Vice Chair can chair. Everyone, okay? APPLICANTS: Okay. KERN: Okay, thanks. Okay, very good. Then with that, staff’s presentation. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This application is a continuation from I think our previous two hearings. So it was deferred. And the applicants are Karen and Adrian Galan. They’re requesting a change of zone. The subject property is located in the Puna district in Pahoa Village. And the 1 EXHIBIT B properties, there are actually two lots. They’re shown here in the black outline. You can see Pahoa Village Road running through the middle of the slide. And then you have the Pahoa Bypass off to the east side of the slide, and Post Office Road up at the top of the slide here. The properties are currently zoned Single Family Residential - 10,000 square feet, which is shown in the yellow. And then surrounding properties are zoned Village Commercial - 10,000 square feet, which is shown in the light pink. This is the General Plan LUPAG Map for the area. You can see the properties are located in an area designated Medium Density Urban, which is shown in the orange. And then just east, northeast of town is Low Density Urban, as shown in the yellow. This is a map of the Puna CDP for Pahoa Village. It’s a little hard to see but the subject property is located right around in this area here. And you can see it’s in the middle of the village. The dashed dotted line here is the boundary of the regional town center for Pahoa. And this is an aerial photo of the village. Again, the properties are outlined in red. There is an existing house on one of the lots and then the other lot is vacant. Just to give you some orientation here, this is the Pahoa Cash & Carry. And this structure here is the 7-Eleven in Pahoa. The applicants are requesting a change of zone from Single Family Residential – 10,000 square feet to Village Commercial – 7,500 square feet. They are requesting the change of zone in order to develop five detached two-story structures. They’re going to be approximately 960 square feet in size. And they’ll be used for retail and overnight accommodations. This is the applicant’s conceptual site plan. Again, you have the Pahoa Village Road on the bottom of the slide. They’re proposing a circular driveway, one way in, one way out. And then you can see the five proposed structures in the middle of the property, as well as parking in the back and on the side. These are their proposed floor plans. This is one of the boutiques which would be the retail area on the bottom floor. And then the upper level would be overnight accommodation bungalows. And this is the view of the property looking from the Pahoa Cash & Carry parking lot across the street to the existing structure. That structure would obviously be demolished to accommodate the proposed project. This is a view of Pahoa Village Road looking north. You can see the existing structure on the right-hand side of the slide. And this is a view looking southeast. Again, this is the existing structure on the left-hand side of the slide. The Director is recommending that the Commission forward a favorable recommendation for this change of zone. And we have received four new letters of testimony since the last hearing. One of them was submitted by Jennifer Bernard and Scott Wright; and you also have another one from th Mainstreet Pahoa Association dated January 24; and today you should have received a letter from Sandra Song, as well as a letter from Lori Mikkelson who is the applicant’s representative. Are there any questions? KERN: Are there any questions for staff? Seeing none, thank you, Maija. COTTLE: You’re welcome. 2 EXHIBIT B KERN: Can I get the applicant and their representative to come forward and/or. Good morning. MIKKELSON: Good morning. KERN: And whoever will be speaking I’ll just get you raise your right hand this morning. Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? MIKKELSON: I do. KERN: Okay. And you’re the applicant so you may begin, or representative. MIKKELSON: Okay. My name is Lori Mikkelson. I represent the Galans on this project. My office is located here in Hilo on Kilauea Avenue. I did submit to you guys a letter that -. I received a letter from the Pahoa Mainstreet, Mainstreet Pahoa Association on Friday. It was late in the day. I didn’t have time to get a letter back out so I’m going to incorporate the letter into my testimony this morning. To Whom It May Concern: This is in regards and response to a letter from Mainstreet Pahoa Association, dated January 24, 2012. The second paragraph of the letter: We asked the Galans to come to a Mainstreet Pahoa Association board meeting to give us a presentation on their proposed Pahoa Boutiques and Bungalows, and their planning consultant wrote us back personally to decline our invitation.” To date, neither the Galans nor All Aina Services, or myself, have ever received such an invitation. As my client’s representative, I ALWAYS do my best to respond to the concerns and requests of the community. I have responded to all of the letters from Mainstreet Pahoa Association, as well as Ms. Hunt’s personal letters, that have been provided as testimony to the Planning Department. I have always included not only a response to the community, but copied the Planning Department as well. After reviewing the letter from Pahoa Mainstreet Association, dated October 10, 2011 in which among other things it was requested that “the Planning Commission table the matter until the Galans had made a presentation to the Pahoa Mainstreet Association,” that statement was followed by, “We also seek a delay to allow Pahoa Mainstreet Association time to prepare legislation to establish an Old Pahoa Design District.” This statement could hardly be considered an invitation. Our response, dated October 18, 2011, regarding Pahoa Mainstreet Associations concerns: “Any suggestions that Mainstreet Pahoa Association may have would be appreciated. However, as there are no covenants or restrictions as to the design or development along Pahoa Village Road, it seems unnecessary to delay this application. A delay would also be a hardship to the applicants who have invested money and time into the proposed development to satisfy the requirements of the rezoning process, looking forward to the future and completing their plans. 3 EXHIBIT B As presented within the application, the “old plantation” design of this project is meant to enhance the “old fashioned” charm of Pahoa. And Ms. Hunt’s letter, dated October 19, 2011, which was full of accusations and nothing but negativity regarding the Galan’s application, I realized that she “cc’d” Councilman Blass. So, to follow up as a courtesy, I sent him a long response to clarify the intentions of the application. Please note that the letter dated January 24, 2012, Mayor Kenoi was “cc’d” as well. I will follow up with a letter in response to the Mayor. All other issues and concerns of the various agencies have been answered and addressed. There have been numerous letters of support from the community. And the application has received a “favorable recommendation” from the Planning Director.” I would have, would like to have a dated copy of the letter when Pahoa Mainstreet Association made the invitation to the Galans to make the “presentation”. I would certainly like a copy of the letter where I “wrote back personally to decline” the invitation. No such response was ever made. It is reprehensible for a “community leader” to be so unscrupulous as to submit statements and comments to the Planning Department and Planning Commission in hopes of negatively swaying any application. Thank you, as always, for your profession standards and acceptance of our, assistance with the applications. Then I have a little bit more to say. Again, thank you for your patience for all of this. It’s so long in the works that there’s a lot to say. I would like to thank the Commission for helping us today by providing the quorum. But before we go further I would like to thank the Planning Department for their continued professionalism and assistance. This project has been gone over so thoroughly, and not only by planners in the Planning Department but other agencies, State Department of Health. There are no concerns brought forth by any agency that couldn’t have been answered with a simple response. As mentioned, the proposed zoning has received a recommendation, a favorable recommendation from the Planning Director. The Galans have been actively seeking funding for the proposed project. And other than the worrisome delays the funding is not going to be a problem. They see this project as an opportunity to create an important hub in the community, as well as consider this a part of their future retirement plan. There has been ongoing opposition to the proposed project and requested rezoning, basically from the same entities and individuals. However, it is important to note that there have been more enthusiastic letters of support than opposition. With every rezoning typically there is a list of conditions that must be agreed upon and met within a prescribed amount of time. As this is not the only rezoning on Pahoa Village Road, the list of conditions has also been assigned to the other parcels. While the Galans are willing to agree to the conditions of their rezoning, they are requesting that the conditions be consistent with the previous agreements on the nearby parcels. 