Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-04-21 Leeward Exh F (Amend SPP 77-20 & SPP 378) LEEWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 21, 2016 LALAMILO FARM A regularly advertised continued hearing on the application of PARTNERS, LP (Amend SPP 77-20/SPP 378) was called to order at 12:56 p.m. in the West Hawai‘i Civic Center, Community Center, Building G, 74-5044 Ane Keohokālole Highway, Kailua-Kona, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Keith Unger presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Keith Unger, Scott Church, Collin Kaholo, Barbara Nobriga and Sonny Shimaoka ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Brandi Beaudet PARTIES PRESENT: Roy Vitousek, III (Counsel for the applicant), Thomas Yeh (Counsel for the intervenors), Duane Kanuha (Planning Director) and Amy Self (Counsel for the Planning Director) ALSO PRESENT: Danny Patel (Counsel for the Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner) and Noriko Sauer (Commission Secretary) And four people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: LALAMILO FARM PARTNERS, LP (Amend SPP 77-20/SPP 378) Continued hearing on a request to Amend Special Permit No. 378 to allow the establishment of a fitness center; refrigerated box truck parking area; bakery; honey storage and distribution facility; butter processing, storage and distribution facility; limited retail sales area and related improvements on approximately 0.5 acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located on the north side of Lalamilo Farm Road approximately 900 feet west of its intersection with the Māmalahoa Highway and within the Lalamilo Farm Lots Subdivision at Lalamilo, South Kohala, Hawai‘i, TMK: 6-6-005:032 (portion). UNGER: Unfinished Business, Applicant Lalamilo Farm Partners, LP, Amend SPP 77-20/SPP 378. Staff, go ahead with your presentation. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. This presentation is going to be very similar to the one we gave a little over a year ago when we first heard this application. There are a couple of Commissioners who weren’t on the Commission at that point. We sent out all of the background information including the transcripts of the first meeting, so I think you guys should all kind of be up to the same speed. Very quickly, this is an amendment to a Special Permit. The subject parcel is located in the South Kohala District of Hawai‘i Island. More specifically, the five-acre parcel, which is indicated here 1 EXHIBIT F in red, is in the Lalamilo Farm Lot Subdivision to the west of Waimea Town. The subject parcel is directly adjacent to parcels zoned Agricultural. Again, here is the subject parcel. For your reference Māmalahoa Highway is running generally north-south through the slide, Lalamilo Farm Lots Road is generally running east-west. The parcel and surrounding parcels are all zoned Agricultural-5 acres, which is indicated by the light green. Surrounding properties, for instance directly to the north, the darker green is Agricultural-1 acre lots. Across Māmalahoa Highway is the Parker Ranch race track, indicated in the blue color as Agricultural-40 acre zoning. To the north of the subject parcel, zoned Residential, is the Lualai residential subdivision. The State designates the subject parcel and surrounding areas as Agricultural State Land Use Designation, again, that’s in green. To the right here we see, more closer to Waimea Town is Urban indicated in red. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the subject parcel and surrounding areas as Important Agricultural Lands, and again you’ve got Low Density Urban moving more toward Waimea Town. This is an aerial photograph of the subject parcel again outlined in red. This shows also the Lalamilo Farm Lot Subdivision, so I wanted to give you an idea of where this is relative to the rest of the subdivision. Zooming in we’ve got two aerial photographs. On the left outlined in red is the entire five-acre parcel. As you can see, as indicated in the Background and Recommendation report, there are 16 greenhouses on the property. There is an existing single-family dwelling here in the lower left hand corner. The project area, which is roughly a half an acre, is outlined here in yellow. And if you go to the right a little bit, this is just a blown-up image of that. We’ve got the original vegetable processing facility here with the solar panels on top. There are roughly 2,500 square feet of unpermitted additions, which are indicated in the, with the green roofs here behind the building somewhat. The refrigerated truck parking area is right here on the western portion of the property. And some of the other uses, most of the other uses take place, proposed uses take place inside the structure, and I’ll get into that when I show you the site plan. Special Permit No. 378 was