Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-03HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-130HOLDINGSLLCAMENDSPP870 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 3, 2014 130 Holdings, LLC (Amend SPP 870) A regularly advertised hearing on the application of was called to order at 9:05 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i with Chairman Ronald Gonzales presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Ronald Gonzales, Charles Heaukulani, Gregory Henkel, Wallace A. Ishibashi, Jr., Myles Miyasato, Raylene Moses, and Stephen Ono. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Margaret Masunaga (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), William Brilhante (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Planning Director), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary). And approximately 19 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: 130 HOLDINGS LLC (Amend SPP 870) Amendments to Special Permit No. 870, which allowed the establishment of the Orchidland Trade Center on 2.311 acres of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The request seeks various amendments to Condition Nos. 2 (time to complete construction), 3 (design guidelines), 4 (water storage), 5 (access), 6 (intersection improvements), and 7 (hours of operation). The property is located within the Orchidland Estates Subdivision on the th northwest corner of Orchidland Drive and 34 Street, Orchidland Estates, Kea‘au, Puna, Hawai‘i, TMK: 1-6-10: 83. GONZALES: Item No. 1, 130 Holdings LLC. Jeffrey. Oh, and I’d also like to add that we are having a little bit of a technical difficulties today so please speak clearly into the mikes if you testify, and for us Commissioners, and I’m probably the worse one all this—gotta be careful with all the background noise, so thank you. Hey, and there’s our friend Stephen Ono. Good morning. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning members of the Planning Commission. Welcome. Looks like we have quite a few items on the agenda today, so we’ll try to get through them as quick as possible. Our first applicant is 130 Holdings LLC. They’re requesting quite a number of amendments to their special permit, Special Permit No. 870. The area of the subject property and application is within the Puna district of Hawai‘i. More specifically, we’re looking in the area of Orchidland Subdivision. Just for reference, the white line running through the middle of the map running north-south is Highway 130 or Kea‘au-Pāhoa Highway. We have Hawaiian Paradise Park on the upper right hand portion of the map identified in green, and we have Orchidland on the lower portion of the map identified in blue and also in green. Access to the subject property would be 1 EXHIBIT A from Orchidland Drive, and the subject property is identified with a black outline. This is a closer view. Again, for reference, we have Highway 130. We have Paradise Drive in Paradise Park, and we have Orchidland Drive which provides access to the subject property. The subject property is 2.311 acres in size. This is, just for reference, these are previous special permits that were approved in the area except for this one right here which was actually denied for a telecommunication tower. But, the subject application, was approved to allow a regional trade center. This was back in May of 1994. We also have the Orchidland Convenience Center which consists of Wiki Wiki Convenience Mart, Blane’s Drive Inn, and also the True Value General Store. Additionally, there is a church along the highway and, more recently, there was another commercial use approved right on the highway for Brooks Maloof, and this is going to include a restaurant and different types of commercial uses. This is an aerial photograph. It identifies, again, Highway 130 running on the top portion of your map with Orchidland. The subject property is identified with a red outline. Currently, there are two shells that are constructed on the property as well as quite an extensive retaining wall. This is the Orchidland Convenience Center consisting again of Blane’s, Wiki Wiki Mart, gas station, and the general store. The church is located along the highway and at this time, the special permit for Brooks Maloof has not started construction. They have some conditions that have to happen before they can begin. This is the General Plan Land Use Allocation Guide Map for the area showing the future development that they’d like to see. The darker yellow represents rural General Plan designation. The orange represents medium density urban which is the first step in an applicant to be able to come in to change their zoning to commercial so this is one of the nodes that were approved back in 2005 to begin to allow these commercial developments in these subdivisions. There were several in Orchid-a, in Hawaiian Paradise Park as well as one in Orchidland. The subject property is right on the fringe of this, medium density urban node. In 2008, the Puna Community Development Plan was approved by ordinance. This identifies the area within Orchidland that they would like to see their village center occur. This is Orchidland Drive running in an east-west direction and the