Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2014-04-03HEARINGTRANSCRIPT-PD INITIATED USE 12-034 & AMEND USE 12-034 WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 3, 2014 Planning Director Initiated matter regarding non- A regularly advertised hearing on the compliance with Condition No. 8 and assessment of other conditions of Use Permit No. 12-000034the application by Regency South, Inc. for an amendment to Use Permit and No. 12-000034 was called to order at 10:51 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), Ronald Thiel (Department of Public Works, Traffic Division), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Secretary). And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Regarding non-compliance with Condition No. 8 and to assess compliance with other conditions of Use Permit No. 12-000034 that allowed the establishment of a 100-bed skilled nursing and rehabilitation center and related uses on 17.61 acres of land situated within the Single-Family Residential (RS-15 and RS-10) zoning districts. Condition No. 8 prohibited construction of vertical project components until improvements to Kaūmana Drive were completed. The properties are located on the east (makai) side of Kaūmana Drive between ‘Aipuni Street and Luana Way, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-5-006:012 (formerly 2-5-006:012, 2-5- 007:001, 008, 046 and 047). APPLICANT: REGENCY SOUTH, INC. (Amend USE 12-034) Amendment to Use Permit No. 12-000034, which allowed the establishment of a 100-bed skilled nursing and rehabilitation center and related uses on 17.61 acres of land situated within the Single-Family Residential (RS-15 and RS-10) zoning districts. Condition No. 8 required improvements to Kaūmana Drive be completed prior to the start of construction of the vertical component of any structures on the property. The amendment is to modify Condition No. 8 to allow construction of on-site vertical project components at the same time as improvements to Kaūmana Drive. The properties are located on the east (makai) side of Kaūmana Drive between ‘Aipuni Street and Luana Way, Ponahawai, South Hilo, Hawai‘i, TMK: 2-5-006:012 (formerly 2-5-006:012, 2-5-007:001, 008, 046 and 047). 1 EXHIBIT F GONZALES: All right. New business, Item No. 6, Planning Director initiated. Ms. Cottle. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. If it’s all right with the Planning Commission, staff would like to do a combined presentation of Items 6 and 7 since they are directly related to each other, and then when the Commission votes, if they could take the motions separately. GONZALES: Any objections from the Commissioners? HEAUKULANI: No. COTTLE: Thank you. Okay, so the first item, Item 6 is a Planning Director initiated action asking the Commission to assess condition compliance of Use Permit 12-34. This permit was issued in 2012 to Regency South, Inc. The property is located in the South Hilo District up in the Kaūmana area of Hilo. You can see the property outlined in red. And just to orient the Commission, we have the Mohouli Street Extension and Ainako Avenue crossing the top of the slide, and then Kaūmana Drive heading up towards the Saddle Road crossing in the opposite direction here. So the property is located just makai of Kaūmana Drive. And I think a lot of the Commissioners that are still here voted on this application in 2012 so I may be repeating a lot of information you’ve already heard. The zoning of the property is Single Family Residential – 15,000 square feet, as well as 10,000 square feet, so it’s a split zoned lot. So, the reason for this action is that on February 28 of this year, the Planning Department received a complaint. The complaint alleged violation of three of the conditions of the permit. Condition 4, the complaint alleged that the applicant wasn’t providing landscaping but the complaint was vague as to what type of landscaping they weren’t providing. And Condition 8, the complaint alleged that the applicant had restarted vertical construction of the buildings on site prior to completing or prior to improvements on Kaūmana Drive being completed. And then Condition 9, the complaint alleged that the applicant has not complied with, with Condition 9 as it relates to installing smart sign traffic control devices on Kaūmana Drive. This is a photograph. So once the Planning Department received the complaint, staff went to the property and did indeed verify that vertical walls were being constructed on the property as you can see in the picture. Here’s another photo of active construction on site. The walls are already constructed but laid flat in this photo. And then these are photos of Kaūmana Drive to show that the applicant had started construction of the access improvements but they weren’t completed, and they were supposed to be completed before starting the vertical construction on site. So, this is a view of Kaūmana Drive looking down towards Hilo town, and this is a view of Kaūmana Drive looking up towards, if you’re going towards Saddle Road, and the property would be on the left side in this photo. In this photo, the driveway is located on the right side in this area here. So the Planning Director is recommending various actions. We’ve offered a few options in our Recommendation Report that the Commission can consider for each of these alleged violations of conditions. That can include corrective action, if there is corrective action that can be done, or it can be the assessment of fines. And, I’d like to come back to that. Maybe 2 EXHIBIT F you could call up the applicant and listen to what they have to say and also any testimony, and then the department can help you in formulating what type of action you want to take. So that concludes that item of presentation. So, as a result of the complaint, as a result of the Department going out and doing a site inspection seeing that they had started vertical construction, Regency South submitted an amendment request to amend Condition 8. And that amendment request was to allow them to do concurrent construction on site while they are doing improvements to the Kaūmana Drive access, so the current Condition 8 says that they need to do, complete Kaūmana Drive improvements— it’s a very long condition—prior to construction of any vertical component. The applicant is now requesting to change that to concurrent with the start of the construction of a vertical component of any structure on the property, the applicant shall complete the Kaūmana Drive improvements. The reasons that they’ve submitted the request is because they have said that they’re falling behind schedule due to weather delays, additional work completed at the request of neighbors, and additional utility work. As I mentioned before, currently, the road work is underway, but the building, construction of the building itself has fallen significantly behind schedule. So, for the amendment request, the Planning Director’s recommending approval to allow concurrent construction. We are also recommending the condition be amended to require that they complete the Kaūmana Drive improvements prior to occupying the care home facility, and that was at the request of Department of Public Works. So, I just also want to also bring your attention to a packet of information you received this morning. This is from the Luana Gardens Subdivision Community Association, and that’s the only additional testimony we’ve received since you received your Background and Recommendation Reports. I also want to let the Commission know that there is a representative from the Department of Public Works, Traffic Division, here, Mr. Ron Thiel, and he can answer any questions you may have related to traffic or safety on Kaūmana Drive. That concludes my presentation. Are there any questions? HENKEL: Maija, yeah, I just wanted to comment. I don’t—in my opinion, the, your presentation didn’t present an accurate picture of that entranceway because I mean you show the driveway, but you didn’t show how steeply it falls off to the project site. It’s the problems of the hillside and all the traffic is compounded by the steep grade of the property being worked on. I think it makes it a little more dangerous than it appears there. COTTLE: Okay, this--this is just a photo. I guess I could have taken the photo from a different direction but it’s my understanding that because the applicant is doing improvements to widen Kaūmana Drive on this curve, they’re actually building up the roadway a bit. Oops, on this side of their property, and they can probably explain that a little bit more, so I’m not certain what fill they brought in to kind of level out and build up the entire driveway area that I know that they are filling in this area here to widen Kaūmana Drive. GONZALES: Commissioner Ono. ONO: Yes, can I assume that the first complaint about landscaping because it’s vague we’re gonna ignore that complaint? 