originally approved on February 1, 1978 by the State Land Use Commission to allow the establishment of a vegetable processing facility. On January 20, 2006, the Planning Commission approved an amendment to Special Permit No. 378 to allow the processing of ice cream products within a portion of the original 7,875-square foot structure. Over time, the uses requested in the Special Permit amendment were established in the remainder of the original structure as well as the unpermitted additions and surrounding areas for refrigerated box truck and fitness center parking use. The Planning Department issued warning letters on August stst 1 and August 21, 2014, requiring the applicant cease unpermitted uses or submit an amendment to Special Permit 378 to cover the unpermitted uses as corrective action. On March 19, 2015, the Leeward Planning Commission held a hearing on the subject Special Permit amendment. At the meeting the Commission granted contested case standing to eight intervenors. The Commission thth also voted to hire a hearings officer for the contested case. On November 19 and 20, 2015, the contested case proceedings were undertaken in Honoka‘a before Hearings Officer Sherry Broder. rd On March 23 of this year, the applicant, intervenors and Planning Department reached a settlement agreement, which suspended the contested case hearing pending approval of the Special Permit amendment with stipulated conditions by the Leeward Planning Commission. 2 EXHIBIT F The applicant originally requested an amendment of Special Permit 378 to legitimize and retain the following uses on approximately one-half acre of a larger five-acre parcel: a fitness center and associated parking area; refrigerated box truck parking area and associated uses; a bakery; a honey storage and distribution facility; a butter processing, storage and distribution facility; and a limited retail sales area. Again, this is just the applicant’s site plan that came in; on the left we’re showing the project area relative to the remainder of the parcel; on the right, zoomed in and again outlined in red, just to give you an idea where some of these uses are, again showing where the refrigerated truck parking area was. The honey production is fully within the existing, the original structure. We’ve got, it’s not shown on this map, but the limited retail sales area is roughly around here. Much of the bakery operation is done inside; however, the ovens, the brick oven as well as the electrical ovens are operated out on the lanai area, which is covered by this eave here. The butter production is also mostly done on the inside. The fitness center is located on the inside of both the original structure and the unpermitted additions. The fitness center parking area is more toward the northern portion of the project area. Not shown on this map, but also identified were an outdoor shower facility and some outdoor exercise equipment associated with the fitness center. Here are some photographs of the various uses that are being proposed. Again, here are some photos of the unpermitted structures. On the inside you see some of the fitness equipment. It is a, kind of a two-story gym. Here is the outdoor exercise equipment that I was talking about. Again another portion of unpermitted structure, we have some more exercise equipment. A gravel parking area, and then bottom right we are looking at the outdoor shower facility. The refrigerated box truck parking area, this is a photograph of one of the Meadow Gold refrigerated trucks. Again, it’s kind of located in this area that’s about 2,200 square feet of land. Throughout the contested case process we also found out that a trailer is connected, or parked, in the docking station, and it also holds some Meadow Gold products. Here’s photographs of the bakery use, on inside on the left again prepping for baking and then on the outside with the wooden fire oven and the electrical ovens, which are taking place again on the lanai area. Here are photographs of the honey storage and distribution area, again mostly done inside, showing their stock area, the area where thy prepare shipments, and on the right it looks like some area where products are displayed. Here’s some photographs of the limited retail sales area; it’s about 200 square feet of space on the inside, and it sells the products that are produced or associated with the requested uses on the property. Here’s some photographs of Lalamilo Farm Road, looking west the subject parcel is on the right hand side, looking east the subject parcel on the left hand side. One of the concerns that came out in the contest case was parking along Lalamilo Farm Road, and that was addressed in the condition of the approval of this permit. Just again for your reference here is the subject parcel and the intervenors’ proximity map, so all of the starts are where the intervenors were in proximity to the subject parcel as they were granted standing for contested case. Finally, the Planning Director is recommending approval of the Special Permit amendment, with conditions. I’d be happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. 