highway running in a north-south direction on the right side of the map. The subject property would be this particular area here so it falls within their village center area. The applicant is requesting amendments to Special Permit No. 870 which originally allowed the establishment of the Orchidland Trade Center on 2.311 acres of land. The request seeks various amendments to Condition No. 2 which is for a time extension. Condition No. 3 which with changes, they’re asking to delete the design guideline agreement between the association and the applicant. Condition No. 4 which was a water storage condition. Condition No. 5 that has to do with access. Condition No. 6 which is intersection improvements at the highway. And lastly, Condition No. 7 for hours of operation. The project was originally approved to allow a regional trade center including a variety of home, garden, and animal supplies, catchment supplies, sales service, solar water heaters, office space 2 EXHIBIT A for service businesses such as electrical, plumbing, landscaping, garden, auto repair, farmer cooperative, and home business outlet. It was meant to kind of work together with the Orchidland Convenience Center so they wouldn’t duplicate uses. So this was more for trades; the other one was more for retail type services. Additionally in 2003, the permit was amended to allow for food service uses, mainly for restaurants. This is the applicant’s site plan. I apologize that it’s not very clear, but basically it’s to give an understanding what the layout is. Orchidland Drive is on the lower portion of your map. Access th to the property would be from Orchidland Drive. It’s not identified to provide access on 34. Currently, the two buildings on the right side of the map have been, the shells have been constructed. The applicant is proposing three more buildings for a total of five buildings on the property. This is a site photo looking makai, or looking towards Highway 130 intersection. The subject property is on the left. You can see the condition of the road at this time. This is looking mauka. The subject property would be on your right. Again, the condition of the roadway. This is on thth Orchidland Drive looking on 34, so you’ll notice 34 is unpaved. The subject property is on the left. The retaining wall we spoke about earlier—this is the retaining wall that the applicant has constructed between their property and the nearest adjoining neighbor. Again the shells that are constructed. This is the remainder of the property on the mauka side. The Planning Director is recommending the following. For Condition No. 2 which is a five year time extension to complete construction, the Planning Director is recommending approval of this condition. For Condition No. 3, the applicant is requesting that this condition be deleted. The Planning Director is recommending that this condition remain, and I believe that we also had received comments from the Orchidland Community Center yesterday, and so those have been passed out. And they also agree that they should, this condition should remain. Condition No. 4 which is a condition regarding water storage. Originally, the project was proposed to be connected to County water. There was a lot of problems that happened with that, and so there was an amendment to the permit to allow the applicant to have on-site storage. Since then, the applicant has come into an agreement with Gulsons, which is the owner of the Orchidland Convenience Center, to be able to sub-meter the water that’s currently there, and provide water to this property. If that agreement continues, that’s our, the Planning Director’s recommendation is that, it’s not either or. It sounds like the amendment request is to allow either on-site storage or connect, but if, the way that we’d like to keep it is that if County water can be made available, that would be priority. We’d like to see that connect. Condition No. 5 access, we’re recommending that, what, there was some confusion on how that condition was worded. We’ve changed the wording on the condition to be more clear as what is required for the applicant in regarding to access improvements on Orchidland Drive. Number 6, this is the intersection improvements for Highway 130. We have just received a, an email from Department of Transportation and basically, they are asking that the condition remain as it is. And that also is within your packet there. So, basically, we’re, the request was to delete that condition but because DOT is asking that it remain, the Planning Director is recommending that it remain as it is. And lastly, the hours of operation. Now since we’ve submitted this recommendation to the Planning Commission, there has been some discussion between the community association and the applicant. Both of those letters have been provided to the Planning Commission. Our 3 EXHIBIT A condition did not change that, and so we had recommended denial because we hadn’t heard from the association. But since then, it sounds like they’re amenable to the change to allow hours of operation to change to 11 p.m. And so, that can be something that the Planning Commission can consider in their recommendation for this. But, currently, it’s, the condition remains