4 EXHIBIT B And although Pahoa Mainstreet Association has chosen to support businesses whose, and their owners, who operate illegally in structures without proper permits with illegal wastewater systems and noncompliance with the conditions of their rezonings, at this time, the Galans would be pleased and more than welcome the support of the Association and their, for their proposed project. So that’s what I have to say this morning. KERN: Okay. And you have received the Planning Director’s background report and recommendations? MIKKELSON: I have. KERN: And you have any other comments you’d like to make at this time? MIKKELSON: Not at this time. Thank you. KERN: Okay. Are there any, do you have -. So you’re done as far as -? MIKKELSON: Yes. KERN: Okay. Any questions for the applicant or representative? So I’ve just been notified that you’re receiving the letter for the first time. And what we’re going to do is we’re going to have any questions, you can answer the questions. Then we’re going to receive public testimony. And after that’s pau if you’d like to you can come back up and speak to that letter. MIKKELSON: Thank you. KERN: Commissioner Au? AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Question for the applicant. Your proposed five buildings that you’re going to build, how far along in that process are you? I mean you obviously drew up preliminary plans. Have you got numbers, you know, how much do you think your project is going to cost? Material list, have you called any contractors? I mean how far have you gotten? Just to this or did you go farther? MIKKELSON: We’ve spoken to contractors. We decided to wait and see, sort of a wait-and-see - this has been such a long ongoing process – to see where we would stand. It is conceptual. When this goes forward to plan approval status then, you know, we will readdress it to make sure that it meets all the requirements. However, during the process of responding to the Fire Department, and the regular agencies, we have met -. GALAN: I‘ve contacted, I’ve contacted excavators and contractors. KERN: Just one minute. Could you raise your right hand. GALAN: Oh, so sorry. 5 EXHIBIT B KERN: Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? GALAN: Yes. KERN: Okay. And could you use your microphone and give us your name and address or area you represent. GALAN: Okay, Karen Galan. And the response to your question is I have contacted Earth Carvers of Hawaii, and I do have a couple of contractors that I’ve been contacting. And, you know, I’m not doing the material list or anything because I’m still kind of waiting to get rezoned. I’m having a lot of opposition. It has been a year. And actually I’ve been here a couple of times, and there’s not even enough people to vote. So it has been frustrating. And I really do believe that it’s going to enhance Pahoa town because it is going to be something brand new, it’s five new buildings. It’s going to be like very nice, lush landscaping with, you know, hapu‘u and orchids, bird of paradise. It’s going to be a very, I think it will really enhance downtown Pahoa. It’s going to have like little, four little shops downstairs. There’s five bungalows, or a little bit, actually it’s five but one is going to be for residential. I’ll have somebody, a manager on the site all the time. So somebody will live there all the time. And then underneath there will be a handicapped place, and then there’s four little shops, and then four, upstairs will be four, like little hotel rooms for people to stay. And I think it will be, really enhance the downtown area. KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: Do you live on the property? GALAN: No. AU: Have you lived on the property in the past? GALAN: Me and my husband, we, we took six months and we fixed up the property and helped clean, I mean, you know, started cleaning up the –. When we first bought the place, we were there from like st July all, every weekend, all the way till January 1 fixing the house and doing, you know, it was kind of in bad shape. So, and then we got Earth Carvers who came out and bulldozed everything, leveled off the property -- it’s all nice and leveled -- and took down trees and hauled away like three dumpsters of trash out of there and everything. So it’s pretty nice. It’s all ready to go actually. Well, it’s going to have to be ripped up again but it’s good to go. KERN: Thank you. Any other questions? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I understand you have an existing structure on the property. GALAN: Yes. And that has been, that is true, and it’ll have to be taken down. DOMINGO: I see. 6 EXHIBIT B GALAN: Yes. And then lot of, lot of, I guess, something for wastewater that has to be, and also taken away the septic system and everything out of there, but, yeah. MIKKELSON: May I add something. The existing structure is within the property setbacks on the side and in the front; and it would be such that it would be difficult to bring it up to the commercial code to utilize that structure. So we would probably make a plan with a demolition permit to remove the structure and recycle as much as possible, obviously. KERN: Any other questions for the applicant or representative? Seeing none, you may have a seat. Thank you. Public testimony, we have three people signed up to testify. I’ll call all three of you up. Sandra Song, Tiffany Hunt and Mark Hinshaw, will you all please come forward. And I’ll get to raise your right hand. You don’t have to -. If you want to testify, you’re more than welcome. Do you all swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. KERN: Okay. So we’ll start with Ms. Song. SONG: Okay, thank you Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. Because I testified before, I’m not generally anti-development. It just happens that I’m here for another application. I did submit written testimony. I’m not going to read it. But I will just go through some points. First of all, the Planning Director has recommended approval of this application on two bases. One, that it is consistent with the General Plan and, two, that all essential utilities and services are available. But that’s not the complete standard under the Zoning Code for approving the amendments; and that’s not the standard. Because Section 25-2-40 of the Code says this chapter shall be amended, one, if it’s consistent with the General Plan. But it says “and whenever the public necessity and convenience and the general welfare requires such an amendment.” Now that condition, which is in addition to the General Plan, was not addressed in the Planning Department’s recommendation. Now I’m here representing Jeff Hunt and Jeff Hunt’s Surfboards. Jeff Hunt is the property owner that’s next door to this property. And Mr. Hunt has several concerns that, we submit, affect the general welfare which lend this application in doubt. One, and there’s parking, there’s traffic impacts, and there’s fire, issues on fire protection. On parking the applicant is proposing 18 parking spaces which they say exceed the Zoning Code, and it does exceed the Zoning Code. However, the Zoning Code requirements for parking are compromised