3 EXHIBIT F UNGER: Commissioners, any questions? Thank you. At this time I’d like to call the applicant, the Planning Director, and the intervenor or intervenors to the table, please. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth before the Planning Commission? PARTIES: Yes. Yes, I do. UNGER: Please state your name and where you reside, starting with the applicant. VITOUSEK: Randy Vitousek. I reside in Waimea. The applicant Lalamilo Farms, John Edney, member, manager, is present. He lives in North Kohala. UNGER: Thank you. YEH: Good afternoon. My name is Thomas Yeh, attorney representing the intervenors. Several of them are present here today: Earl Yamamoto, Charlene Hirayama and Cheryl Hirayama. And they are actually the owners on each side of the subject property. UNGER: Okay, thank you. SELF: Deputy Corporation Counsel Amy Self representing the Planning Director. KANUHA: Duane Kanuha, Planning Director. UNGER: Thank you. If the applicant or applicant’s representative would like to start. VITOUSEK: Thank you, Mr. Chair, Members of the Commission. First, I’d like to say that the applicant is withdrawing the request relative to the Meadow Gold trucks, because the Meadow Gold trucks that were, you know, had delivered milk and other products to the property and had delivered other products from the location, have moved out; in other words they cancelled their agreement, they no longer use it. So we want to ask that the Commission delete references to the Meadow Gold truck or refrigerated truck parking from the permit. No longer relevant. With respect to the fitness center, we are, or the fitness center, under negotiations to find another location under the terms of the proposed permit. The idea was to sunset the fitness center out of the property into another location. It was a very, very popular use there in Waimea, but, you know, understanding that that is not a permitted agricultural use, it could be permitted by Special Permit, but a decision was made and negotiated among the parties to have the fitness center use temporary permitted but phased out. Under the terms of the agreement it would be, they would be out by December 31, 2016. It seems likely that they will be out before that. So those two components are, you know, hopefully resolved by this proposed stipulated agreement relative to the Special Permit amendment. An issue that was left open by the stipulation was the Planning Director was going to evaluate whether the butter processing, honey processing and the bakery uses were permitted uses in the Ag District or whether they were uses that had to be permitted by Special Permit. And it has been the applicant’s consistent position that those uses are in fact permitted uses in the Agricultural 4 EXHIBIT F District. The Director in his recommendation has recommended that these uses, the honey, the bread making and the butter processing, be permitted by Special Permit, and what they say is, “Therefore, for the sake of process and to seek assurance of compliance with \[applicable\] land use regulations \[regulatory requirements\], this amendment to the Special permit is the proper regulatory vehicle to consider the proposed uses.” And so, frankly, I have difficulty understanding that. You know, the applicant believes that these uses are permitted uses in the Agricultural District, and I’ll read the statutes as to why, and I don’t understand why for the sake of process they should be put into a permitting context. The point of permitted uses is you can do them without process, you know, without having to go through process. And we’ve been through a lot of process here, and we don’t see process as an end to itself, okay. So specifically, we feel that, let’s start with the honey, honey is pretty straight forward because, under the Zoning Code, “agricultural products processing, minor” is a permitted use in the County zoning district, and that includes “activities used for crop production, …, which involve a variety of operations on crops after harvest to prepare them for market, or further processing or \[and\] packaging at a distance from the agricultural area. Included activities are cleaning, milling, pulping, drying, roasting, hulling, storing, packing,” here we go, “honey processing, poi-making, selling and other similar activities. Also included are the facilities or buildings related to such activities.” So, under the Zoning Code honey processing is a specifically permitted use in the County zoning district. So, interestingly, the County is not relying on the Zoning Code; they