as it is. Just for reference, just to let you know, that since the recommendation was passed out to the Commission, there have been several correspondence that did come in, and hopefully, everybody received those. One was a response from the applicant regarding the recommendation to the Planning Commission. There’s really not a date or a name on that, but basically, it starts off and it says response to the County of Hawai‘i Planning Department Recommendation by 130 Holdings, LLC. So that’s one, and then we had received a letter from Orchidland Community nd Association dated April 2, and that identifies their concerns. And then lastly, there was two emails, one from Department of Transportation and one from the Department of Water Supply, and those might be stapled together. Just identifying issues regarding the intersection improvements and water. Sorry about that, it is a complicated request but hopefully we can get through it. With that, that concludes our presentation. Thank you. GONZALES: Thank you, Jeffrey. Any questions for staff from the Commissioners? ONO: Just for clarification. Condition Number 6—I’m not, I thought the pictures had indicated an unpaved road. Is that, the surfacing of the road. I don’t quite understand the need for an intersection denial with the condition of the road. DARROW: Condition number 6 has to do with the intersection improvements at Highway 130 and Orchidland Drive. Because a majority of the people that come to these commercial operations are coming elsewhere, Department of Transportation, when they originally had commented on this application, wanted the applicants to participate in improving the intersection. It, you know, there will be discussion about this, I’m sure, from the applicant, but it--it at this time, we were looking possibly changing it to make it as a pro-rata share of improvements but again, Department of Transportation was firm that they want to keep the condition as is. Currently, in fact, why don’t I do this. This is a picture of the intersection, and it shows currently there is no signalization, but there has been improvements to the intersection. It’s providing a right-turn lane into Orchidland Drive. There is a storage lane heading towards Kea‘au as well as a left turn lane coming from Pāhoa side into Orchidland Drive. There isn’t a, a storage lane coming off the right turn, but many people kind of use the shoulder to come into traffic going towards Pāhoa. So mainly at this time, the only thing that needs to be done as far as improvements would be the, the signal, but again, until such time that DOT either improves this or, you know, comes right out and specifies exactly what the applicant should do in regards to improvements, we’re kinda unclear about this condition, so we keep it as it is. ONO: Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. 4 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: Any other questions for staff from the Commissioners? Thank you. DARROW: Thank you. GONZALES: Will the applicant and/or their representatives come forward? Yes, please. Could I please have you raise your right hand? Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? GADD: I do. GONZALES: Thank you. GADD: My name is Greg Gadd, and I’m president of the managing partner. And I’m largely in agreement with the recommendations of the Planning Director. Really, I have, want to clarify numbers 3, 6—6 I’m in contention with, and 7. Three is to, let me get my notes here, to comply with the Orchidland Community Association letter, which I believe you have a copy of. They’re, the letter basically states project design to fit aesthetically with the rural atmosphere of the subdivision. It’s pretty ambiguous. Um, it’s hard to really comply with it. It also says all customers parking to be in front of the proposed buildings. Well, if you look at their plan of the buildings, they’re—one of the buildings doesn’t even have a front. Says no repairs, manufacturing, or work to be conducted from the front of the project, again, the same point. There is, you know, it really doesn’t pertain. And no deliveries to be to the front of the project. No uncovered storage, that’s okay. Business hours, limited to daylight. I believe we resolved that. Extension of paved road to mauka end of property. We already addressed that. The project to operate on County water. We already addressed that. And developer to provide proof of funds sufficient to complete. Really, this letter is totally obsolete and it stays in there but there’s nothing to really comply with. So, I don’t know, if we could maybe talk, there representatives from Orchidland here. We might be able to clean it up or enter into a new agreement or we just keep it in there, but it’s, it doesn’t serve as any purpose really. And then Condition No. 6 is that the burden, or the possible burden, of having to put a traffic light at the intersection of Orchidland Drive and 130 really cripples the project. The County and the State can’t afford to put a traffic light. How can a private business person be held to put a traffic light in at Orchidland Drive? We’d have trouble getting tenants. It’s taken six months for the Department of Transportation to respond saying that they want