of what property already zoned should have for parking. That doesn’t mean in a change of zone that that is a sufficient parking. In this particular project as proposed with five buildings and residential, taking just what the applicant says, if there’s going to be two employees for each of the commercial spaces, I’d say that’s two parking places. Okay, and then each of the commercial units, I mean the resort units, overnight accommodations would have 1. That totals, when you add that up that’s 14 spaces taken up by employee parking and the overnight units. That leaves four parking spaces for all people coming to the retail use. Now I submit to you, is that reasonable? No. And why isn’t it reasonable? For example, if we look at the intersection of Lanikaula and Kilauea where Subway Restaurant is and all those restaurants are, that area meets the Zoning Code; and that area is a bottleneck with parking when people come to those restaurants. So I’m saying, I submit to you that if 7 EXHIBIT B this project goes through it needs more parking or it needs to be redesigned so there is more parking. And this Commission can do that if it’s going to approve it. There is nothing to stop this Commission and the Council from saying there has to be more parking. The second concern is traffic impacts. There was no traffic impact assessment report in this application, TIAR, because they said there will be less than 50 peak hour trips generated. All right, now because of the resort stay and the employees, we know that in and out makes at least 28 trips. So my question to you is are there going to be 11 patrons only for the four establishments each day? Now I’m not a traffic engineer but what I’m just saying is counting the numbers I can see more than 50 trips in this property in and out. This Commission should have had a traffic impact statement, traffic impact assessment submitted with this application to see what kinds of improvements are needed. Is there a pocket that’s needed, is there a stop sign that’s needed, is there a traffic light that’s needed? You don’t know so you can’t make an intelligent decision. And when you do know you impose conditions. Okay, the third thing is water pressure. The Department of Water Supply said in its comments that the fire flow pressure, the pressure presently through the 8” inch line is 1,565 gallons a day of, permitted of water through the 8-inch waterline. They say the minimum flow for firefighting purposes is 2,000 gallons. All right, the applicant has not provided a solution to you. And just imposing a condition the applicant shall work it out with the Fire Department, that’s not acceptable. How can you say that the general welfare supports this amendment? You don’t know that there will be adequate fire protection for this project. My client has a real concern. My client doesn’t want to see fire started next door and his property burned. The final thing like, I want to raise is is this really going to be developed as proposed? And in my th written testimony I’ve submitted the MLS listing that was effective as of November 30. And this is a listing for this property which was posted back in March. And it says, and in it says in the comments “Great opportunity to start your business in the heart of Pahoa town. The seller is currently going th through the rezoning process and expects rezoning to be within the next six months from March 10 of th 2011.” Now maybe as of today the owner suddenly changed her mind, but as of November 30 she had this property listed for sale and she’s representing to you she’s going to do this project. Is she really going to do it or is it going to be resold? Once you rezone this property there’s 48 permitted types, categories of uses in the CV district; and this property could be rezoned, used for anything. Years ago zoning ordinances said the property must be developed in accordance with the representations of the applicant, which means you have to do that project. That’s not in your conditions any more. So basically when you allow rezoning anything goes, unless you would restrict it that way. So those are all the comments I have. And, based on that, my client is opposing this change of zone. KERN: Any questions from Ms. Hunt, Ms. Song, I’m sorry. Any questions for Ms. Song? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: You bring up some good points. And I can think of, looking back into history, some of the issues which we’ve addressed in the past with regards to performance of a rezoning and the intended use of the property. I’m not sure but we used to say the applicant or assign should conform with the provisions of the, of the ordinance; otherwise, it could be reverted to its original use. 8 EXHIBIT B Water pressure, if they’re going to be, this is something like “iffy” because if they’re going to be working with the Water Department and they are unable to comply with the requirement that they impose, then certainly they would not be able to further develop that or use that parcel for its intended use. So I think I can say that there’s some degree of comfortableness in which I can accept this. But what really bothers me is if their intention is to sell the property; and that has been a bone of contention for a long time with me personally. When someone comes to me with a statement and a commitment I would expect that to be met. Now finding out that it was all done just so that it can, that party could acquire something, a permit or some degree of consideration and then not really meaning what they’ll perform, then I have strong issues with that. So right now, Mr. Chairman, that’s my feeling towards the application and to what Ms. Song just mentioned. KERN: Okay. Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. Are there any other questions for Ms. Song? Seeing none, thank you. Tiffany Hunt, give us your name and area you represent, then you may begin. HUNT: Good morning. My name is Tiffany Edwards Hunt and I represent Mainstreet Pahoa Association today; and I think it also should be noted that I’m the wife of Jeff Hunt. And Jeff Hunt’s Surfboards is a single member LLC, so technically Sandra has represented Jeff Hunt. So I just want to kind of want to step away from a personal offense by some of the statements that were made by the planning consultant representing the applicant on our business, because I feel like there were some allegations made about our own application, rezoning. And I just want to assure the Commissioners that my husband has been nothing by earnest in efforts to run Jeff Hunt’s Surboards in Pahoa. Now as far as Mainstreet Pahoa Association, it has been clear since the beginning when this rezoning application was taken up by the Planning Commission that there was some concern. And we have shown, Mainstreet Pahoa Association has shown nothing but openness in asking you people to come and give a presentation; and Mark can attest to that. Mark, he is one of the Board of Directors of Mainstreet Pahoa. And there would be more people from Pahoa here if people didn’t have to work and run a business. So some letters that you’ve received – Pahoa Cash & Carry, Island Natural which is right next to or behind this property. And they, everyone has spoken about it at Mainstreet Pahoa Association meetings; and we’ve crafted letters. Because I’m the president of Mainstreet Pahoa Association, I recognize that I’m part of a body. And so we’ve crafted letters that have shown that we are receptive to development in Pahoa. It needs to be very conscious because this property is located in the heart of Pahoa. It is across the street from the 80-year old Pahoa Cash & Carry. Across the street from Jeff Hunt’s Surfboard lives Mrs. Kajiyama. She is an 80-year old woman who has refused offers from me to get a ride to your meetings because she caretakes for her 87-year old husband. So you have to put it into context, yes, this is Medium Density Urban, but it’s also the last bastion of Pahoa that is still really raw and authentic and has the hapu‘u and the anthuriums. That’s what we have in our backyard in, at Jeff Hunt’s Surfboards. So that’s where the cesspool is located. That’s the history of Pahoa. It is the, if you look at that stretch of Pahoa it needs to be preserved, it needs to be carefully developed. So that’s