3 EXHIBIT F COTTLE: Yeah, that complaint has already been resolved. They were assessed a $500 fine for basically cutting down most of the trees on the property during Hawaiian Hawk breeding season which was one of your conditions that they not do that. So that complaint has already been resolved. ONO: And can the other concern that I have is, I would assume that the Kaūmana Drive improvement, the need to have that completed before they did the vertical structures was so that the materials and whatever would have an easier time getting into the development, so doing it concurrently as you’re recommending would place a heavier traffic burden on the existing Kaūmana today because of the, the improvement have not even taken place. COTTLE: When you say the improvement, you mean the Kaūmana Drive improvement? ONO: Yes. COTTLE: The condition was included in the permit originally because an agreement was worked out between the Luana Gardens Community Association and the applicant. The community association had concern that a lot of truck traffic would be going in and out of the driveway access. So this was an agreement those two parties had come to, yeah they had asked for, the applicant had asked that site work could be done while improvements to Kaūmana Drive were being constructed so you know, grading, grubbing, leveling the pad, but not actual vertical construction because the assumption was that would bring in more traffic. You’d have more contractor workers coming in compared to as if you were just having like grading equipment on site. So, that was the reason for the condition in the beginning. Now whether or not there are traffic concerns or safety concerns because more traffic may be generated, I think Department of Public Works should respond to that. ONO: Okay, I live on that, further up, but I live on that and I can already see problems with the traffic so I guess what I’m asking is that if you do it concurrently, if the road is not complete, you will have more traffic problems at this because you’re doing things concurrently. So the original recommendation of having the Kaūmana Drive Road completed first makes sense to me and a, but if the association is saying they’re willing to compromise, well, I guess my problem is minor compared to their’s, so I just wanted to clarify. COTTLE: Okay. ONO: Thank you. GONZALES: Okay, I think we’re okay for now. I’d like to call up the applicant if I may. Sir, will you raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? STROUD: I do. GONZALES. Thank you. Go ahead, sir. And, we have Mr. Brilhante. 4 EXHIBIT F BRILHANTE: Good morning Chair and fellow Commissioners, William Brilhante on behalf of the County of Hawai‘i Planning Department. I’m Deputy Corporation Counsel along with Planning Director, Mr. Duane Kanuha. I think the reason we came forward is because if you look at the matters in front of us, Item No. 6 was actually initiated by the Planning Director so, therefore, you know, I think we have to kind of, we’re hoping to keep the record clear as to you know discussion regarding Item No. 6 as well as Item No. 7, although you know they pertain to the same project, there is you know two separate and individual requests, so therefore we’re wanting just you know to keep the record clear. GONZALES: Very good. And if anybody wants to sign up to testify, you can go see Sarah over there. I have one person signed up but there’s a lot of people here so if you want to testify, please see Sarah. Okay, sir. STROUD: Yeah, my name is David Stroud, and I reside in Ellensburg, Washington. And, we’re here primarily, and I received this fairly recently, but to discuss Condition 8’s request for an amendment to that condition. I acknowledge and certainly apologize for the fact that we did overlap in violation of the requirement to not begin vertical construction. Between the scheduling constraints, permitting constraints, we just ended up in a position where we had to keep going. We have, you know, 30 to 40 people on site. It would have necessitated laying everyone off, stopping progress. And these projects are like a big tree. Once we get going, it’s- it’s hard to stop them along the way. We certainly underestimated the time it would take to get through the process to be in the approval of the road improvements. And, you know, once that was initiated, we began those improvements. At this point, there is a significant portion of them done. We’re still delayed with some of the utilities and relocation of poles. But, in large part, that work should be wrapped up shortly. You know, I do apologize for the fact that we did violate that particular portion of the agreement. And there’s nothing more that I can say about that. I do ask that you allow us to continue this project. It’s providing a number of jobs, and now it’s going to provide a 150 jobs hopefully starting later this summer, and you know, we want to be able to continue this process. We certainly didn’t want to offend anyone by it. GONZALES: Mr. Brilhante. BRILHANTE: Thank you very much, Chair. Just to give you some additional background information as to why this matter is in front of the Commission you know today. Basically, Use Permit No. 12-0034 afforded the applicant the opportunity to move forward with their Use Permit; however, there was a Condition No. 8 that stated, and I’m just paraphrasing that, prior to vertical construction of the project taking place, the connection, the connector road between the project and Kaūmana Drive needed to be finalized due to the potential or the possibility of you know added congestion and maybe some safety hazards on Kaūmana Drive. So, the project was, you know the permit was approved, and was going forward. Subsequent to that and what got us here today was the Planning Department received numerous complaints from neighbors and various individuals regarding the fact that you know vertical construction had initiated on the project without the connection to Kaūmana Drive, that road being finalized, and therefore, you know, based on the complaints, the Planning Department sent out a you know a representative, their personnel, to inspect and indeed there was a violation confirmed that you know vertical 5 EXHIBIT F construction was taking place and the connection to Kaūmana Drive had not been finalized. Therefore, pursuant to the language of the Use Permit, the Planning Director initiated a violation notice to the Planning Commission requesting that this matter be brought forward, and that’s why we’re sitting here today. And so if you have any specific questions regarding the violation, we’d be happy to address those items. GONZALES: Questions, Commissioners? KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? GONZALES: Yes sir. KANUHA: Just a little more clarification. Normally, we would be able to pursue administratively—administratively pursue violations of conditions, but since this permit and the conditions attached thereto were issued by the Commission, our only recourse is to bring it back to the Commission for the Commission to, to rule on whether or not they felt it was a violation of their condition. As you will see as we move through the process, we’re also suggesting a condition, a standard condition, for these kinds of applications that come before the Commission to authorize, that the Commission authorizes the Department to pursue you know any violation of your conditions because without something like that, every application that has a potential or an alleged violation, our only recourse is to bring it back to the Commission. So, you know, I hope that kind of sets the stage of where we are now and in the process of that, the applicant has come in for an amendment which is separate but it’s related to why we’re here today. GONZALES: So, is it— ISHIBASHI: Brother Chair— GONZALES: Yeah, go ahead Mr.