this to stay in this extension request, so we find somebody that wants to lease the property, we’d have to wait six months for them to even tell us if we have to contribute to the traffic light, and then it’s probably years from there. It basically leaves these buildings empty for maybe years. It’s unfair burden to put on a private person. And then, Condition No. 7, I believe, we reached an agreement with Orchidland and the hours of operation till 11. The other, Condition No. 9, is applicant shall provide an 8-foot high chain link fence or comparable security along the border. There was an 8-foot chain link fence which we had to take down to put in the retaining wall. Along the other portion of the property, we had the chain link fence into our property because if you look at the aerial photo, two of the neighbors’ buildings are encroaching onto our property, and we had to clear right up to the line. We’ve asked them to move the buildings or remedy it some way, and they haven’t. I don’t know. We 5 EXHIBIT A may have to go into some kind of litigation or reach some kind of agreement, but they have buildings encroaching onto our property, and that’s the reason we haven’t put the fence back up. That’s pretty much, I’m available for questions. I’m in agreement with everything else. GONZALES: Okay, sir, so you have received the Planning Director’s Background Report, and it seems like your big issues are with number 3 and number 6. GADD: Yeah and number, and then the fence, but those are, they’re minor issues. GONZALES: Okay, any questions from the Commissioners for the applicant? I have a question that’s actually probably for you, Jeff. There’s been reference to Conditions 8 and 9 but I don’t see anything about those in the Recommendation. DARROW: The, Condition No. 8, when you look at Exhibit No. 1, which is the applicant’s original request, we kind of were looking at his request and when he would say the applicant requests, then we would put that in. Under No. 8, he really wasn’t requesting anything. It was basically just information that he was providing. He may, for us the conditions still remains the same. The chain link fence was required to be there, it’s not there. So, what he said was within his request it says, the chain link fence which was previously installed was removed for construction. A retaining wall was constructed along the adjacent properties. The retaining wall is only along a portion of the properties. It doesn’t go along the entire adjoining properties that’s required for the chain link fence. So again, it was unclear that he was asking for anything originally so at this point, we would recommend that the condition remain as it is. GONZALES: Okay, and I have a question on Condition No. 6 with the traffic signal. You said that at this point, there is no plans by Department of Transportation or anybody to even put a signal in there? DARROW: We’ve inquired extensively regarding plans for Orchidland Drive and, unfortunately, we have not received any specific information as to that. There, there has been studies done, and assessments or impact statements done regarding the improvements. They are improving a portion from Kea‘au to the beginning of Paradise Park, but at this point, it’s unclear as to the specific improvements that will be, that are proposed for Orchidland Drive. We’ve asked and we just haven’t been provided direct information. GONZALES: Okay, so if we hold him to Condition No. 6, are we really even holding him to anything? DARROW: It’s going to be up to the Department of Transportation at the time of certificate of occupancy if they require anything of the applicant to make a, a request at that time. GONZALES: And so when do you anticipate applying for your certificate of occupancy? GADD: Hopefully within six months. 6 EXHIBIT A GONZALES: Okay, is there a chance when he does that that, that’s when they’re going to decide they do want a signal? Or, hard to say? We can’t tell it or think it? DARROW: We’ve, we’re just not, I mean as the applicant had mentioned, it took some time to be able to get a response for the comments for this application, and basically, it was—we had to make an extra effort, and that’s why we received an email stating that they want the condition to remain the same. GONZALES: Does his certificate of occupancy, does that come before the Planning Department? DARROW: It is an administrative process that is signed off by numerous agencies for him to receive the certificate of occupancy, so it’s not anything that goes before the Planning Commission. GONZALES: It clears my— GADD: --really long day. GONZALES: All right, thank you. DARROW: Thank you. GONZALES: Commissioners, one more time, any questions for the applicant? Okay, thank you. GADD: I think Orchidland’s going to come up and we could discuss this— GONZALES: Okay, we do have some public testimony. If anybody wants to come up and you haven’t signed up, you need to come sign up with Sarah. GADD: Should I stay here while they— GONZALES: No, you can have a seat so we’ll bring you back up if we need you. At this point, I only have one person signed up to testify and that’s a Mr. Bob Dexter. Are you Bob? DEXTER: Yes. GON ZALES: All right. Could I get you to raise your right hand please? Do you swear to affirm and tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? DEXTER: I do. GONZALES: Thank you. You may state your name, where you reside, and then you will have three minutes. 