what I’m advocating for. And that, when I take my time to go sit on an organization like Mainstreet Pahoa Association as one of the business owners, I’m looking out for Pahoa in that respect. So I’m saying on behalf of Mainstreet Pahoa, we, if anybody proposes to have a 9 EXHIBIT B development in Pahoa we want to work with them. And that is what we’ve, the message has been conveyed. So when you look at this application for the Galans the point is, yes, it is about parking, it’s about the impracticality of a u-shaped one-way traffic pattern with 18 parking spaces, multiple bungalows, retail space, hotel/resort type atmosphere above the retail space. Yes, in a perfect setting that would be wonderful. But is it going to work for Pahoa right now? We have so many struggles right now. We have a lack of police presence. Mrs. Kajiyama is going to have to walk through some dereliction and drug dealing that goes on in this heart of Pahoa. So what happens now with Mrs. Galan’s property is that she is not there and she's currently not renting it out. And so what you have are you have the street people who come, and they hide out in the carport and on the back stoop, and they do their thing in her property. And it is up to me as the property owner who sees it through the back window of our property to call the police. I have, you can, as part of my testimony, you could go to the police and you could find out how many calls for service Jeff Hunt’s Surfboard and Tiffany Edwards Hunt has had for that property, trying to deal with the dereliction over there. So to propose more bungalows and more little places and spaces to hide out that are neighboring my property, our property, there is a concern. And then step away from my property and look at Pahoa, there is a concern. We need to have the stakeholders of Pahoa working with the different merchants and the people that are trying to do what they are pitching in this proposal, you see. I want to make sure that Pahoa is safe when I drive away, and that my property is in, it is protected not only from the dereliction, but also from people who are with not the right intentions for Pahoa. This property since the Galans, you asked her how long she has lived there. And the response was, oh, when they bought it way back when they spent a little time there staying at the place trying to fix it up. And then you didn’t, it was kind of illusive. Like did she ever live there? No. She doesn’t live there. She lives on the other side of the island. There’s no stake in Pahoa. If you look at the MLS Listing, it has been for sale more than it has been not. Okay? And it has fluctuated with the times, the cost of the property. Now it’s for sale for $200,000, plus the adjacent property $50,000. Jeff Hunt’s Surboards first got involved with this because it was proposed to be sold to a competitor. So that is even how I started looking at it. My child was two weeks old. If you look at my child right now, my child is almost one year. That’s how long we’ve been involved with this. So it’s all with the intention of trying to protect Pahoa, avoid speculation. And then on a practical sense it’s saying, yes, we need to have that area developed. If Mrs. Galan doesn’t want to do the development, sell it, stop trying to go for the highest figure that she can get, wanting to sell the neighboring parcel with the parcel and just sell it to someone who genuinely wants to develop. Let that person put in the rezoning application, and then we can work on the conditions for how to meet the flood concerns, the traffic concerns, all the myriad of concerns. Because this is right in the middle of Pahoa, right across the street from Mrs. Kajiyama and right across the street from an 80-year old business. Even just the idea of demolishing this building, that’s going to take some consciousness. And, yeah, it is legal to rezone for speculation gain, but that technically is what’s wrong with Hawai‘i right now. It is people who have no intention of doing something, and just because of the letter of the law they can do it, and because the General Plan says you can do it, doing it. So I’m sure you’ve heard enough. I’ve come here and spoken. And also I just want to say I’d love to see the testimony in support because my understanding is that the merchants 10 EXHIBIT B and Mainstreet Pahoa, we have concerns. And we’d love Mrs. Galan to come and tell us how she thinks that Pahoa Boutiques and Bungalows is going to be pulled off. This is about us being the gatekeepers, and this is about integrity and honesty. Thank you very much for the opportunity to speak my word. KERN: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? AU: Mr. Chair? KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mrs. Hunt, you mentioned that you’ve contacted them through Mainstreet Pahoa on numerous occasions and -. HUNT: No, I don’t want to -. I believe that the testimony is that we’ve extended an invitation and they’ve declined; and apparently that was up for some interpretation. If you look back in the letters, we’ve always been addressing this application and these applicants in general to you, like trying to keep it very akamai. Each time that Mainstreet Pahoa or Jeff Hunt’s Surfboards has submitted any sort of testimony, the planning consultant, Mrs. Mikkelson or Ms. Mikkelson, writes back. Okay? And so what has happened is that Mainstreet Pahoa Association has submitted testimony twice, once when this was a general application and before – if you recall the white house on the other of Jeff Hunt’s Surboards came through as the general application. You folks voted against that measure. Within the month that house went up for sale. Okay? That’s what’s going on here. And so what happened is the application was amended to something specific, Pahoa Boutiques and Bungalows. So then Mainstreet Pahoa Association submitted additional testimony. We had a discussion, and Mark can attest to the Board’s feelings, we had a discussion on how to write the letter. I’m the writer of the group so I wrote the letter. And it was like toned down basically in order to be representing the Board. So it’s not me running the town. Needless to say we submitted the testimony which basically said please table this, we’d like the Galans to come and speak with us and tell us their plan. And we’re also very much involved in the design district. And, you know, this is all paraphrasing. Mrs., Ms. Mikkelson wrote back and declined saying that they’ve already wasted enough time basically or they’ve already spent so much time and resources on this that they don’t, they , they declined to meet with Mainstreet Pahoa. Okay? And maybe this is all subject to interpretation. That’s the, that’s why we’re here today, is to clarify that Mainstreet Pahoa has never been against the concept of a Pahoa Boutiques and Bungalows. We don’t want to see real estate speculation in Pahoa. And, again, this is another member of Mainstreet Pahoa, so you can see that, and he can tell you what the Board intended with the letter. KERN: Any, Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Does the Mainstreet Pahoa have any policy or guidelines with regards to applications concerning issues such as this? Do you have any adopted? HUNT: Mr. Domingo, the Mainstreet Pahoa Association is a 20-year old organization. And really what we have to go on is its mission, which is to enhance the economic vitality and to increase the quality of life of Pahoa. And there have been, over the years, like anybody, different groups or different merchants coming on board and devoting time. And so really all we have is the mission 11 EXHIBIT B statement and a general, at the time, the Board’s overall opinion. And it has been, since I’ve been president and since I’ve been involved in Mainstreet Pahoa Association, I believe since about 2008. And it should be noted that I haven’t even been really involved in Pahoa and my husband’s business until about 2008. So like accusations are accusations. But needless to say Mainstreet Pahoa, we would like to see the County Council adopt legislation where if the proposed rezoning gets rezoned and then the property owner turns around and sells it, it would be reverted back to the original zoning within a certain time period in order to avoid speculation. I would say that