— ISHIBASHI: Thank you. We—I would like to hear from the road department, Department of Transportation also, but first before you leave, what kind of penalties, if any, can we render to the developer for violating such condition? KANUHA: For violations, the Department has criteria and rules of what those are, but that’s for the department— ISHIBASHI: That’s what you’re asking for—that you have that latitude to- KANUHA: Correct. The Commission itself doesn’t have, you know, any standard. And so you know that’s why if there were monetary fines issued because of confirmed violations, we couldn’t issue them because it’s still your permit. So, that’s why we’re trying to close that—you know officially close that gap so that we’ll be able to pursue it. And if on a case-by-case basis, if it’s severe enough where it can’t be resolved by monetary fines or other estoppel kind of practices, then we’ll bring it back to the Commission for the Commission to actually take action on their own. 6 EXHIBIT F ISHIBASHI: Thank you. GONZALES: Any other questions, Commissioners? MIYASATO: I have a question for the applicant. You know, you said the road improvement portion will be done very soon? What is very soon? STROUD: We—I have a contractor here. HATA-FINLEY: Mike, please. STROUD: Pardon me? GONZALES: Use your microphone, please. STROUD: I have a contractor here, if I could confer with him for a moment. He probably could give you a more exact answer. GONZALES: While we’re doing that, so your—your amendment closes that gap. Is that—that you’re talking about here. If we approve your amendment, does that turn it back over to you folks? BRILHANTE: What we’re requesting is that the matter—you know, if the Commission deems there’s a violation because pursuant to the rules, all the Commission can really do is rescind the, rescind the original approval, so what we’re requesting, what the Planning Director is requesting that the matter be—if there is a violation in place—the matter be sent back to, remanded back to the Planning Department for assessment of the standard fines that ordinarily would be imposed on like violations. GONZALES: So, an approval of this will do that? BRILHANTE: That’s what we’re requesting. GONZALES: Okay, thank you. STROUD: Okay, in answer to your question. There is a couple of things that are outside of our control. We have a utility pole that sits what now, what is now within the roadway that has both the Hawaiian Electric and the telephone company’s wires attached to it, so the best estimate right now is that the pole is about ready to be removed 30 to 60 days—I would say 90 days if we’re wanting to be safe. But, it really relates more to the relocation of the pole. The rest of the work itself is going to be done fairly rapidly, but that utility piece is way outside our control. GONZALES: Okay, thank you. 7 EXHIBIT F ONO: Question. This—whose, the, if we’re on the roadway, the development on the Kaūmana Drive. STROUD: Yes. ONO: Is that a State or County’s project or is that your personal project? STROUD: The work that’s being done on the roadway, we’re doing that as part of the improvement so— ONO: --So it’s the company-- STROUD: Yes. ONO: Okay. Well, I guess I have a concern because I live in that area. At night, I don’t know if this is a personal request, but anyway, coming up at night, coming up Kaūmana— STROUD: Yes. ONO: The barriers—you’re supposed to have those flashing lights. They don’t work, so that as I’m coming up, if I’m not careful, I’ll be hitting one of those plastic barriers because the lights don’t function that well. STROUD: Our general contractor is here, and is hearing that as well, and I will discuss that— ONO: --with that I’m asking, is that a responsibility of this County, the State, or— STROUD: --it would be that the--the roadway improvement contractor is actually doing the work. ONO: Thank you. STROUD: And I believe there are standard stuff for that traffic control setup as well, and that they should be complying with those and if we’re not, then we need to make sure they are. ONO: I just, I don’t want to carry this any further, it’s just that those lights are not—it’s dim, so as you drive, it would be— STROUD: I understand. ONO: Thank you. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, I think Commissioner Ishibashi asked for Public Works yeah, to be up here? GONZALES: You ready for that? Okay, if we could get a—Mr. Thiel? 8 EXHIBIT F THIEL: I’m Ron Thiel, Chief of the Traffic Division representing Public Works today for this matter. GONZALES: Would you raise your right hand for me, sir, please? Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? THIEL: Yes, I do. GONZALES: Thank you. Chairman Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Brother Chair. Construction and the dynamics in construction, we know the timing can go off for whatever reason, be it weather or delay or whatever it is, and a lot of this looks like it’s beyond the contractor’s control. But on the current conditions now with the vertical walls going up and the traffic, as--I don’t know, we ever when study this complaint, and if traffic increased because the vertical went up. So anyway, I’m asking you, if you have the answers to that, but even he can answer, but that’s what I’m concerned with. The vertical going up and if that did increase the traffic on Kaūmana Road. THIEL: So, from the Traffic Division point of view, we don’t require restriction during construction. We’d really like to have everything done before Certificate of Occupancy is given, but in this case, I—in really looking back on it—can see what there were concerns about this particular project for two reasons. One, the restricted sight distance on the inside of the curve at that location and also the State drop off into the facility. And when I went out there a few weeks ago, the inside curb had been constructed, moved back and increased the sight distance, so that has been taken care of. And the entrance into the facility itself had been raised up the grade. During the plan review, we requested the engineer to raise that intersection up at a very high— more than what you normally see—in order to get intersection sight distance on both, both directions. And all that has been done. The vertical construction has been done. We do have a problem with the utilities and they can’t open up the additional lane, auxiliary lane. But most of the things that you normally would be looking for to make this a safer intersection has already been done, and so on that basis, I still would say I wouldn’t request restriction on the vertical construction until the rest of this road, intersection has been completed. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. HENKEL: Sorry, would you repeat that? The last statement. Would you repeat your last statement about your recommendation? THIEL: Well, basically I would say that I wouldn’t ask that it’s necessary to restrict the vertical construction cause the majority of the work has been done, and all of the issues that I have been concerned about have been take care of. HENKEL: Thanks. THIEL: And that being the sight distance. 