are relying on the State Land Use Law. And they are saying the State Land Use Law is why we should have County processing. But the State Land Use Law, and they didn’t cite this section interestingly, but specifically the State Land Use Law in talking about permitted uses in the Agricultural District, and I’m referring to Section 205-2(b), I’m sorry, (d)(7), says, “Bona fide agricultural services and uses that support the agricultural activities of the fee or leasehold owner,” remember, they also tried to distinguish saying that Mr. Edney was not the owner of the butter and honey uses, but, “regardless of whether conducted on the same premises as the agricultural activities to which they are accessory,” in other words, so processing activities, which are conducted by the fee or leasehold owner regardless of whether they are on the same property where the crop is grown, are permitted and include, you know, mills, storage facilities and processing facilities. So that’s Chapter 205-2. The section they cite really dealt with retail activities, and that was also pretty clear, and it says that retail activities are permitted in the Agricultural District in a structure owned or operated by a producer “for the display and sale of agricultural products grown in Hawai‘i, value-added products that were produced using agricultural products grown in Hawai‘i, logo items related to the producer’s agricultural operations ….” So we feel that, you know, the retail component that we are talking about is a specifically permitted activity in the State Agricultural District. If you look at HRS 205-4.5 Section (4), (a)(4), permitted uses include “farm buildings, or activities or uses related to farming and animal husbandry.” When it gets more specific at 205-4.5(a)(10), it says, “Buildings and uses, including mills, storage, and processing facilities ….” And so the, you know, the intent of the Land Use Law and the intent of the recent amendments to Chapter 205 are to broaden the definition of what’s considered agricultural use. And the reason for that is to allow small farmers to not only grow crops but to process them, to allow them to add them to other products to change the nature of the product to add value post-harvest to increase the revenue to farmers so that they can support their farming operation. It’s so happens that at Lalamilo Farms, you know, because of 5 EXHIBIT F the history of the property as a vegetable processing facility and because of the ongoing permitted ice cream use, Lalamilo Farms has ample refrigeration, they have ample freezing capacity, they have a certified kitchen and they have a limited retail space. And so what Lalamilo Farms is doing is acting as a hub or acting as a processor for a number of other small farmers who bring their agricultural products to this area to be processed, for value to be added, and for them to be sold to the public. And that’s, that’s really a component of the future of agriculture on this island and in the State of Hawai‘i. The bottom line is if you are going to make money in agriculture, you know, if you are going to support agriculture, you have to help farmers make money at agriculture. And by increasing the value of the crops they sell, that’s how you, that’s how you help them make money. The bread making, you know, he is, this is a baker who does artisanal breads, he uses a lot of local ingredients. As you see, he uses a wood-fired oven that’s currently outdoors; they’ve agreed to move it indoors. But, you know, looking around and driving around the islands, you know, outdoor ovens, outdoor bread ovens, in Agricultural District has been a use that’s going on a long time. As I’m familiar with the Kona Historical Society, they have an outdoor oven where they create bread products that they sell to the public as part of their, as part of their operation. It’s a historical use of land in the Agricultural District on the Bid Island and in Hawai‘i. So what we are asking for is we are, you know, we will accept the Special Permit as drafted. In other words we will accept it as drafted, because one thing that Lalamilo Farms does not need is more process, you know; they do not need more hearings, more applications, more violations. They need to go on with their work. So we will accept the permit as drafted even if these bread and honey and bakery have to be permitted uses under Special Permit. But we are asking you to consider looking carefully at the law and finding those uses to be permitted uses in the Agricultural District. And, so that’s really the basis of our position here. We thank the Planning Department for, you know, its kōkua in reaching a resolution. We thank the intervenors for reaching a resolution. And we are willing to live with, like I said, we are willing to live with these other uses being permitted by Special Permit. But, you