the Board has that overall opinion, that has been the discussion that the Board has had. It’s just concern that all of a sudden we’ve got Starbucks right across the street from Mrs. Kajiyama because someone was able to get a commercial rezoning and have it subject to 48 different uses. So that’s the current representation of the Board. But, again, it’s a body, and different merchants come aboard at different times and different opinions. But the letters that we’ve drafted have all suggested we are, we’re not opposed to development in Pahoa. Pahoa needs some revitalization and certainly along with it some increased police presence and some real cautious development. But it can’t just be like, oh, we’re going to generally rezone something and allow anything. That’s this gatekeeper part right here, just making sure that, that it is. Like I said there’s a woman who lives right across the street from this proposed commercial development. DOMINGO: You know, -. KERN: Please use your microphone. DOMINGO: Wouldn’t this proposed project contribute to the economic vitality and the quality of life in Pahoa town? HUNT: Absolutely. DOMINGO: And I think that meets your criteria and policy for development. Yeah? For one thing it’ll provide jobs, it would enhance the property value and the atmosphere in the town, and it will take away the existing situation where the undesirables go, and then you wouldn’t have to look at them as a neighbor and see them smoking pot or whatever, because that is going to be taken away. And with this anticipated development it would be something that hopefully through the planning guidelines you can look out through your window and appreciate what’s being done there. HUNT: Certainly. Now may I respond to what you just said? DOMINGO: Sure. KERN: Please use your microphone. HUNT: Oh, okay. Well I absolutely agree with you 100 percent. That is what Pahoa needs. But my whole saying is that I don’t necessarily believe that that’s what’s going to happen here, just based on the track record. This has been for sale more than it has not. If Ms. Galan intended to have the Pahoa Boutiques and Bungalows then why in the world is, why was it submitted last March as a general rezoning application, and why was she selling it to the people that were going to compete with us? I 12 EXHIBIT B used to go, my husband actually went over and put plywood over Ms. Galan’s broken window. We’ve actually like really tried to show Ms. Galan aloha. So it’s really kind of a suckerpunch when she tried to sell it to someone who’s going to compete with us and then the communication stopped. So what I’m saying is that we’re not opposed to development in Pahoa. But it has to be akamai and it has to be pono; and this is not pono. And that’s why I’m here. We’re not anti-development. We’re trying to create retail in Pahoa. If this went through and she gets her commercial rezoning, it will increase our property value to have something nicer next door. But the point is is that she has had this, please if I’m stating it mistakenly, 2004, how long has been? And it has been for sale a lot, and you’re all of a sudden you’re selling it to my competitor and trying to put in a rezoning application? Everything needs to be above board if we’re going to do it. Because, again, Mr. Domingo, you are correct, it will do everything that we envisioned. And that’s why I feel like the application was amended, because of last time when we were here the testimony that was given, and then it went, they went back to the drawing board and said, oh, this is what Pahoa wants. Okay? You want to hear from Mark? KERN: Any other questions for Ms. Hunt? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Well, you know, I can appreciate what you’re saying and how you feel. And I think perhaps later on I’d just like to have the applicant come up and tell us what has made, changed her mind with regards to deciding to develop the property rather than leaving it as it is and deciding to sell it. Because the economic conditions or atmosphere right now practically prohibits anyone from doing anything. And that’s a statement that I’d like to hear from her. And I think as I look at the zoning, the zoning ordinance, it’s, and I said, you know, I need some, I need some assurance that the property is going to be, if the property is going to be rezoned that the applicant will perform as presented. And I look at the zoning ordinance, it says a representative or assigns will do all of this, all of the conditions, having not being able to perform any of these conditions, the zoning will revert back to its, or whatever, original conditions. They have to know that. So I think that this is something that we’re to discuss and look at thoroughly. And that’s why I want certain definitive statements made with regards to what their plans are really are. KERN: We will have the applicant have a chance to come back up. We’ll also be able to cover some of this during discussion. Any other questions? Seeing none, thank you very much. Mark Hinshaw, give us your name and area you represent or association and you may begin. HINSHAW: My name is Mark Hinshaw and I’m on the Board of Directors for Pahoa Mainstreet. First I’d like to address Commissioner Domingo’s concerns. I don’t know the legalities of the speculation part of this whole thing. To me it’s not right that a person can come in and go through a rezoning just to purely gain money. I don’t know if it’s legal or not. I know that’s your area, and I don’t know that. It sounds like it is because it has got an assignee clause in there, and they can really assign it to someone else. I’ve been in real estate for 30 years and I kind of have a general idea of how that whole process works. My chief concerns are, number one, like you addressed commissioner, is is this in fact what their intentions are? If their intentions are to just purely put it up there to get a more value to it, it’s not real akamai in my eyes, it’s not from Pahoa Mainstreet. We want to be very careful as to what comes in. I’m very pro development. This really upsets a lot of my neighbors, but I’m very 13 EXHIBIT B pro development of businesses in Pahoa. It desperately needs more businesses to bring in additional traffic. My concerns primarily, aside from what your concerns were, are the water, the parking is very, very concerning to me. Just the math that the attorney had done, you know that there is going to be more than four people coming to visit these stores on a daily basis. Eighteen, and if all of you have been to Pahoa town you know that it’s very, very condense. We have serious lack of parking, serious lack of infrastructure, etc. Those are my concerns, that we do improve those eventually over time. But as it relates to this particular case, only 18 stalls, it just seems almost like it’s bordering on High Density. I don’t know the requirements of Medium Density, etc., but this almost borders on High Density, especially when you’re mixing residential/resort with business. Those are our concerns. We have sent a letter to her. We had much discussion probably over a three or four month period at our board level, at Pahoa Mainstreet, inviting them. To my knowledge this is the first person that has ever refused to come to a Board meeting, which made us very suspicious why are they refusing to come to our meetings just to talk about what they’re going to do. That’s what the first red flag in my mind went up. I urge you to reconsider this zoning request, despite you’re already recommending to pass it based on what Commissioner Domingo talked about what are their intentions, what Tiffany spoke of and the concerns of Pahoa Mainstreet. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Hinshaw? Commissioner Au. AU: I have a few questions. What’s the membership of your Mainstreet? HINSHAW: What’s the total membership? Probably, most of the businesses. AU: Is it businesses and residents in Pahoa? HINSHAW: Yes, yes, both, both. AU: Okay, okay. Well, why don’t you answer me this question – you’re a Board of Director and Mrs. Hunt is the president. Let’s say a Starbucks was to go up in the middle of Pahoa town. I spent a lot of time in Pahoa. I live in HPP so I go to Pahoa a lot. A Starbucks there, it will definitely bring in cars or bring in businesses, it will bring in traffic, it will bring in money, it will bring in people, it will bring in tourists. So wouldn’t that benefit Pahoa? HINSHAW: Absolutely. I would love to see a Starbucks there personally, yeah. KERN: Any other questions for Mr. Hinshaw? Seeing none, thank you. You may have a seat. I’ll get the applicant or representative to come forward. You’ve had a chance to look over the letter that was submitted, correct? MIKKELSON: Where to begin. I do want to make sure that everybody understands that we did comply with the responses to the Fire Department, the Department of Water Supply. They were satisfied with our responses. There was never an issue. We did do the math and the calculations for the parking, and it meets the requirements. So that’s what we went by. If it is as such that it doesn’t 14 EXHIBIT B meet the standards put forth by some citizens, concerned citizens, I don’t know how that you can base it knowing what they’re going to think in advance of making an application. You do the math, you do the work, you do the research, you put forth an application. I want to give a little background to you guys about how this happened since you were concerned. The Galans have owned this property for quite some time; and as she mentioned they put a lot of work and money into getting it cleaned up. I guess it was a mess. There was rubbish in the yard and it was, had to be just basically hand cleared before they could get in there and really clear it out, which they did, and they took care of some businesses there. When they purchased the property it was expressed to them that there was a potential there for them to develop it in a commercial basis because of its location. And they thought, well, that’s why they’ll purchase it, they thought that would be a good thing to do, knowing that in the future that they would do that. Then, you know, economy does what it does, up and down, it has fluctuated quite a bit. And they’ve had many, many people come to them saying we’d like to buy your place, is it zoned commercial? No. Well, then we don’t want to buy it. Okay. So they kept on holding and they rented. They had several different tenants. There had been problems with tenants, just general residential tenants. But, you know, as a landowner you do what you to do keep the place up. They pay for maintenance on it on a monthly basis still. They wanted to go ahead and rezone it. When a person approached them the last time and said, you know, we want to do this and we’ll give you a deposit, we just really want to do this. And they talked between themselves and said maybe what’s what we should do. Not knowing how it all works really, it seemed like the practical thing to do. There was somebody who wanted to open up a business in that place. And as I mentioned earlier, to bring this house up to standard where you could run a business out of there to Code it’d be very difficult, but that was their intention. In the process, they moved in there with a lease agreement that was a residence and they fully understood they were not to operate their business, and they started operating their business right away. So then the County came in, and they were given a violation. And they were notified by the owner, Mrs. Galan, you may not operate your business in there. We get this thing rezoned, you buy it, then you operate it, not till. So they backed off. Eventually they did move out, leaving the place empty, and relocated to another place where it had the right zoning. In another application, we came before your board, the Commission, and we heard your concerns. And afterwards I did speak to Mr. and Mrs. Galan regarding their application, which had not yet been before the Commission. And I said, you know, you guys, I don’t think this is going to work for you, and we’ve got to talk about this. So tell me how you feel, tell me what you thought when you first thought, started to build this. And she said, well, when we first bought it we thought we’d do, like some little retail shops and maybe have some overnight accommodations upstairs. And I said, well, why don’t you do that? She said do you think it would work? And I said, well, let’s try it. So I, I draft. So I drafted a quick design and a quick site plan for them to see. And they said that’s just what we wanted, and we want to landscape it, and we want it to be beautiful, and we want to have security lighting, and we want to do all this stuff. So that’s how it came to be, that it really is what they wanted to do to begin with. Years go by, things happen, people change their minds. But basically that is what they started with when they started the whole thing. They’re sincere about this. They’ve been collecting funding. They have properties that they have on the market for sale so that they can use that, the money from their investments to this investment. And they really do want to use this for a retirement. That’s the answer. 15 EXHIBIT B KERN: Any questions for the applicant’s representative? Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I know upon acquisition of the zoning, and I don’t think it will happen -. But if someone does come before you and say, okay, now that you’ve gotten your rezoning we’d like to buy it, and we’ll offer you “x” amount of dollars, it would certainly seem very tempting to sell it. Now I don’t know how we can, I don’t know how we can govern that. I don’t know how we can control it. Because, you know, the compliance to the law was met and it’s written in the ordinance with regards to the development of the property, but not of a business or any commercial endeavor. And as I listened to the debates, one of the, one of the potential candidates have said there’s nothing wrong with making a profit. You know, there’s nothing wrong with making profit. I think that’s what, I think that’s an inherent desire or human behavior to do something like that so we can improve our way of life, and provide for us and our families. But, and, you know, I recall in other instances where a rezoning of a property to a resort, you know, for resort was given and that individual came to us with some commitments. Shortly thereafter he sold that property and, you know, he made over, he sold it for over $10,000,000. And I don’t know to what degree of, to what amount of profit he made. But certainly he was, when he came before us he had in mind was speculation; and we had just gone along with it thinking that it was a development that would be good for the island. And now as I look at this there’s a same scenario that we can see. And I also know that others have bought other properties, agricultural properties, residential properties, they got their residential rezoning and an increase in zoning for their agricultural properties, and thereafter they sold it. So the question is how can we curb that? You know, and what we’ve got here is this ordinance says you got your zoning and there are conditions upon which that zoning was granted and these are the conditions you have to meet, should you not meet that the land would, the rezoning would revert to its original designation. You can’t use it for any other thing. So with that I’d just like to let you know, that’s where I’m coming from, you know. And I think it’s, it’s every property owner’s inherent right to do whatever they wish to do with their property, providing that they comply with all the laws and requirements that are set forth for that use. MIKKELSON: I want you to know that the Galans have actually, they have spent quite a bit of money trying to secure funding. She’s, they’re well underway to do that. The funding that was held up was actually by the length of the time that we have not had a hearing. So we had to go back to the lender and say don’t worry, it’s going to be okay, we just have to go through the Planning Commission, and there hasn’t been a quorum. So it has been, so, you know, they’re trying very hard. Her vision, and it’s really important cause it’s Karen’s vision, was to have a situation where people could come and stay in Pahoa. One of the units, proposed units is an ADA compliant unit, meaning that somebody who needs those accommodations would have a place to stay in Pahoa. And, therefore, they could come, stay, eat at the local establishments, be able to stay without travelling away, coming back to Hilo and spending their money in Hilo instead. So that’s part of the idea. But also she wants to have it be an outlet for people’s, there’s going to be a proposed art gallery. That’s going to help people in Pahoa. There are a lot of people down there that are artistic and have no resources. It gives that opportunity. And so there is an opportunity there for this proposed development to be really something nice for Pahoa. And Mrs. Galan is interested in retiring, aren’t we all, anyway, and giving the opportunity to manage it and be a part of it. So that’s what she feels. She has worked for all of her life, this is what she wants to do. I hope that answers your question. 