9 EXHIBIT F GONZALES: Any other questions for Mr. Thiel? ISHIBASHI: I get one question for the developer. If you, we doing the vertical, and part of the conditions we trying to have concurrent we’re working with the road entrance and— STROUD: --yes— ISHIBASHI: --and the vertical. You have a crew working there now. They’re parking all on the site, your vertical— STROUD: --yes— ISHIBASHI: --you all park in there? STROUND: Yes, there’s, there’s a tremendous amount of parking on the site now. Most of the major grading and layout has been done. There’s lots of area to park there. ISHIBASHI: So, all you’re laborers park in there then. STROUD: On the side, yes— ISHIBASHI: And your delivery, delivery of materials? STROUD: All onto the side. ISHIBASHI: All on the side? STROUD: Everything is on the side. The only thing you see right now, you’ll see over the last couple days, HELCO and of course the work that’s being wrapped up on the road itself by those contractors, but the folks working down on the side are down on the side, and it’s a significance distance down there. ISHIBASHI: Thank you. GONZALES: Commissioner Henkel. HENKEL: I haven’t been by the site you know during peak traffic hours when it’s probably at its most congested and so I don’t know, but are there, are there humans there directing, helping direct traffic? Or is that something that would help mitigate it? If they’re not, then it would be? STROUD: You know, I certainly haven’t been there on an on-going basis. I know there are traffic control standards, and certainly, I would expect the contractor on site would be adhering to those traffic control standards as to the work goes on, so I‘d have to defer to them, and to the department as far as what means and mitigations are being done there. 10 EXHIBIT F HENKEL: So you don’t know if there is— STROUD: I don’t--I couldn’t answer that with— HENKEL: Okay, maybe— STROUD: --I can certainly have the contractor— HENKEL: --Commissioner Ono since he lives up there. Do they have people, flag guys out there? ONO: Yes, they do. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. GONZALES: Mr. Ono. ONO: In hindsight, I can see the, maybe I had assumed a lot, but when you get the approval to do this kind of a development with the various departments, aren’t the utilities also informed that this is going to be taking place so they may need to remove these poles. I mean, ninety days beyond the plan time is hard for me to accept in terms of— STROUD: It’s hard for me to accept to, but in fact, we’ve been in contact with the utilities for the better part of two years, and we have been working with them on an on-going basis, so it’s just-- it’s a process, and I understand that their timing is what their timing is, but in fact it’s not for a lack of communication. It’s just that there’s a process that goes on, and that takes time on their part, so—and we have no control over that. ONO: No, I understand that, but it seems as though— STROUD: --We’re on the same page. GONZALES: Any other questions? Oh, there’s the contactor. Sir, could I get you to raise your right hand, please? Do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? WILSON: I do. GONZALES: All right, could you state your name? WILSON: Paul Wilson. GONZALES: Mr. Wilson, all right. Does anyone have any questions for Mr. Wilson or do you have a statement sir? ONO: I have a questions or at least an observation on my part. I disagree with you in that I do see cars, sedans parked on the expanded roadway. It’s not paved right now, but it’s been graded. 11 EXHIBIT F So that all of, I’m not sure if they’re workers’ cars, but in the past, no cars were parked along Kaūmana Drive. I do see cars now parked where it’s not paved, but it has expanded. So, I guess I disagree that I think you have workers’ cars parked along Kaūmana Drive. I’m—I cannot identify the cars nor do I know the owners. I am just saying that there are a couple cars parked almost daily in the extended area as you go up Kaūmana Drive where there’s that rock wall, that retaining wall that was built. Along there, I do see a couple two, three cars parked there quite often. So, I disagree with them in terms of all workers’ cars are not you know are down on the far end of the development. WILSON: Correct. I spend most of my time at the bottom but we have a subcontractor, local subcontractor doing all the work up on the right-of-ways, we call it. Now, there is equipment up there and there is, there are pick-up trucks that have their tools in them but for the most part, they had to widen the road. That was, they started that first, so that’s been about two months ago, so there have been small equipment on the side of the road. Two days ago, they put a lid on the drain that’s over there, so they’ll be, the rails you’re talking about that aren’t wet, that rail is actually going to be driven on, so the barriers were encroaching, that’s why there were the big delineators that they put there, but those should go away, I would say within the end of this week. Next, they’re gonna back in and pave that mountain side and that will be wider. But I’m not sure, the traffic, I think the vehicles you’re talking about were the cement trucks for the retaining walls, but there shouldn’t be anybody parked on the side of the road there that I’m aware of. They did stripe a temporary stripe, white line, fog line in there— ONO: They were regular sedans or small trucks. WILSON: Pardon? ONO: They were regular sedans or small trucks, you know— WILSON: I do have a—do you know what time of day that would be? ONO: No, I’m sorry, I go up and down throughout the day. WILSON: You know, there are probably housewives dropping their husbands off. I would say maybe that’s what’s happening. All my crew—they come to work and they drive down the hill, but I will get to the bottom of the—whoever’s parking up there, I’m not aware of it because Willocks has that whole right-of-way to work in. The people park there and leaving their vehicle there would be just be a nuisance for them. ONO: No, maybe I’m not, it’s not the area that’s been paved on the, the curving. It’s on the other side where you had built a rock retaining wall on the other side of Kaūmana Drive. WILSON: I don’t know what— ONO: You kind of cleared, you kind of excavated several properties on the other side of— WILSON: Yes, we did. 12 EXHIBIT F ONO: --the far end, you built one with a retaining wall. That area I saw two to three cars parked in that place. WILSON: Oh, that’s private property— ONO: No, it’s not— WILSON: That’s out of our control where the—that retaining wall, that’s— ONO: --No, but it’s parked on the outside of the retaining wall. It’s not parked on the inside, so it has to not be private property anymore. It’s going to be part of your roadway, I’m almost sure. STROUD: I would say we should probably investigate it to see if those are part of the workmen, then they’ll address that issue. That’s the best way we can answer this question at this point. WILSON: Fair enough I guess. GONZALES: Does anybody else have any questions for any of these gentlemen up here? Okay, we’re gonna do public testimony but we’re gonna take just a quick 5-minute break. Sarah has to change her tape so, be back in five minutes, and we’ll go with public testimony. Chairman Gonzales called a recess at 11:28 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 11:33 a.m. GONZALES: Okay, I believe we’re ready to get started again. If anybody would like to testify and hasn’t signed up, please see one of our staff members. Okay, we’d like to call up Don Pakele, Melvin Yamaki, Roger Antonio, and Elizabeth Martin. Would you please come on up and have a seat? Are the other two here? Okay, so I guess we’re waiting on Melvin and Elizabeth. Mr. Yamaki, there you go, come on up. Okay, we’ll get to Ms. Martin in a moment. Can I get you three gentlemen to please raise your right hands? Do you swear and attest to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? ANTONIO/PAKELE: I do. YAMAKI: (nodding affirmatively) GONZALES: Thank you. We’ll go ahead, and I guess we can start over here. State your name, where you reside, and then you will have three minutes and please try to keep it to the three minutes. Thank you. ANTONIO: My name is Roger Antonio, and I live on 88 Luana Way. My concern is we’re having this meeting here for nothing because the guys, they’re all vertical. They’re going up. They’re just going against the rules that they, you know, they said they was going do. They doing what they want to do. And the five hundred dollar fine for doing something you know, these guys, you gotta fine them one million dollars, then they learn they, learn what to do right. 