know, there is really no reason to unduly restrict agricultural uses and post-harvest processing. If we are really going to go forward as a viable agricultural community, we have to innovate, and that’s just what’s happening here. Aloha. UNGER: Thank you. YEH: My turn? UNGER: Your turn. YEH: Thank you. I’m not going to argue vehemently because we have come to a resolution. But I don’t think that the issue of what is a permitted use is settled, as Mr. Vitousek has indicated. The law talks about being a producer. The law talks about accessory uses. But if one were to take that notion, then one could say on any important Ag land you can just plant any sort of a processing facility, any bakery, and those kind of uses; I don’t think the law goes that far. Nevertheless, we’ve heard that under the auspices of the Special Permit, which has been applied for, you are not asked to make any sort of declaratory ruling here today as to those arguments. 6 EXHIBIT F Now, one of the things that we did want to ask for some clarification on was with respect to the conditions. And behind me we have Mr. Yamamoto and the Hirayamas. They are longstanding vegetable farmers. We didn’t get a chance to put out our part of contested case, and part of that, and when I looked at the background report, it indicated that there had been no discussion about the effects of their farming on the operations, or vice versa, the effects of the proposed uses on the farming operations. And today we hear a lot about food safety. There are very stringent requirements to be certified for food safety. One of the concerns that have been raised during the hearing was how the activities that are occurring on the applicant’s property affect what’s going on next door in the farms. That’s part of the reason why we said no outdoor shower facility because they had never been approved by DOH. The flipside of that also is that there are, as you know, if you have been farming before, you have a lot of activities that go on; there is dust, there is some spraying that goes on. And so one of the concerns was the fact that you have this bakery that’s outdoors, and bread is taken from indoors, sits out there for cooling or, for a whatever period of time, goes indoors. So we said, well, move it indoors. We don’t have a basic problem with it being out, you know, a bakery operation since you are using the existing space, but we do want to have the bakery moved indoors. So there is a six-month period that we stipulated to. So what we are requesting, that the six-month period be a stringent one, and that it not be subject to an administrative time extension. So we are asking that, if you take a look at Condition 18 as proposed by the Planning Department, that Condition 6, which references a six-month period for moving indoors, also be included within Condition 18. That’s the only revision that we are proposing. Otherwise, overall we do believe that the Planning Department has done a great job of taking the stipulation that was entered into and kind of formulating into something that I think all the parties can live with. So thank you. And we are glad that we were able to resolve most of these issues. UNGER: Thank you. SELF: Because we have, some of the conditions now are going to change because of what Mr. Vitousek just stated that they are going to, that they’ve already moved the trucks off of the property, the Planning Director would like to ask for a continuance to have an opportunity to revisit the recommendation that you have before you, the one that was presented today, so that he can go through the conditions and eliminate the ones that no longer need to be in here, and also to look again at how other ones may be affected. UNGER: Okay, that – go ahead, Mr. — VITOUSEK: Yeah, well, you know, we are really opposed to a continuance. The Planning Commission and its counsel are perfectly capable of, and we already made an agreement on conditions, and, you know, basically we are here on hearing to, you know, based on the Planning Director’s recommendation that we are, to approve the Special Permit based on the conditions that were included in the stipulated agreement between the parties that has been filed with the Commission. If you want to remove the conditions about the Meadow Gold trucks, that’s really easy; there are two conditions that relate to Meadow Gold trucks, you take them out. But the idea that now we are going to go back and reconsider all the other conditions after we’ve reached an agreement on the other conditions, seems inappropriate to me. 7 EXHIBIT F UNGER: Thank you. YEH: And I would probably concur with Mr. Vitousek. It — UNGER: Planning Department? KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission, the reason I think it would be cleaner to continue this is that there’s some conditions in here related to Plan Approval