16 EXHIBIT B DOMINGO: Yes, thank you. Thank you very much. KERN: Okay. Are there any other questions? Commissioner Moses. MOSES: I just have a comment. Is that okay? KERN: Okay, that’s fine. Depends, we can move, you can make your comment in discussion, that’s technically the time for that and -. MOSES: For discussion, okay. KERN: If you have any direction questions I think we should wrap this part of it up and the applicant and its represe -. MOSES: I don’t have any direction questions. KERN: Okay. Any other questions for the applicant’s representative? Seeing none, you may have a seat. Thank you. So at this time anyone willing to entertain a motion? Then we can move into discussion and see where we go from there. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I move for the, regarding the issue of Karen and Adrian Galan, REZ 11- 145, I move that we send a favorable recommendation to the Council with the attached conditions of approval. KERN: Is there a second? ISHIBASHI: Second. KERN: Okay. Discussion. Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Yes, Chair Kern. I have an issue with this. When Karen and Adrian came to us, I can’t remember exactly when, it was not with the plan of what to do on their property, if I remember correctly. And we then, and listening to testimony from Pahoa -. Is that -? LEITHEAD TODD: That was a different application. MOSES: That was a different application. LEITHEAD TODD: Their original application was withdrawn and never made it to the Planning Commission. MOSES: So was this, the bungalows and all of this, this is the very first time that we’re seeing this? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes. The one that you did a negative recommendation on was a different parcel in close proximity. This one had an application and after you folks voted with a negative, if I recall 17 EXHIBIT B correctly on that other one, then this one was withdrawn; and then this has subsequently been reapplied. MOSES: Thank you, thank you. Planning Commissioners, I’d like to still put out my feelings regarding this situation that I am concerned about why it is no longer part of the condition that when someone comes for rezoning that the intended use is not attached to that. And that’s a concern for me because they have not demonstrated, in my opinion, that this is, you know, that they’re going to do what they say they’re going to do. I feel the same way the testimonies have, those of the people who live in Pahoa have expressed, that I’m not too sure if this is what’s going to happen. And they gave good argument regarding that, that this property has been on the market for sale and that there is that possibility of turning around and selling it should the commercial zoning be granted to them. And so that is a concern for me. I come from a small community myself and I have that same stance, is that I look at development, I think development is absolutely necessary, but it has to come with assurances. And so my feeling at this time is not supporting this favorable recommendation of this change of zone request. KERN: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Yeah, Mr. Chairman. I speak for the motion obviously because, you know, I chose initially support for it by making the motion. It will meet the requirements of the people in Pahoa, the businesses, and would certainly provide for the economic vitality. I think once you have this kind of a development and if the people in the community, as shown by some of the letters, show support, it’d certainly take off and provide, others would come and see a potential for other economic opportunities. And certainly when that happens the quality of life will certainly be increased in that particular area. And, in fact, what they’re proposing here is a use that is permitted within the Pahoa Community Development Plan in one of their centers. So, you know, it’s something that’s, what we’re doing is implementing a use that we felt as a body when we adopted a community development plan would be an appropriate use in this particular area. So with that, you know, I certainly feel confident of my support for this. And I wish that we’ll all look at it from that standpoint. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any other discussion? Commissioner Au. AU: Thank you, Mr. Chair. You know, I’m at crossroads with this application because on one hand, you know, we need development in Pahoa, we need businesses. I spend a lot of time in Pahoa. I’m currently doing a community service project at the Pahoa Senior Center. And, you know, I’m there early in the morning at 6 o’clock and I see the things going on there all throughout the day. And, you know, we need businesses to bring in people, to fix that place up. And our, you know, our community leaders are doing what they can in that area to try to fix it up. Our businesses are doing whatever they can. And, you know, we need development, we need a Starbucks, we need a KFC, we need a Longs out there, we need businesses. On the other hand, the way this applicant came forth was they came, they didn’t know what they wanted to do. They listed the property for sale numerous times, they deferred their application and then their planner went and drafted this. You know, there is so much uncertainty here; and that’s what bothers me. But Commissioner Domingo is correct, you know, you guys are within the rules and regulations and the guidelines of our law. So, you know, I’m at the crossroads in here. 18 EXHIBIT B KERN: Any other discussion? Commissioner Ishibashi, and then Commissioner Domingo. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Brother Chair. Yeah, for that reason too, it’s because of the requirements that the applicants meet. And, also, the problem I have with this thing is disassociation with the association in Puna. I don’t know why we cannot talk story, the applicant with the association, because that’s the key that we have to buy in into the plan. Speculation, yeah, we’re all against speculation. Just getting the permit in order to sell your property, we’re against that. But after hearing the planner’s kind of explanation with regards to the financing of the property, she’s still trying to get the financing of the property. So I just pray that they will go on with the development and do the right thing. Because I believe this development will enhance the security of the Pahoa area, keeping out the riffraffs in the area. That’s one step in the right direction. And also the association also says that they’re okay with this type of development if done correctly. So the speculation is the problem. But I believe that in sincerity they will try and do the development as planned. So with that, that’s why I’m pretty much okay with this project. KERN: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I have a somewhat amusing story, just like they say, and I’m not saying that we should do it. Once, once many years ago we entertained a zoning going up Ponahawai in one of the residential areas. And it was smack dab in a residential area with streets going through. And that application was for commercial because that individual wanted to open an office, and he was a foot doctor. And what we did was we specifically stated in that ordinance that upon receipt of that zoning the use would strictly be adhered to being an office for treatment of the foot. And the concern, the concern of the people there, that was -. That was devised because the people in there were concerned what if we give them the rezoning and they put up a service station in which, you know, that