7 EXHIBIT A DEXTER: Robert Dexter— HATA-FINLEY: Mike please. GONZALES: Use your microphone too, please. DEXTER: Robert Dexter. I reside in Orchidland Subdivision on Auli‘i. You need the actual address? We support this. On Condition 3 we agreed that the language was, is somewhat ambiguous and we, we’ve discussed entering into discussions to clarify that language better. We had no objection to the extensions, for the 5-year extension, for the additional hours. With the, on Condition 5 with the roads, we basically, we’re getting ready to resurface the Orchidland Drive. It’s chipseal right now. You see, saw the pictures. It’s you know not the best condition, but we’re getting ready to resurface it with asphalt. So, our major concern is, is that as this project comes in, that, particularly the shoulders of the roads are protected so that when it’s developed, Mr. Gadd will ensure that patrons and everything are put in properly, and any drainage that’s necessary so we don’t have additional problems with water. So, you know, basically, our investment that we put into resurfacing this road isn’t damaged. Also, one of the things that we’re concerned about is you know we have very limited resources within our association. We have 42 miles of road, and we’re trying to bring up the standards. We would like that if you know when this comes up for rezoning potentially in the future that we’d like to turn over this segment of road to the County, and that way, we’re not putting a burden on the commercial properties with trying to collect higher fees for their commercial uses, and it would just clear up a lot of issues we have in--. So on the mauka side of Mr. Gadd’s property, we’d like to take that whole segment and eventually turn it over to the County. It would just be simpler and easier for everybody because there’s too many players in this, and we also agree that it would, you know as far as signalization, you’re basically putting all of this on one individual. You know, so if it’s a million dollars to put in a signal light, is that fair and reasonable to ask of one business to come in that he gets a million dollar bill to enter into the market? So, we confer with Mr. Gadd’s position on the signalization. Any questions? GONZALES: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Dexter? HEAUKULANI: I might have misunderstood your position. You’re saying in your testimony this morning that the association is in agreement with the modification of Condition 6? DEXTER: We agree that, you know, it’s a problematic intersection. You know, it needs to be addressed. We don’t feel that it should all be put on this one particular person. You know I mean everybody pays taxes to the State and everything. But, we’re basically, it’s a showstopper for this whole project, if you’re looking at how much money it takes to put in the signal and why does one person get that. So, you know, there should be some way to either solve it by everybody contributing or the State standing up because everybody is a taxpayer and paying for it. What it is, is a problematic intersection. It’s not a very safe as all the traffic—it’s much like all the other intersections on the whole highway. GONZALES: Any other questions? Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Dexter. We have one more person signed up. Mr. Bob Arthurs. Would you like to come forward please? 8 EXHIBIT A ARTHURS: I’m Bob Arthurs. I’m one of the Directors on the Orchidland Board. I asked Bob Dexter— GONZALES: Could I get you to raise your right hand real quick so we can swear you in? ARTHURS: Sorry. GONZALES: Do you swear and affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? ARTHURS: I do. GONZALES: Thank you. Go ahead. ARTHURS: Bob Arthurs. I’m the Director with the Board of Orchidland Community Association. I’ve asked Bob Dexter to stay so he can backstop me. In no way does the association, and we met on this, talked extensively at our last Board meeting. We would like to see this project go ahead, and the showstopper as Mr. Dexter pointed out, for the traffic light. There’s no way that one can lay that burden on a latecomer into the show. Everybody’s a stakeholder on that quarter, and he just happens to be a new guy coming in at the top of, that would be the traffic light. The traffic light is not a new issue. When I was active on the Board almost 20 years ago, we had asked the State at that time to work on it, and I don’t know how many accidents they’ve had, deaths and so forth. It is a dangerous intersection. And I woke up one morning, I don’t even use that drive. I come out Kurtistown and Ola‘a Road and I go to the post office, there’s brand new traffic lights there. And I thought how does that little business rank? And I you know this State seems to pick and choose, but that’s another issue. Regarding the road and Orchidland Community Association’s primary business, is the road and trying to maintain with inadequate funds, the County has been very good about the way they grant the permits, and