submittals and things of that nature, are tied to, you know, tied to the Meadow Gold condition, and also since Mr. Vitousek raised the issue of perhaps the bread making, the honey processing and the butter processing could in fact be permissible uses, there are conditions in the stipulation that relate to performance to perfect, you know, those particular uses. I think what we did is, you know, I would agree that the focus was to look at 205 as it related to commercial activity uses, which has a different kind of standard. But, nevertheless, I think you raised some valid points that the Zoning Code itself, you know, may seem to indicate that some of these uses are, you know, permitted anyway. So that’s one of the reasons I’m asking for a continuance just to make sure that this thing is really clean going forward and conditions that apply to things, actually apply to things that have to be conditioned, and if the conditions relate to uses that don’t need to be conditioned, then they shouldn’t be conditioned. UNGER: Okay. Mr. Vitousek, any comment? VITOUSEK: Well, you know, I mean I understand what the Planning Director is saying, but, you know, I think that basically the decision is going to have to be drafted anyway, and I really think we, you know, our main concern is we’ve had enough process. But I think, you know, this is one I’ll just, I’ll defer to the Planning Commission. UNGER: Okay. YEH: Well, I was just going to say that, I mean, I don’t assure that this requires further analysis because we’ve already heard from the applicant that they are willing to stipulate to have the bakery, honey processing and the butter come under the auspices of the Special Permit, and we should leave it that way. UNGER: Very good. Thank you. Any other comments? VITOUSEK: No, I think the only comment I’d like to make is that, you know, in the contested case hearing the intervenors took the position that the pesticides were not relevant after we subpoenaed their records on pesticide use, and they took the position that pesticides weren’t relevant, weren’t an issue, in the contested case. So I’m a little unhappy that it gets brought up here at the Planning Commission. I think if they were going to argue about potential effects of pesticide use on their property, they should have produced documents as to what their pesticide use was. But I think we were passed that. And, you know, our preference would be to have these activities that are other than, you know, the Meadow Gold trucks are out, the fitness center absolutely requires a Special Permit, we would prefer to see the other uses found to be permitted uses because that would be good not only for Lalamilo in that they wouldn’t be subject to 8 EXHIBIT F conditions, but it would be good for other people who want to do similar things to what Lalamilo Farms is doing in other areas. UNGER: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? CHURCH: My question is that, Mr. Vitousek, so you are prepared — ARAI: Microphone, please. CHURCH: — to accept the Special — ARAI: Microphone. CHURCH: Mr. Vitousek, you are prepared to and advocate acceptance of the conditions under the Special Permit as it was drafted, is that correct? VITOUSEK: Yes. We want to make the argument that they are permitted uses, but in the event the Commission didn’t agree with the position, I want to make it clear that we accepted the conditions under the proposed Special Permit. CHURCH: Right, I understand. And the intervenor also, is that correct? The intervenor was prepared to accept the conditions as they were written, too, is that correct? YEH: Yes, except the one condition that we didn’t see was the reference to the no time extension for the bakery moving indoors within six months. So that’s the only change we would want. CHURCH: So you weren’t prepared to accept them the way they were. YEH: Well, we didn’t see the recommended decision at the time of the stipulation, so this is something that came, we just saw yesterday. UNGER: Very good. Thank you. At this time, if there is no further comments, you can take your seats. PATEL: If I could, really quick, Mr. Vitousek, and for the Planning Director, with regard to Mr. Yeh’s request regarding Condition 6, does anyone have any objections to that? VITOUSEK: Yes, we, that, you know, that wasn’t in the stipulation. We didn’t agree to that in the stipulation. That’s an additional condition that they are asking for here at the Commission, and we don’t agree. We are staying with the terms that we agreed to in the stipulation. PATEL: Thank you. For the Planning Director? SELF: Are you referring to Condition 6 of the Planning Director’s recommendation? PATEL: Adding Condition 6 as an exception under Condition 18. 