13 EXHIBIT F You know, they agreed to do what they said they was going do, and now they’re just, they’re not being good neighbors. They’re doing what they want to do. That’s all. GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Antonio. Any questions for the gentleman? Okay. PAKELE: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Don Pakele. Initially, I was going to get up and speak up for the Luana Gardens Subdivision, but as you can see, these people are sitting here now wanting to testify because of what is being said, okay? So, as soon as Elizabeth gets here, they can go do their thing, but I just want to give you a little bit background of our association. Luana Gardens Subdivision was created in the late 70’s, and reformed in 2000, but we go back farther than that. We go back to Kinney Heights Subdivision before the war in the 1940’s. As a matter of fact, we still have one member who is still a member of our association, Alvin Yanagihara. He’s still part of our association. After that, the Kinney Heights Subdivision, then it became Maneki Kumiai in the 70’s, 80’s, and 90’s. For some reason, they kind of petered out so we picked it up again in 2000 and we’re 40 households strong. The reason why we decided to come here—I faced you folks in the year 2000 supporting the program and supporting what they, what Regency South wants to do. I believe Mr. Ono had mentioned something that we had agreed with them. It’s not so much that we agreed with them. We came up with a proposal. I think you folks have it in front of you. Those are the concerns that we first came up with, and what we said at that time was, build the road first. And everybody looked at us and said oh well no, we can do both at the same time, this and that, this and that. Okay, so we reluctantly went along with their mitigation proposals. It’s not that we agreed with what they had to say, okay, but we went along of it. But because of what they were saying to us, we went along with it. We have had nothing but problems from day one. Okay, number one, when we asked that they leave a vegetation buffer between us and the development, you know what they did? The bulldozers came in and wiped everything out. Everything. So where’s the buffer? Where’s the 20 feet? We wanted indigenous trees to be left, clean out the underbrush of invasive weeds and things, and leave the indigenous trees there as a buffer. That didn’t happen. Just wipe it out. Okay as far as, excuse me, as far as the violation, I don’t think that we should allow them to keep building and violating the Use Permit. They should be stopped from building anything vertical until that road is completed and turned over to the County. To give them concurrent-- YAMAKI: Oh, I’m Mel Yamaki, yeah? Our problem that wasn’t mentioned is that people tend to speed coming down from Kaūmana and down to maybe Aipuni and I think that the speed sign says it’s 35 or 30. Our problem is that Saddle Road is, was built probably in the 1930’s which Kaūmana Drive is part of. During that time, in, from yeah, the old days like that, I noticed the roads were all in, confused, up and down, curvatures like that, and they slow down but Pāhoa Road, going up to Pāhoa, that improvement was made in 1950’s. It came straight, yeah. Saddle Road remains the same, okay. And the drivers tend to speed, the upper Kaūmana drivers tend to speed so, when we, anyway, upper Kaūmana drivers tend to speed and so it’s a concern of us trying to get to Kaūmana Drive. So anyway, I think the Saddle Road was built in the 1930’s I think when the cars were invented. I don’t know. Anyway, the roads tend to follow the lay of the land, you know, and then there’s poor line of sight, yeah. So, what we want to do is slow 14 EXHIBIT F down the traffic so we can safely get to the Saddle Road, no to Kaūmana Drive, and then we have to, when the cars coming around on one corner the mauka side, we have to speed just to get on the roadway cause it’s the blind you know side, we cannot see. So, what I was thinking as to improve the road, that would be costly, to do any improvement that was done in Hilo or Ka‘u, those are all done already, but we probably have to live with Kaūmana Drive as it is cause it would be too costly for County of Hawai‘i to improve, so what I, what we were asking the Regency South of improving, making the road safer for us together by putting smart lights, and then this thing was—I was surprised it wasn’t mentioned today—but anyway, and then we figure if the place we’re aware, instead of 30 miles--I think we should bring it down to 25. You can, let it allow to maybe about 30 miles from Ainako to Aipuni, but the, after that, I think it has to all 25 miles a hour, so the, I would think is that when you go into a curvature study the highways like that in the roads, in the County roads, it should supposed to be 25 miles if you have a curve like this. And, that’s now, you cover the road, the Kaūmana Road, coming this way, one is up and one is down going to the project site, you have it at 30 miles per hour, and that’s when I get really nervous, yeah. So, you folks wanted to know how we can compensate this, okay? Okay, thanks. GONZALES: Okay, thank you. MARTIN: I’d like a reminder about how much time is allotted to each speaker. GONZALES: Okay, you’re allowed three minutes, but you all signed up for two, so if you go little bit extra, that’s okay— MARTIN: I think it’s a little bit more— GONZALES: Yeah, but now I need you ma’am to raise your right hand for me. Do you swear to tell the truth today to the Windward Planning Commission? MARTIN: I do. GONZALES: Thank you. State your name and then you can begin. MARTIN: My name is Elizabeth Martin, and I’ve been a resident of Luana Gardens for 22 years. Shall I proceed? All right. Today I am taking a very firm stand that Regency South should honor their agreement that they would fix the road first before building, and here are my reasons which I think are compelling. It’s primarily for safety and prevention. There is a preschool located on the corner of Kaūmana Drive and Ainako Avenue. There is also an elementary school so that means school buses go by in the morning and in the afternoon, and even under optimal conditions before any building was going on, Kaūmana Drive is a very narrow winding road and one has to have extreme caution. And I’ll just describe what traffic is like now. I go there every day, sometimes twice a day. There are big orange signs that say road work under construction and there are poles and orange, orange construction things, and you feel like you’re going through an obstacle course. It’s a two-way highway, and I am so thankful there are cars ahead of me so they can see—and when they have the signals, they have one worker come out with a slow sign but it’s not a conspicuous sign. And then when you can go, 15 EXHIBIT F they have a—no, first they have a slow and then they have a stop, and then they motion which way we can go, so and there are people that used to walk on Kaūmana Drive, but there are signs that say sidewalks are closed. So, while one has to do extreme cautious driving in regular circumstances—and I travel senior hours—it’s even more extremely challenging to drive now. And so, I take the firm stance, just to summarize, for the safety of the children, for the safety of the residents, for the safety of the drivers who commute from Hilo to Kona via the Saddle Road, I think that Regency South should honor their promise that for the sake of safety, that they would do the road first, and then proceed, and then we’ll give them a warm aloha. GONZALES: Thank you. Is there any--. MASUNAGA: Any clarification on her name? GONZALES: No, we have it. Ms. Martin. MARTIN: Did you need my age? GONZALES: No--. I’ll run it by. You look like you’re 22 to me. MARTIN: I’m 80 years old! GONZALES: Any questions for any of the people out