with the rezoning and so forth, I see no reason why the County cannot pick up that section of the road going down to the traffic light. That would mitigate an undue burden on the remaining shareholders in Orchidland Community Association in maintaining that road. A lot of the vehicle movements going down, the heavy vehicles cause slippage or cracks on the road. You see that on the main highway, and it’s, it’s just a bit much for a little association to try and maintain something that extensive. We don’t even have the expertise to put lineage in the middle of the road. So, you see Orchidland Drive doesn’t have a centerline, does it? At the intersection. And, you know that really should be there. That type of signalization would be a great help even if the County can’t take up the black top. That’s all I have. Thank you for listening. GONZALES: Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Arthurs. MIYASATO: Yeah, I have a question. GONZALES: Very good. th MIYASATO: Mr. Arthurs, were you present at this September 4 meeting? 9 EXHIBIT A ARTHURS: That was the general meeting? Is that-- th MIYASATO: 2013, September 4, Orchidland Community Association, Board of Directors. ARTHURS: --what— MIYASATO: --reviewed-- ARTHURS: --I don’t believe so, no. MIYASATO: Okay, in this letter that was submitted by Marti Morishige, in Condition 6, it states that “we believe a traffic signal at Orchidland Drive and Highway 130 is essential” and you just stated that the Directors are agreeing that Condition 6 can be deleted. ARTHURS: No, that condition needs to be, needs to stay. That is a safety issue. It’s a serious safety issue. It is unfair that the burden of that light be laid on one person. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. ARTHURS: Is that what we’re saying? DEXTER: Well, I think if I understand correctly— HATA-FINLEY: Mike, please. DEXTER: I think if I understand that question correctly, because the condition is attached to this specific owner—is that correct? Then maybe it should be rescinded but the fact remains that, that is an unsafe intersection. So it depends, I look at it, cause we, we need the problem fixed. But it is unfair that Mr. Gadd’s whole project is held up because of this condition, so that, I think it’s a condition for his permit—it basically should be dropped for his permit because he should be able to go forward with his business, but the problem needs to still be solved. GONZALES: I understand, but if Condition 6 remains then, it’s on him, so Commissioner Miyasato, you don’t want Condition 6 in there then. ARTHURS: We realize, the Board realizes that the special permit request which you’re considering today is but a stop gap until the rezoning goes forward, and at that time, these issues will have a more serious take I guess you would say. GONZALES: Any questions? Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Yeah, I, you know, Mr. Gadd’s project I don’t think is going to create a dangerous intersection there. It’s already a dangerous intersection, and I think it’s the State’s kuleana to remedy that. Actually, I agree with them that it shouldn’t fall all onto this one person. If anything, I think Jeff Darrow mentioned there’s some kind of a shared plan with some of the 10 EXHIBIT A other developers in Orchid, you know? Absorb some of the cost. But still, it’s the State’s kuleana. Highway 130, it’s already a dangerous intersection. We’re going through this in Pāhoa, with you know, the Woodland Center we went through it, and they had the funds to step up and help fund intersection improvements there, but you know, the DOT is still putting in the roundabout and to remedy it there. GONZALES: Okay, we’ll get all that going in discussion, but any other questions for Mr. Arthurs from anyone? ONO: Question. GONZALES: Commissioner Ono. ONO: Is this on? ARAI: Yes. ONO: Yes, just for clarification, I tend to disagree slightly. I would assume that this being a commercial development, there would be an increase in traffic because it’s a commercial development so the intent of that intersection having the intersecting lights would be because of the added traffic, not, not to alleviate the present traffic problem. But my question really is directed to the previous speaker. Was that an exaggeration on the million dollar traffic light system? I’m not sure, but I heard a million dollars so I just wanted to have that clarified. ARTHURS: Ever since I can remember about 15 years back when it was first broached with the State, they look at every traffic light as one million dollars. Any bridge, one million dollars. Any mile of pavement, one million dollars on their contracts, and I think Mr. Darrow would be more exact on the costing of it. ONO: Do you have an answer? DARROW: All, well I mean, basically all I can say is that, that’s a figure that usually is used when they talk about traffic lights. The--at least a million dollars I would say that, that would be a conservative figure at this time. But, again, that’s only guesstimating. ONO: Thank you. GONZALES: All right. Any other questions for Mr. Arthurs? You gentlemen can be seated. Thank you very much. DEXTER: Thank you. GONZALES: Unless there’s any objections, I’m gonna close the public part