Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2013-12-05 Windward Transcript -Greenlaw WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 5, 2013 MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA A regularly advertised meeting on the application of GREENLAW (SPP 13-153) was called to order at 11:40 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Wallace Ishibashi presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Wallace Ishibashi, Ronald Gonzales, Gregory Henkel, Myles Miyasato, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono STAFF PRESENT: Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), and Sharon Nomura (Secretary) ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Charles Heaukulani, And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance APPLICANTS: MICHAEL AND CYNTHIA GREENLAW (SPP 13-153) Application for a Special Permit to allow the establishment of a satellite learning and education center (school) and water catchment tank business on 4 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property consists of four lots and is located at the very end th of 19 Avenue on the west (mauka) side of the road, approximately 2,200 feet southeast of the th intersection of 19 Avenue and Maku‘u Drive, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-5-021: 054, 055, 056 and 057. ISHIBASHI: Next application is Michael and Cynthia Greenlaw (SPP-000153). Maija? COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This item was also continued from your November hearing for Michael and Cynthia Greenlaw. The Commission continued the hearing in order to provide the applicant time to complete a statement of position and justification in support of approving the special permit for the water tank business, which the Planning Director had recommended an unfavorable recommendation for. Since that time the applicant has submitted their justification th statement in a letter dated November 25 that you should have in your folders. And you should th also have a letter from the Planning Director dated December 4 in response to Mr. Hong’s letter. And then this morning Mr. Hong submitted this bright yellow paper that includes conditions, suggested conditions for the permit. And since you were all present at the last hearing I wasn’t going to go over the presentation, but if you’d like me to I can. 1 EXHIBIT C ISHIBASHI: What’s the pleasure of the Commission? Would you like to entertain that information or we’re okay? GONZALES: We’re okay. MOSES: Okay. HENKEL: I’m okay. MIYASATO: I’m okay. ONO: It’s okay. ISHIBASHI: Okay, we’re all good. Thank you. COTTLE: I’ll just put up a location map that we can all refer to. Here we go. ISHIBASHI: Okay, if we could have the applicant s come forward. Okay, if you could raise you right hands and I’ll swear you all in again. Do you swear and confirm to tell the truth before the Windward Planning Commission over this matter? PARTIES: Yes, I do. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Okay, Mr. Hong. HONG: Thank you. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission. My name is Ted Hong. With me from my office is Sue Lee Loy to my right. And to my left is Michael and Cynthia Greenlaw. We received the December 4, 2013 letter from the Planning Director. We want to thank the Planning Director and the Planning Department for reevaluating its position and incorporating or suggesting a number of the suggestions we made in our proposed justification. And I appreciate the opportunity to work with the Planning Department and Planning Director in, you know, kind of discussing and recognizing the unique properties or the unique services that my clients are providing out there. And I think that’s reflected in his December 4, 2013 letter. The yellow sheet that you have is basically a culmination of all the different circumstances or conditions that we’re agreeing to. I know the Planning Director had mentioned in this letter that he wanted some clarification on the hours of operation. And with the Chairman’s permission I’d like Cynthia to address that. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. C. GREENLAW: Good morning. 2 EXHIBIT C ISHIBASHI: Good morning. C. GREENLAW: I’m Auntie Cindy. This was actually at my request that we change the hours. Because one night we had an emergency and our trucks drove in late, because they went out and it took care of the job, and I realized it. You know, most time, I mean almost always and never every day, our crew is there a little bit at 7 and then they’re back before 4. We don’t do a lot of business on site. But there are occasional times when a job has to be finished for someone and the trucks will pull in at 6. And so I just was concerned about that. I wrote to Sue right away and said I just want to be honest, there are times when our crews come in later than 4 o’clock. And it’s important to the customers that need the water that they do not just stop at 4 and leave. So that was the reason that I asked for that. HONG: And so the clarification that we’d like to make is to limit the hours of operation from 7 a.m. through 6 p.m., taking into account any kind of an emergency or last minute things that may come up, instead of coming back to the Planning Commission with a violation that somebody came in with a truck at 4:15 p.m. You know, so I think extending it to 6 p.m. would be reasonable. ONO: Mr. Chair? ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I’m sorry, what you had cited as an example is an exception to a normal operation? C. GREENLAW: Absolutely. ONO: But with your request for a change of time you’re making it a routine time. So I’m having a difficult time -. C. GREENLAW: Well, it isn’t a routine time, but I don’t want to be in violation either if our trucks come in late. I mean it’s an unusual situation. I don’t know if you remember the young man who said I went to school there for seven years and I found out today that there’s a water business there. Because most times our warehouse is closed and there’s no one there at all; and so -. But the nature of the business is that the crew will come and collect the trucks and go and do a job some place, and sometimes it takes longer than 4 o’clock. So I don’t know how best to do that. ONO: I understand what you’re saying. But I’m suggesting that if you extend your hours of operation then that becomes your standard. So now -. C. GREENLAW: Oh, no, we’re not, we’re not in any way trying to get bigger or longer. We’re doing the opposite. I mean this is what we have been doing for 33, 25 years with the water business. We aren’t asking to change anything of what we’ve already been doing. We’re really not interested in more work. We’d like, we’d really like less. 3 EXHIBIT C HONG: And so the reason why we’re extending the hour to 6 o’clock is because, again, I don’t, I think it would be ill-advised use of Planning Department personnel and resources to now bring before the Planning Department or the Planning Commission, and then having to investigate, a complaint that said I saw a truck two months ago come in at 4:20 p.m., where the standard or the conditions are 4 o’clock. And then now that sets into motion a whole series of, you know, individuals being involved in investigating and writing up a report, and reporting to the Planning, you know, Director or the Planning Commission. So instead of doing that, give them that cushion till 6’clock. It rarely happens but once in a while it will. ONO: Yeah, I can understand that. My concern as I read that was that you also want to extend the opening time to 7, earlier, an hour earlier. C. GREENLAW: I think I, I’m just trying to be honest. ONO: No, no, that’s fine. C. GREENLAW: That’s really all I’m trying to do. I’m trying to be honest. That’s when they come. ONO: Yeah. No, my concern was that if we opened it up an hour earlier, my experiences have been that the preparation time is even before the official working hour. So, I mean, you know, if you’re saying 7 o’clock and my workers begin arriving at 7, I find that hard to accept because you do preparation in terms of your business. You’ve got to get -. C. GREENLAW: But that’s when they come to prep. That’s, I’m just trying to be honest. It isn’t true that they work from 8 to 4, that isn’t true. I was just -. And we aren’t trying to change anything except the wording. To be honest they come at 7 to prep. Do you want to -? M. GREENLAW: Usually 4 days a week, most of my crew, two guys work 4 days a week, Monday through Thursday; and two of them come at 7 o’clock. Okay? And they’ll start loading up some base course and sand, whatever. The other two guys might meet us at the job. From time to time, for instance we did a water, a huge water catchment out in Paauilo last week, and they got in late, and my water truck got in late. But that’s just an unusual incident that happens from time to time. Most jobs that we have are in Puna, so my guys have to get out at 3 o’clock, trust me, 3 p.m. HONG: Well, if we could insert the words, yeah, no earlier than 7 o’clock I think that might address your concern. ISHIBASHI: Questions, Commissioners? Permitting, where are we at with permitting? We’ve been running this water tank business without permitting? So where are we at with that? 4 EXHIBIT C LEE LOY: The Greenlaws established their water catchment tank business in 1991. The DCCA records, along with the taxation records, have them under that. They’ve been paying their taxes, they’ve been in certificate for good standing the entire time. This really was just to bring or legitimize this business. When notice of, it wasn’t a notice of violation. It was a corrective action notice that came from the Planning Department. We just folded in both the charter school along with the water tank business to legitimize basically an operation that they’ve been doing for 25 with the water catchment, and then 30 