there? YAMAKI: Wallace, you were asking what compensation we want, yeah. Install smart lights for us. That’s all we ask. Make it safe. GONZALES: I think Maija had mentioned smart lights, too. PAKELE: No, let me clarify something, Mr. Gonzales. GONZALES: Yes sir. PAKELE: In the beginning when this project went to, and excuse me if I’m having a hard time, but actually I’m not supposed to be here. I had my third stroke, and I’m supposed to be in the ground, but I’m still going. Anyway, initially, that was the response from Public Works when we started this, that smart signs would be included, okay? Mr. Pyle who represents Regency th South came out with an email on December 20—you have copies of it—that said that they weren’t going to do it because a person or persons on Kaūmana Drive don’t want red blinking lights in their front yard. I went to the five smart signs in Hilo. I talked to every person that lives right next to the signs. They said it doesn’t flash or blink into their houses at night. So for them to tell us that they’re going to do that and then they on their own, I believe it’s not their position to turn it down. I think if Public Works is saying that it should be put in, then it should be put in. They don’t have an option to say well, one person is saying they don’t want it so we shouldn’t have it. We’re 40 households. We’re saying yes put it in because that is the only thing left for us. In the beginning, we asked for a stop light. It was said no. We asked for a three-way stop. It was said no. And to clarify Mel’s position, the speed limit over there is 35 miles an 16 EXHIBIT F hour, okay? We asked for the reduction. They said no. So the only thing that was left for us for the safety of that roadway was the smart signs. But here Regency South takes the position that they’re not gonna put it in because one person doesn’t want it. GONZALES: Thank you, Mr. Pakele. I believe you can all be seated, and thank you for coming forward and testifying. PAKELE: I have one more concern, sir. You know, Mr. Kanuha and Mr. Brilhante is saying that they need to come back to you folks to get permission to enforce. I worked for the State for 20 years. I worked for the Department of Education. I worked for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, and I worked for Hawaiian Homes. If I’m not mistaken, you the Board, and other Commissioners set the policy. It is the department that carries it out, so I don’t see why the department could not stop and enjoin them the moment they violated the permit the second time. I don’t know why it has to come back here. Maybe I’m misunderstanding of how the rule is, and maybe they can clarify further with me because as far as I know, we have always, as a department, enforced the policies that you the Commission or Board set up. So, that’s just my other comment and all. I don’t see as to why it has to come back over here if they violated it. Thank you. GONZALES: Thank you. We will see if we can fix that today. PAKELE: And one more comment and then I’ll let you go. GONZALES: Go ahead. PAKELE: You know, last week, when I turned in the complaint form, and I’m saying this because I have a cousin whose husband works on the project. He bumped into me and he said oh, by the way, somebody when rat us out. I said what do you say—what do you mean? Oh, the big boss said somebody when rat them out. I said no. I said a complaint was lodged. I’m not a rat. I’m a complainant. If I see that a violation has been done, I’m going to say so. And so, you know, they kept telling the workers, no as long as they start something on the road, they can do whatever they want, and I don’t think—if you look at the testimony that I gave, they reiterated once, two, three, four times that they would do the road first, or finish the road and then do the vertical. And I would have some respect for Regency South if they came in front of you, stopped the work when Maija went out there the second time, ask for them, and then proceed, but no they keep building. They’re building every morning. And they keep doing it and it’s like saying the permit doesn’t matter, you don’t matter, or the community doesn’t matter, and so I really feel strongly that they should be stopped immediately, that some sort of fine should be addressed, and they should stop the construction, vertical, until they complete the road. Thank you. GONZALES: I’d like to ask the applicant. Would you like to respond to any of that? STROUD (from audience): Yes, I would. GONZALES: And can we please talk about flash signs, flash lights? 17 EXHIBIT F STROUD: I’ll be brief. Relative to the concern about smart signs. We don’t care one way or another whether we put smart signs in or not. We left that decision to the engineers, to Department of Public Works. It certainly would have been a much cheaper option for us to have just dealt with that issue and put smart signs in rather than doing the widening, the control measures that are going to be implemented on that road in order to straighten out, increase the sight distance. We as well as some of the property owners, gave up property in order to be able to straighten out that roadway and improve the sight distance. We still don’t care about the smart sign issue. If a decision was made to install those, we’d be happy to go ahead and do that, but we don’t make the decisions relative to what happens with the road, the road design. I’ve got Yen here who is with EPI, the civil engineering firm that worked with the road department, and that came up with the design that they now are using. So, if you’d like to ask him any questions regarding about that, please do. GONZALES: Mr. Henkel. HENKEL: Would a temporary stop light like they have up on you know some of the bridge work on the Hāmākua side be effective in mitigating some of the traffic problems? FANG: My name is Yen, Yen Wen Fang. I’m with Engineering Partners. I guess I— GONZALES: Yeah, do you swear to tell the truth before the Planning Commission today? FANG: I do. GONZALES: Thank you sir. FANG: Probably will be good, but you know, that type of measure would definitely cause a even bigger congestion because it’s going back up cars when you have actually, have a light because traffic officer there can see how many cars are coming and you know changing the direction a lot quicker than just something on a timer yeah. GONZALES: Mr. Henkel, I remember when this came before us the first time, and I—you know, we told Mr. Thiel he could go home, but I almost want to say I remember he said it was a little too steep coming down the hill to put a light there. HENKEL: Okay, thank you. GONZALES: Any other questions for this gentleman? It’s nice to hear that you’re not opposed to the smart signs. Thank you. Mr. Arai, where am I going with this now? ARAI: I think the best way to handle this is, you heard from the applicant, you heard from the community, you heard from Public Works, and now it’s time to probably deal with each item individually, first and foremost being the compliance issue. And once you determine the compliance issue and any measures that you feel is appropriate due to the non-compliance, then you can address the amendment as well. And as Maija mentioned to you, the Director has 18 EXHIBIT F offered to you some options for you to consider, so consider those options, and the ones you think is appropriate is the ones you can bring forth for consideration. GONZALES: Could I call the Planning Director and his counsel back up one more time, please? Thank you. Mr. Brilhante, if you could just summarize it up. What, if we approve this amendment, what, I know it’s all right here in front of me, but could you just help us understand what it is we’re approving. BRILHANTE: Again, good morning Chair, or is it, oh almost afternoon. I think I still came in under the deadline. Good morning, Chair. At this time, as it relates to Condition No. 6, the Planning Director’s recommendation is specific to Item No. 4 was to make a determination whether the mango trees were retained on the property along the Luana Gardens Subdivision Lots, again, asking