of the hearing. No objections? Okay, I believe we need a motion and then we can go into discussion. Good luck. 11 EXHIBIT A HEAUKULANI: Can we take that in reverse order? Can we go into discussion now. I just wanted to point out that Condition No. 6 as it presently reads doesn’t necessarily mean that this particular applicant is going to shoulder all of this burden. What it says is that the channelization, signalization and street lighting improvements shall be provided by the applicant if required by the DOT, and I don’t know enough about that process or what else is going on, on or around Orchidland Drive to know that in fact the entire financial burden of providing those intersection improvements are going to fall on this particular applicant. There might be others around. There might be other negotiations going on, and I note that the communication from DOT is that they want to leave that provision in place for now, I think the language was. Or at least for the time being. I don’t feel comfortable stepping into the place of DOT on in something as important as that intersection. GONZALES: Jeff, if at some time, the Department of Transportation in the future decides yes now today we decided we want a light there, would Mr. Gadd have the opportunity to come back and request another amendment to his permit? DARROW: The applicant can always request an amendment at any time for that. Just as Commissioner Heaukulani had mentioned about other applicants in the area may be required to pay a particular fair share, there was the Orchidland Convenience Center that came in originally, and there was a condition placed on them that says the applicant shall pay their reasonable share for infrastructure improvements that may be required of other commercial development in the immediate area, so it sounds like the intention was from the beginning to kind of cost share improvements for anything that would be required to cover the infrastructure. But, yes, in answer to your question, they could come in the future for an amendment. GONZALES: Thank you. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, you know, one option the Commission may entertain is to continue this hearing and ask us to have a representative from the Department of Transportation, Highways Division, come before the Commission, and you can ask them directly what plans they have, if any, how receptive they would be to some kind of pro rata condition, etc., but you know for now, all we have on the record is their statement. So that’s you know, that’s a suggestion. GONZALES: Mr. Gadd, would you have a problem if we continued this until we could get somebody from DOT here? GADD (from audience): Yah, I rather not continue it. I’d rather not stay (inaudible). GONZALES: Okay, all right, well then I guess I’m back to a--I need a motion from one of my fellow Commissioners. ONO: I’m sorry, what was their request now. Are you amenable to us, a stay on this? GADD: (from audience): I’d rather not. GONZALES: I think he’d rather not. 12 EXHIBIT A ONO: He’d rather not? So he wants it decided today? GONZALES: I think he rather just get it over today. MIYASATO: I make a motion, Mr. Chair. I make a motion that the request for the amendment on Condition No. 2 and Condition No. 5 of the Special Permit No. 870 be approved by the Planning Commission. And that the request for the amendments for Condition No. 3, Condition No. 4, Condition No. 6, Condition No. 7 be denied by the Planning Commission. DARROW: Could I interject? Just for clarification, it appears that on Condition No. 7, the change to 11 p.m. appears to be amenable to both parties, and the Planning Director would be supportive of that change as well. The reason why the, again, the Recommendation didn’t reflect that, is that we just received this information. MIYASATO: Okay— DARROW: Thank you. MIYASATO: Yeah, ok, take 7 out. Put Condition 7 after Condition No. 5 for approval. GONZALES: Very good. Could I get a second? ISHIBASHI: Second. MOSES: Second. GONZALES: All right, it has been moved by Commissioner Miyasato and seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi. HEAUKULANI: I’m sorry e kalamai, could you restate the motion so, I mean, I want to make sure that we get this one right. MIYASATO: Okay, for amend Condition No. 2, Condition No. 5, and Condition No. 7 of the Special Permit 870 be approved and that the request for the amendments in Condition No. 3, Condition No. 4, Condition No. 6 be denied. HEAUKULANI: Thank you. GONZALES: And Chairman Ishibashi, are you all right with that with your second? ISHIBASHI: Yeah, I second. GONZALES: Any discussion, any more discussion? I guess we go to vote. 13 EXHIBIT A DARROW: Okay, I’ll just reflect the motion again. It, the motion I believe is to approve the amendment requests for Conditions No. 2, No. 5, and No. 7, and to deny the amendment request for No. 3, 4, and 6. Correct? With that, we’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. GONZALES: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes seven to zero. GONZALES: Thank you. You will be notified in writing of the Commissioner’s decision. Thank you. The discussion ended at 9:55 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 14 EXHIBIT A