years with the school. For the charter school it’s pretty unique. They started off as the home-schooling facility. That’s what it was like back then cause you had home school. And as time progressed new laws came along, new opportunities came along. Hawaii Academy of Arts approached them as a satellite campus for their larger overall charter structure. And so with that came this opportunity to legitimize the charter school and then the water tank business. HONG: So I think before the Commission is, you know, in the last of meeting we talked about approving the permit for the charter school; and we’re here now because there was some concerns by the Planning Department and the Planning Director about the operations of the water catchment business. They’re here now to bring that second half to the Planning Commission to show that we do have justification, and this is a unique and reasonable use of the property for the business. ISHIBASHI: We have the rentals too, vacation, what about that? There’s three businesses. C. GREENLAW: Yes, that’s what happens in Puna. No one does one thing. But I don’t believe that has to come under the special use permit. But I do have three cottages that I rent to visitors. ISHIBASHI: I’m just trying to put everything on the record so we understand. Any further question, Commissioners? MIYASATO: I have one. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Miyasato. MIYASATO: Yeah, could we get a comment from staff or Director on what was submitted? ISHIBASHI: That yellow sheet. Maija, any -? COTTLE: I’m sorry, Mr. Miyasato. What was your question? MIYASATO: Would you like to, do you have any comments on what was submitted this morning in comparison to what was -? COTTLE: Our comments would just be that the Director still maintains the position of an unfavorable recommendation for the water tank business for the reasons stated in our th December 4 letter. And there are some areas of concern about how the applicant is defining 5 EXHIBIT C their use and they have not provided a criteria, they have not provided justification that would meet the criteria for granting a special permit for that use. As far as the yellow sheet, if the Commissioners are considering approving the permit, we would need to know what’s the basis for the approval from the Commission. And there are a few conditions in here that we would want to change or add to. Would you like to know what those are? MIYASATO: Yes. th COTTLE: If you look at our December 4 letter, page 2, Condition 4 was removed from the applicant’s suggested conditions on the yellow sheet. So they did not include our Condition 4 in their yellow sheet. So we would like that added back in with a little bit different language. And it currently says “The water catchment tank and pool services business shall not be transferred to any other operator, manager, or business group. And basically the intent of the condition was based on a comment that Mr. Hong had made. In a previous hearing he said that Mr. Greenlaw just wants to retire and operate this business for a few more years, maybe ten more years, and then just stop doing this business on this property. So the Department would like to change that condition a little bit to allow him to sell his business, Paradise Pools, to another entity if he wants to but to not allow it to operate on this property past the time that Mr. Greenlaw retires. So we would change the condition to say “The operation of the water tank and pool services business at this site shall not be transferred to any other operator or business group.” Then -. ONO: Excuse me? COTTLE: Yes. ONO: Clarify for me. From what you’re suggesting at this point, what would he sell? COTTLE: He could sell his business, the Paradise Pools name. The actual business could be sold and located at a different location. ONO: Oh, okay. So he would keep his property is what you’re saying basically? COTTLE: Correct. But he wouldn’t, he would sell the business to another person, another entity to operate Paradise Pools, but he himself would retire and the business wouldn’t operate at that property. ONO: So what would happen to the facilities that exist on the property then? He would have to remove all those? COTTLE: It would just remain as a garage warehouse -. C. GREENLAW: Excuse me. Over half of his warehouse is his personal shop space. 6 EXHIBIT C ONO: You want to repeat that? C. GREENLAW: Over half of the existing warehouse is Michael’s personal workshop. Sorry. ONO: Okay. I was just wondering just what opportunities would you have to sell things if you were. Thank you. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: You know, just the fact that he could sell the business without the physical place, you know, being a part of it indicates that it’s not light manufacturing. It’s a service business. I mean I would ask, I think there has been some kind of confusion over, you know, what qualifies as light industrial and -. I mean if you’re a plumber that goes out to people’s houses and fixes sinks and stuff and you park your truck in your garage, is that garage, does that warehouse have to be a light industrial zoned building, or is it just where you park your equipment? You know, it’s -. COTTLE: Right. So if you’re just parking your vehicle there, then you’re just parking your vehicle. But if you’re storing supplies related to your plumbing business, if you have some pipes, some fittings here and there, then, and you take those from your property to a job site, then you’re basically running your plumbing business for storing -. HENKEL: Most plumbers their truck is their supply store -. COTTLE: Right. HENKEL: I mean it’s full of fittings and pipes and so forth. You can’t do the job and have to go, you know, to the plumbing store every time. You keep stock on hand. But I don’t, I don’t think they fall under the same specifications. COTTLE: So their supplies are all contained within their vehicle is what you’re saying? HENKEL: Well, to a large part. HONG: I just kind of, that illustrates the difference between rules, regulations and laws that appear black and white and the reality of, you know, basic living and trying, in trying to do a business. I mean I think that you would be, on a monthly basis when you meet you always encounter these circumstances where what’s written in black and white doesn’t quite fit what the people are doing in terms of -. You know, they’re not intentionally violating any zoning rules or regulations. But the reality of human beings in terms of how, what’s going on, doesn’t quite exactly fit. And this is one of the circumstances. When we were invited by the Planning Director to submit a justification based on the use in the light industrial categorization, that’s what we th submitted earlier. And so when we got this letter of December 4 from the Planning Director, I really didn’t see that as a rejection of our justification or saying that our justification was 7 EXHIBIT C insufficient. When I’m looking at his letter, I think it’s actually a reasonable statement of what’s going on the property and what conditions if the Planning Commission decides to approve the application request or the permit request would be appropriate; and I think that’s the perspective that, you know, we’re certainly looking at this. So when I hear Maija saying that the December th 4 letter is a rejection of the justification that we submitted, I don’t see that in the letter. So I’d have to differ. Then that’s our perspective. But, I, you know, in terms of paragraph 1, the Planning Director is correct. As we pointed out last time, this use predates the adoption of the Puna CDP, and that’s the point that we were trying to make. We’re not saying that the current, and we recognize the current use does not meet with the Puna CDP. But they started this business way before the Puna CDP started. So, again, we think that these suggestions made by the Planning Director in his th December 4 letter are reasonable and we incorporated all of them in our proposal in the yellow sheet. And the suggestion about not transferring, not continuing to operate the business at his property should he decide to sell it or sell the name, certainly we agree to that. ISHIBASHI: Commissioners, any further questions? ONO: I’m sorry ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Ono. ONO: I repeat on what you had just mentioned. As I’m reading No. 1 it seems to me that the construction was, for want of a better word, and I apologize, not legal. Am I correct on that interpretation? HONG: It depends on what legal, what do you mean by legal? So for example -. ONO: Well, the last sentence says, the last line says “the current uses are not permittedand remain in operation without having obtaining proper permits.” HONG: That’s absolutely correct. ONO: Okay. HONG: But the point we were trying to make last time we were here in November, and what we tried to, the point we tried to make in the justification that we submitted was when this business started the Puna CDP, it predated this Puna CDP. ONO: However, if I’m reading that again, it says that it was not permitted, you didn’t get -. HONG: We didn’t need permits in terms of the Puna CDP until the Puna CDP was adopted. And in terms of permits with respect to violating State Land Use Laws, the Planning Director is absolutely correct. You know, this was what started back then to meet a community need back in 8 EXHIBIT C the 1990s. And the laws have changed. And we’re just trying to, as Ms. Lee Loy pointed out, we’re trying to basically recognize and legitimize what has been a long-standing business out there.8 ONO: I see. I’m just looking at the picture on the -. So how do we address that violation now? Or how would -? It’s an illegal building at present with the law as is, as written, but -. HONG: No. Actually all the buildings are legal; and we’ve taken down any of the buildings that were encroaching on State property or anything else. Those have already been gone. The only issue is whether they can continue to operate the business on the present site. ONO: I see. Okay, thank you. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? ISHIBASHI: Yes. COTTLE: May I just clarify one point that Mr. Ono made. The building permits were issued for that structure on Parcel 57, this one right here that’s currently being used for the water tank business. The building permit was issued as a garage storage room for personal use, not for a business, not for a commercial or industrial use. So Mr. Hong is correct that they did get a building permit for that structure, but it’s not for the use that they’re using it for at this time. ONO: Okay. BRILHANTE: Mr. Chair? ISHIBASHI: Sure. BRILHANTE: William Brilhante, Deputy Corporation Counsel. I represent the Planning Director and the Planning Department. And I just wanted to clarify the question. And I think Maija did a very good job of clarifying the question. It’s not, that sentence that Commissioner Ono referenced doesn’t specifically state that the structures were unpermitted structures. But what that sentence is attempting to clarify is that the current use doesn’t conform with the current State Land Use designation for an Ag parcel in the Ag designated district. So that’s what that statement was more in reference towards – the permitted actual uses. And, again, that’s the basis for this special permit application. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. Okay, we’re clear? Commissioner Henkel. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel. 9 EXHIBIT C HENKEL: Just to clear up in my mind, the Director has recommended an unfavorable ruling. If we were to recommend a favorable ruling we would, it would be because we felt that it was justified by the testimony and written sheet here that the applicant has given us, right? KANUHA: You know, if this were in an area that wasn’t encumbered by another layer of planning -- in this case it’s the Puna CDP, which has been adopted, it’s an ordinance just like the General Plan is an ordinance -- if this area was in an area that was not being encumbered by something like that and everything being equal, we may not have a problem with the approval of the water business, the business side. The problem we have is that the Puna CDP, you know, seeks to consolidate those kinds of uses, you know, not having them spread out throughout areas like Paradise Park. And then indirectly we have been taking a position similar to that by restricting special permit favorable recommendations to certain areas within Paradise Park. There have been two applications recently, the Diamond special permit proposal, along with this. And for those two because of the Puna CDP stature and also compounded by a court ruling, the Missler decision over in Kona, we have to be especially careful to ensure that what we recommend is consistent with those, with the law, you know, in this case it’s planning law. If we were not to do that and there was opposition to this particular application, then our recommendation, perhaps your decision could easily be subject to appeal. And, you know, based on the case law that’s pending, we probably would be overturned. So that’s why we’ve taken the position on this, just the business part of it. You know, that’s, that’s the reason we did that, which is why my recommendation to the Commission. And I believe your counsel will support this, that if the Commission is inclined to grant this particular application the specific conditions are not really the issue. The real issue is to make sure that justifications for the approval, you know, can meet the test of, you know, being in compliance with the Puna CDP, particularly, and the General Plan. That’s the basic -. If you feel you can accomplish that, you know, then you can go ahead and make a decision. Otherwise, if you can’t, then it’s, you know, it’s going to be tough. Now there’s another reason for that, to make sure that is covered, your decision is covered. And that is because somewhere down the line there will be another application similar to this that’s going to have opposition. Okay? And if that opposition is strong enough that it goes to the level of someone filing an appeal, they’re going to look back at decisions that the Commission had rendered prior to that. And if those decisions are not protected enough, you know, then the Commission is going to be in kind of a tough situation over that decision. That’s kind of my two cents of it. ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: You know, in response, none of the substandard subdivisions in Puna that were made 40 years ago, they wouldn’t be legal today under the Community Development Plan, or the State or County laws. Does that mean they cease to exist or nobody can live there? You know, if, I 10 EXHIBIT C don’t see the County coming in and providing services to the rural residents of Puna; and I hate to see the County getting in the way or people that just want to do that. HONG: And along that line, and the Planning Director’s advice or suggestion, statements are generally correct. One of the things that differentiates this application, I think that, and other future applications is, and it’s folded into the terms and conditions that we’re recommending, is you’re putting a seal on this business. It can’t go anywhere. It ends. When Michael decides not to do this anymore, that’s it. That use no longer exists and will not be conducted on the property ever again. I think that differentiates it from, let’s say, you know, if Michael Greenlaw was 30 years old and he was starting and now he has got his whole life in front of him and a long-term business interest that he wants to use that property for. But here, you know, you’re looking at somebody who is actually building in sunset clauses into his use application or use permit application. And that’s what I think would differentiate this particular permit and could distinguish this permit application from other permit applications. ISHIBASHI: Any further questions? Oh, sorry, go ahead. C. GREENLAW: I just wanted to say I really believe in planning. I’m totally in favor of the Puna Plan. I’ve been on planning boards for HPP. I think planning is for new things. There was no plan when I came to Puna. And we really had to provide things. I don’t, have never looked on us as being illegal. No one ever told me I needed to get a permit to live on my land and provide services for my community. And when they did ask me to come into compliance, that’s why we’re here. That’s why we’re here. We’re just trying to make it right. But for 30 years, for 50 years I have lived in Paradise Park. And I love my community and I have never ever hurt my community. Everything I do is for the benefit of my community and the people who live there. All my neighbors love us. They know that, come out and see my place. It’s lovely, it adds to the community, it doesn’t detract from anything in the community. And I just feel like a danger to you about a permit to shut down my life that hasn’t hurt anyone is really wrong as well. I don’t know how to fix it. That’s why we’re here. And we are trying to come into compliance. Sometimes I feel like are we big enough to need a special use permit? Our water business is very small. I don’t know that that was even the right direction to go with it. What is allowed, what isn’t allowed? At some point I believe it was Maija who told us that we could have two trucks parked there. Well, if every lot can have two trucks, I own six, can I have 12? No. And how is that right if this neighbor can have two, and this neighbor can have two, and this neighborhood can have two? And many of them do down at the front. Beginning of our road is a man with two dump trucks parked there. You know, and if I had six acres why can’t I have 12? None of it makes, none of it is logical. And I’m not trying to do anything wrong. I’ve never thought of us as being illegal. We’ve always, Michael has his license, we’ve done, paid our taxes, done everything the way we thought we were supposed to. And then we found out we needed a special permit, we needed to come in compliance with zoning laws. That’s what we’re trying to do. 11 EXHIBIT C HONG: And I just point to the yellow sheet, page 2, paragraph number eight where we’re committing to this business not lasting more than ten years. MOSES: Can I may make a comment? ISHIBASHI: Commissioner Moses. MOSES: You know, Cynthia, I feel like we’re in the same predicament. We’d like to help. We hear what you’re saying. And listening to the Director and what we’re able and not able to do based on the law, you know, really limits us. And I don’t know what the answer is. I really don’t know how to go forward with this. ISHIBASHI: It’s a transitional period. We keep coming up against this, Puna residents all the time now, because of the CDP. And it’s, you know, tough for the Commission cause we understand where you guys are coming from. And the intent is true, you have good intents in your heart to do the right thing for the community. You know, we’re going through this transitional period of trying to change from the old to the new so, sorry. Commissioner Moses. MOSES: Mr. Chair, can we go into executive session for a little bit? Can I make a motion to do so? ISHIBASHI: Any further questions before we -? Okay, you can make a motion. MOSES: I make a motion to go into executive session. GONZALES: I second. KANUHA: I’m sorry. I think you have to give the reasons for that. KANUHA: So I think to consult with your -. MASUNAGA: To consult with your -. MOSES: To consult our counsel. ISHIBASHI: Okay, it has been moved and seconded, by Commissioner Gonzales. All those in favor signify by saying aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ISHIBASHI: Oppose, same sign? Motion carried. EXECUTIVE SESSION - The Commission went into executive session at 12:20 p.m. The Commission came out of executive session by a motion made by Commission Moses, seconded by 12 EXHIBIT C Commissioner Gonzales, and unanimously carried by a voice vote of all Commissioners in attendance. RECESSED – The Chair recessed the meeting at 12:40 p.m. RECONVENED – The Chair reconvened the meeting at 12:45 p.m. ISHIBASHI: Okay, moving on. Motion is in order. Okay, Commissioners? Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: In regards to SP 13-000153, I would like to make a motion that the Planning Commission approve the establishment of a satellite learning and education center and disapprove the water catchment business with the caveat that the water tank and pool business on Lot 57 shall have a period of ten years to wind down the business and expire on December 31, 2023. ISHIBASHI: It has been moved by Commissioner Henkel. And seconded by Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Yes, second. ISHIBASHI: Okay, open for discussion. Seeing none, Daryn, if you can -. Oh, you’re going to explain to the Director? ARAI: Maybe -. Okay, so with the proposed motion to disapprove the water catchment business, in effect there will be no special permit covering the water catchment operations on Lot 57. In the absence of any special permit, there’s no mechanism by which we can control anything on that property. A special permit simply doesn’t exist. So if you’re trying to accommodate a transition to allow for the winding down of the business, how do I attach that provision? Because there’s no mechanism, the special permit doesn’t exist. So I’m not sure how to address it. And I don’t know how we as a Planning Department is now supposed to administer or overlook something when no permit was granted. I hope I’m making myself clear. You’ve actually disapproved something. You’re denying the special permit. You’re not allowing it. So it shouldn’t be allowed in any way, shape or form. That’s the way I look at it. MASUNAGA: No, it’s winding down, business is winding down. ARAI: But as business winds down you’re allowing that use to transition over a period of ten years. MASUNAGA: Right. ARAI: So how do we then manage that use when technically a special permit doesn’t exist? ISHIBASHI: Well, there’s been -. 13 EXHIBIT C MASUNAGA: You don’t -. ISHIBASHI: Yeah, they’ve been continuing business for years now. And if they go on -. ARAI: Okay, so if they were to triple the size of the business I have no mechanism to manage it, correct? MASUNAGA: Well, if somebody complains, and then they come here. But -. ARAI: But then -. MASUNAGA: But for now no, nothing. ARAI: Nothing? MASUNAGA: No. ARAI: I, we still have State law to administer, we still have zoning to administer, I mean -. HENKEL: Daryn, in the motion, I think the term winding down implies that the business is not going to be growing. It’s going to be winding down, it’s going to be diminishing. ARAI: I understand that. But when you’re putting a restriction or some means of control, that control has to be attached to some sort of authorization, which is normally in the form of a permit. But you’re disallowing the permit. So if the permit is disallowed how do I, what are you going to attach it to? You cannot attach it to the special permit for the school because that’s for the school. I’m thinking just operational, I’m getting, I’m confused. GONZALES: In denying the catchment business, are we as a body, can we impose on them that you have ten years to close down your illegal operation? Is that something that we can attach? ARAI: That is why I think we’ve had special permits in the past, I’m trying to think right off hand -. I think there have been special permits in the past where you’ve allowed it but with a condition that the use shall cease in ten years, which is what the applicant was kind of driving at. She wanted a -. MASUNAGA: It’s the decision of the Commission, Daryn. ARAI: Right. And I’m making, okay, and that’s fair. And I’m just operationally expressing to you that in the end we’re the ones who have to deal with it on a day-by-day basis. If a complaint comes in I honestly don’t know how to best address it. MASUNAGA: We could address it then. If we have to come back, then we will. 14 EXHIBIT C ISHIBASHI: Okay, any further discussion? Questions? Okay, call for the question. Maija. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Mr. Chair? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes six-zero. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Maija. You’ll be notified in writing. C. GREENLAW: Thank you. M. GREENLAW: Thank you. LEE LOY: Thank you. ISHIBASHI: You’re welcome. Thank you. HONG: Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Planning Commission, Planning Department. Happy Holidays. 15 EXHIBIT C The discussion ended at 12:53 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 16 EXHIBIT C