the applicants and our having Planning Department staff conduct an investigation. As it relates to Item No. 8 is to, regarding the vertical construction, I think there’s been sufficient, enough information as well as an admission by the applicant that vertical construction has initiated in violation of Condition No. 8, the prohibition against vertical construction until such time as the Kaūmana Drive intersection was completed. Then, as it related to Condition No. 9, that we wanted to add additional language to the general conditions that says the Planning Commission authorizes the Planning Director to take immediate action to enforce the conditions of the permit within the authority granted in the Zoning Code and Planning Department Rule 9. And also, we would request that this item be, the matter of the violation be remanded back to the Planning Department so that appropriate fines may be imposed pursuant to the Planning Department’s fining protocol as it relates to the position of administrative fines. GONZALES: Any questions? Is that clear to all the Commissioners? MIYASATO: I have a question. On the, that last Condition No. 9, that would set an amendment to the rule here on out, not just for this particular application? BRILHANTE: Unfortunately, due to Sunshine Law constraints, we can’t have that discussion now as to whether or not it can apply to other applications. But I think if we put it in, if you authorize the amendment to Condition 9 as we recommended now, if future violations, specific to this project occurred, then the Planning Department would have the authority to enforce that, the violations—the corrective action as it related to the violations. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman? If I may add to that Commissioner Miyasato, if the Commission sees fit to include this specific language in the, in this application through this amendment that they’re requesting, then to me and to staff, it gives us an indication of a standard condition that we’d be bringing forth to the Commission, a condition in further applications of this type. GONZALES: Thank you. COTTLE: Mr. Chair? GONZALES: Yes, Maija. 19 EXHIBIT F COTTLE: May I clarify one thing that’s being discussed related to Page 6 of our Background Report. Condition 9 is actually related to the traffic control devices. The language that Mr. Brilhante and the Director were referring to adding is just the last paragraph at the bottom of Page 6. And that is just another condition we would want added onto the permit. So as far as the traffic control devices go, for Condition 9, the Planning Commission could amend the condition to require installation of the signs at a specific point in time, or leave the condition as it is open ended to have Department of Public Works determine when those smart signs should be installed. GONZALES: So, an approval of this leaves—who gets to decide if we approve this. When and if we’re gonna do smart signs? COTTLE: Okay, for Item 6, the non-compliance issue, it wouldn’t be an approval. The Commission needs to decide based on what we’re recommending, what action it wants to take, so there’s no approval or denial. GONZALES: We decide or— COTTLE: Yes. GONZALES: --we give them the authority to decide? COTTLE: That’s up to you to give the authority to the Director to decide, but it’s the Commission that must take action on the non-compliance issue. For Item 7, which is a separate item where the applicant requested the amendment, just to Condition 8, that would be an approval or denial of their request to amend the permit. GONZALES: But that’s the next one, right? COTTLE: Yes. GONZALES: Okay, very good. COTTLE: So we give you like a menu of options basically for Item No. 6 to choose from. GONZALES: Thank you. ONO: Question to staff, Mr. Chair. GONZALES: Yes, Mr. Ono. ONO: Clarify for me please. The smart signs? Those are the traffic— COTTLE: Control devices— 20 EXHIBIT F ONO: Control devices— COTTLE: Yeah. ONO: So, if that is approved or recommended by the Commission, does that eliminate the workers that do the stop and slow sign? COTTLE: I don’t believe so. Public Works can correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the smart signs are a permanent fixture. It’s a pole that’s placed on both sides, both directions of Kaūmana Drive, and I don’t know if you’ve seen the smart signs on Kūkūau Street, but it basically is a sign that displays what speed you’re travelling at, and then has the speed limit sign right next to it so that the driver can see whether they’re going above or below the speed limit. ONO: But how does that direct traffic? COTTLE: It’s not a traffic direction sign. It’s meant for making a driver aware of their speed— ONO: I see. COTTLE: --and reducing speed which is why it’s meant as a permanent fixture during on-going operations of the facility. ONO: Would that sign be necessary once the road is completed? COTTLE: That’s the intent. ONO: Thank you. BRILHANTE: Chair Gonzales. GONZALES: Yes sir. BRILHANTE: Just for you know clarification, as Condition 9 currently reads, it says, “the applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase and installation of streetlights and traffic control devices (which may include, but not be limited to, smart signs) as may be required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works.” So I think that, that even of itself seems pretty clear as to what the requirements, you know, should be for the applicant, as it moves forward, is you know, they’ll be in communication with Public Works and you know Public Works or Traffic Division engineers are deemed to be the expert in the area. I think that allowing them to make the determination regarding what type of signs shall be necessitated is appropriate. GONZALES: Okay, Mr. Brilhante, do you think that the Traffic Division and the Department of Public Works, do you think they recommend smart signs. BRILHANTE: I think you’d have to ask Mr. Thiel. 21 EXHIBIT F GONZALES: Oh, I thought we let him go. Mr. Thiel, you want to come back up for a sec? I just, I need the, you know, I’d feel bad if we approve this, and we all walked away, and then someone decided they weren’t necessary. Do you believe, you’re already sworn in Mr. Thiel, do you think you would recommend smart signs? At least during the construction phase? THIEL: I pause because everybody thinks that we can put up something that controls all the traffic all the time, and the smart signs started out what I call being a friendly reminder to people. There’s no enforcement. It’s just a friendly reminder, and it starts blinking when it gets above the speed limit. It’s a solid color when it’s at the speed limit or below. I’ve heard, I have about maybe 40 of them on the island, and I’ve heard swear by ‘em and other people swear at ‘em. I have documentation showing on certain streets that we’ve lowered the speed limit by 3 or 4, 5 miles an hour, and I have documentation on other streets saying that it didn’t do a bit of good. And, one of the requirements we have when we do install them is that they has to be at least 400 foot of straight road in front of them for the cars to activate them appropriately, and on a curvy road, that’s very difficult to do, and we’ve installed them on curvy roads, and the cars coming from the other direction block out the unit, and so it’s not recording properly. And so we have all these different things want to look at, and this requirement for a smart sign came about long time ago form the people in the area, and I can appreciate their concern, and I was in agreement with it at the time but the more I look at it, I don’t know if it’s going to help, and if it doesn’t help, it’s going to be a maintenance issue on my part for, for forever, and it would be useless. So, to say that we feel it’s necessary right now is very difficult to say. I want to do something that actually works, and what I’ve been doing around the island is I have a lot of tools in my toolbox to make, to try to deal with the traffic, and smart signs is just one of ‘em. I’m not saying what the solution is. My experience with traffic here is that if you’re driving a car, you don’t want to go slower than 35 miles per hour, and if you’re a pedestrian, you don’t want anybody going faster than 15 miles an hour, so we have a big gap and perception of what the speed should be. I would at this point in time suggest we do not put them in until the road is done but still be able to keep the developer on the hook if we feel it’s needed afterwards to have him put it in. That way, it would be appropriate—it would be addressing the appropriate situation because right now, there’s an improvement in this area, and I don’t know if that’s going to speed up the cars or slow ‘em down, and I won’t know that until after it’s opened up, the traffic is traveling on it, and we do some speed tests and counts to determine just what is happening there. So, I didn’t give you a good positive answer but I gave you an explanation. GONZALES: That was helpful. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Thiel again? No? Any questions for the Director? Thank you. I guess I’ll be looking for a motion. HENKEL: Mr. Chairman? GONZALES: Mr. Henkel. HENKEL: I move we enter into executive session to consult with our Corp Counsel on our options. GONZALES: You’re gonna need a second. 22 EXHIBIT F ISHIBASHI: Second. GONZALES: There’s been a motion by Commissioner Henkel to move into executive session, seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi. Do we need to vote on that? Can we just do—all in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. GONZALES: Anyone opposed? Okay, we’re going into executive session. Thank you folks, and we’ll try and keep it brief. At 12:12 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Ishibashi that the Commission go into executive session to consult with its attorney regarding questions and issues pertaining to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities, and liabilities, pursuant to Hawai‘i Revised Statutes Section 92-5. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with seven aye votes. At 12:16 p.m. the Commission went into executive session. At 12:33 p.m., it was moved by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Miyasato that the Commission go out of executive session. A voice vote was taken of all Commissioners present, and motion carried with seven aye votes. The hearing reconvened for regular session at 12:35 p.m. GONZALES: Okay, thank you for your patience. The Windward Planning Commission is back in session out of executive session. At this time, I’m going to ask my fellow Commissioners for a motion on agenda item number six. MIYASATO: Chair, I’d like to make a motion on item six. I make a motion that the Planning Commission authorize the Planning Director take immediate action to enforce the conditions of this permit within the authority granted in the Zoning Code and Planning Department Rule No. 9. HENKEL: Second. GONZALES: So, I have a motion by Commissioner Miyasato, is that for approval on item number 6? MIYASATO: Yes. GONZALES: And a second by Commissioner Henkel. Any discussion? 23 EXHIBIT F HEAUKULANI: I’d like to get some clarification of-- the motion now is that the, that we authorize the Planning Director to take immediate action to enforce the conditions of the permit within the authority granted in the Zoning Code and Planning Department Rules, is that the extent of it? GONZALES: Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Yes. HEAUKULANI: I think we should probably also add into that, this is just my mana‘o on this, that we also instruct the Planning Department to assess administrative fines pursuant to Planning Department Rule 9, Section 9-5. So, I guess that’s a motion to modify yours. GONZALES: Is that going to be okay with you, Myles? MIYASATO: Yeah, that’s fine. HENKEL: Yeah. GONZALES: Mr. Henkel? HENKEL: Yes. GONZALES: Any other discussion? Okay, roll call. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chair. GONZALES: Hold on, hold on one second. BRILHANTE: Sorry, Mr. Chair— GONZALES: It’s all right. BRILHANTE: Now its afternoon, so I can officially say good afternoon. I think one of the, one of the concerns that the Planning Director had is that for this specific violation, there, you’ll be adding that language that the Planning Department has the authority pursuant to Rule 9 to assess the fees. What we’d like to see is additional language that sets forth the possibility of additional violations in the future where we can assess the same type of penalty. So I’m, therefore, requesting maybe the motion include language that any future violations shall be, if—if and/or when there’s any future violations then pursuant to you know the conditions of the Use Permit, the Planning Department would have the ability to assess the administrative fees pursuant to Rule 9. MIYASATO: I’d like to make a motion to include that language for future violations. HENKEL: I agree. 24 EXHIBIT F GONZALES: All right. I think--could we get you to read all that back to us? COTTLE: Mr. Chair, I just want to make sure that I understand what the Commission is asking the department to do. So, our recommendation, specifically address three different conditions of a permit. One was the complaint relating to landscaping. One was the complaint relating to vertical construction, and one was the complaint relating to installation of smart signs. So the department would need to know whether you agree with the findings and, if so, does that mean you’re authorizing the department to take whatever action it deems reasonable for each of these complaints? Or is the recommendation speaking to one specific complaint, like Condition 8? MIYASATO: A, number--the smart signs we were gonna, that was a, intended to be left up to the discretion of the Department of Public— COTTLE: Okay, so the Commission would like to leave that condition as is? MIYASATO: Yes. COTTLE: Okay, and Condition 4 and Condition 8, you want to give the Director discretion to take action which may, which will include the assessment of fines? MIYASATO: Yes, and any future— COTTLE: Okay— MIYASATO: --violations. COTTLE: And then add the condition that allows the Director to take action on future violations. MIYASATO: Yes. COTTLE: Okay, thank you. GONZALES: Is that okay with you Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Yes. COTTLE: Okay, all right. With that, I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. 25 EXHIBIT F COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. COTTLE: And Chair Gonzales? GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion passes seven, zero. GONZALES: Okay, Item No. 7 that we did the presentation for the both of them at the same time, right? COTTLE: Yes. GONZALES: Okay, so I’m just going to ask for a motion on number seven. MIYASATO: Mr. Chair, I’d like to make a motion. I make a motion for approval of the amendment for Use Permit No. 12-00034, amend Use 12-034. HENKEL: Second. GONZALES: Any discussion, Commissioners? HENKEL: I’d just like to comment that I’m supporting this amendment with reservations because I think the developers have, you know, put us in a position of jeopardizing jobs here on the Big Island which I personally don’t want to do, and I don’t feel like I have a choice, but with the Item No. 6 that we just passed, I’m hoping that the Planning Director will take action. You know, that’s just my own personal opinion. GONZALES: I agree. Any other discussion? Okay, Maija. COTTLE: Okay, the motion is to approve the amendment to special (sic) 12-034 as recommended by the Director. Commissioner Miyasato? 26 EXHIBIT F MIYASATO: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Heaukulani? HEAUKULANI: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. COTTLE: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: No. COTTLE: Commissioner Ono? ONO: No. COTTLE: And Chair Gonzales. GONZALES: Aye. COTTLE: Okay, the motion to amend the permit passes four, zero. I’m sorry four, three. GONZALES: Okay, thank you Maija. The discussion ended at 12:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 27 EXHIBIT F