would generate a lot of traffic, whereas a doctor such as that would just be minimal. I’m not saying we should do that but, you know, those are concerns that have been in existence for years, even Mario as one individual used to say when he used to come speak to us. And, you know, I know it’s hard, it’s hard, because I would feel being a layperson if in my area and if I had those similar concerns I would probably voice some concerns against it. But when I consider the Zoning Code and the manner in which this, the bill, the zoning is written, regardless who buys the place, they have to comply with the conditions of the zoning ordinance. And when they comply with the conditions of the zoning ordinance, I think some of the concerns that have been brought up with regards to approval of this and their fighting against it would be addressed, no matter who develops the property. So I feel confident to that degree that I can vote and support it. Once before somebody came to us and we gave him the zoning, and he walked away a rich, a very rich individual, shame on us. Now with this one if we give them the zoning, and the same thing happens, shame on me. And that’s why, you know, there’s a lot at stake with this for me. And I hope the applicant, I hope the applicant in all sincerity will go ahead and develop, develop the property as presented. That’s real important. Because hopefully I aim to be around for quite some time from now, and if this happens then, you know, the reputation of those who represent the applicant and the applicants themselves will be in my mind, and not as a planning commissioner but probably at something else. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 19 EXHIBIT B KERN: Thank you. Madam Director? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, I was just going to say that generally when we’re looking at applications we are looking at whether the zoning being requested is consistent with both the General Plan as well as the Community Development Plan, and less so at the particular proposal, whether it’s a Longs, whether it’s a Burger King, and a Starbucks. We don’t get into judgment calls on whether what they are particularly proposing for that site is the best use of the site or the best proposal for that site. It’s whether they comply and are consistent with those documents that I have to review them against. And one risk with rezonings is that there are multiple uses that a particular rezoning can be used for. But there’s also a risk when you put in language that says something like “will substantially comply with the plans as presented.” Because then it becomes a judgment call sometimes on what is substantially complied with. And the one that I’m thinking of was a much larger project in Kona where they got rezoning and the representation was they were going to put in a high rise hotel; and they actually started to construct the high rise hotel. And then the market changed, and the property owners tore down the building and instead put up the Four Seasons Hualalai. And there were people that argued that we should have taken them back to the table and redone the shoreline management permits because what they built was not substantially what they represented, even though it was a smaller project and less of an impact. So I’m saying that you don’t know and there’s a risk that what you approved may not be what eventually gets built. But there’s also a risk when you put in that “substantially comply.” Because then it’s a what does “substantially comply?” If you’re proposing that you’re doing some boutiques and some residential does it have to be exactly that plan that’s presented? Does it have to be exactly those five buildings? Because later on you’ve got plan approval, you’ve got other things that have to be done. But, you know, the Commission is free to make amendments if they propose to it, to make additional recommendations. You are not bound by the recommendations that come from the Department. You have that authority, as does the County Council. Because my recommendation is just that, it’s a recommendation. What you recommend is also just that, it’s a recommendation. And ultimately it will be up to the County Council as to what specific conditions they put on it. But they will look at what your rationale was and what your concerns are in terms of what they would end up fashioning in any conditions that they would put. I do want to address one thing on the TIAR because I think there is some confusion. When Ms. Song was here she talked about, you know, 50 trips a day. A TIAR is whether there are 50 trips at peak traffic hours, not whether you have 50 cars coming during the course of an entire day. And so, you know, when we looked at it we didn’t think that the size of the proposed project would, didn’t look like it was going to generate that kind of high traffic during the peak traffic hours. And peak traffic is usually early in the morning and around the 3:30 to 5:30 periods in the afternoon when people are commuting back and forth to work. But, you know, if the plans change it could end up triggering additional requirements, because they still have to come in for building permits, they still have to come in for plan approval down the road. And at any point, in terms of parking, if what they end up proposing is different, additional parking can be required of them. 20 EXHIBIT B KERN: Thank you, Madam Director. Any other discussion or you’re ready for the vote? Looks like we’re ready for the vote. Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion before you is to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council as recommended by the Planning Director. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. COTTLE: And Commissioner Moses? MOSES: No. COTTLE: Okay, the motion fails. KERN: So that means a -. AU: Negative. LEITHEAD TODD: Negative. KERN: A negative recommendation is set forth? COTTLE: Yeah, due to the time that the Commission has to transmit a recommendation to Council, it will go up with an unfavorable recommendation. KERN: Okay. Yes, Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Maija, is the applicant not interested in further extending the time at this, for this application? COTTLE: I’m not sure. KERN: Should I pose that question? TORIGOE: Well, yeah. I mean, when I read the rule, I mean, that’s, it’s my understanding that the time can be extended. Now whether that is something that the applicant wants to do, you know, or whether they just prefer that it go up with a negative recommendation that’s something that they can 21 EXHIBIT B decide. Or if the Commission also feels that it should go to Council at this point then someone else could make a motion to send a negative; and a vote could be taken on that. KERN: So would you like to continue, have a time extension on this? MIKKELSON: No, as it is already -. NOMURA: Microphone, please. MIKKELSON: I’m sorry. KERN: Oh yeah, come forward. Sorry, my bad. Thanks. MIKKELSON: As the delays have caused a lot of hardship regarding the funding and the planning for this project, I think we should probably just proceed. KERN: Okay, thank you. TORIGOE: Okay, so, yeah. So basically if the applicant is not interested in extending the 90 days, then if there is no action by the Commission then it goes up to the Council with a default negative recommendation, along with the record. KERN: Which is basically what we have now. All right, thank you very much. COTTLE: Thank you, Ivan. KERN: Thank you, Ivan. Okay. AU: Question? KERN: Commissioner Au. AU: So what happens is this application goes to the County Council as a negative recommendation after 90 days? KERN: No. It goes forward now in the formal process. AU: Oh okay, KERN: But just the time extension was to extend the 90 day time filing or processing time that the Commission has. AU: Okay, and that had to be moved? In order to do that, that had to be, a motion -. 22 EXHIBIT B KERN: If the applicant wanted to extend it, they would have to agree to that. So as of right now it’s being sent forth with a negative recommendation with the record. Okay, any questions on that? We’re done. Okay, well, that one is pau. You’ll be notified in writing. The discussion ended at 11:34 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 23 EXHIBIT B