9 EXHIBIT F SELF: Yes, to add that as, add that to Condition No. 18 so that you have Conditions 2, 4 and 6. Is that what you are referring to? PATEL: Yeah, so you — KANUHA: Well, I think what’s on the record is that there is a difference in what was stipulated to, okay, and apparently, that wasn’t one of the items that was stipulated to, which goes to my position that perhaps we should continue this so we could straighten out all of these conditions and things don’t, you know, that when it comes to it’s either items that was stipulated to, you know, there was stipulation related to the continuance of the Meadow Gold truck operation, now you find out that it’s not, you know, it’s not an element because that’s through, even though the recommendation was based on the stipulation that it was still part of the component; that’s how we wrote it up, that’s why there are conditions related to that, you know. So all I’m saying is I think we ought to continue this so that we can make sure that the conditions particularly are straightened out. I can tell you right now we are not going to change the recommendation, okay. It’s going to be a similar recommendation, but it’s just that I think it’s, you know, I think it would be better for us and the applicants and the intervenors to make sure that everything lines up with what actually is the situation out there today and going forward. SHIMAOKA: I’ve got a question. UNGER: Question, Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: I just want to make sure we want to add Condition 6 to 2 and 4 on Item 18. YEH: Correct. SHIMAOKA: And that, you guys have not agreed to as far as — YEH: Well, you know, one of — SHIMAOKA: — Number 6. YEH: — you know, in particular the time we were doing the stipulation, I mean, the sunset was very important to us, so we said you could not get an administrative time extension. We didn’t say in the stipulation that you could get one for the bakery. So all we are suggesting now is to add that, make it consistent with some of the sun setting that’s going on, and particularly in light of the activities that are occurring from the surrounding properties, so, yeah. UNGER: Thank you. Any other questions from the Commissioners? Thank you. You may be seated. Commissioners, I’d like to entertain a motion to move to executive session to consult with our attorney in regards to formatting a motion. NOBRIGA: I so move. 10 EXHIBIT F SHIMAOKA: Second. Oh, you need a motion. UNGER: Right. SHIMAOKA: Yeah, I — UNGER: So we have a motion and a second. SHIMAOKA: What’s the motion? What are you asking again? UNGER: The motion is to adjourn to executive session to discuss with — SHIMAOKA: I second. UNGER: — corporate counsel our legal liabilities. SHIMAOKA: I second. UNGER: We have a second. All in favor? ALL COMMISSIONERS: Aye. UNGER: All opposed? \[None.\] Motion moves. We’ll go into executive session, if everybody could please leave the room. EXECUTIVE SESSION – The Commission went into executive session at 1:33 p.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Nobriga, seconded by Commissioner Shimaoka, and unanimously carried by a voice vote, for the purpose of consulting with the Commission’s counsel regarding legal questions or issues pertaining to the Commission’s powers, duties, privileges, immunities and liabilities. The Commission came out of executive session at 1:43 p.m. by a motion made by Commissioner Shimaoka, seconded by Commissioner Nobriga, and unanimously carried by a voice vote. UNGER: The hearing is back in session. Is there anybody from the public who would like to testify in regard to this matter? \[None.\] Very good. At this time I’d like to entertain a motion in regard to this agenda item. SHIMAOKA: Mr. Chair, I make a motion to move this to the next meeting, next session, extended. UNGER: Do I have a second? KAHOLO: Second. UNGER: Discussion? I’m concerned that both parties have agreed to the stipulation, and yet we are still continuing this. It’s just general comment. But I’m also concerned that the Planning 11 EXHIBIT F Department does want to, the fact that they stated that they want to clean this up, does lead to the possibility that some of these changes are necessary in order to fit into the Use \[sic\] Permit. But at this point I’m listening heavily to the intervenor and the applicant, and I’m leaning more towards approving the recommendation as recommended originally by the Planning Department. But that’s my discussion. CHURCH: And I understand all that. But it seems that the operations of the applicant would continue on, no harm there, and that in interest of making a document, which is more perfected and literally correct and applicable under the Special Permit process that despite process is dragging on, there might be merit in considering a continuance. UNGER: Any other comments? Yes? YEH: I apologize. Tom Yeh. During the recess, I mean, I was looking at the conditions themselves, and it looked relatively easy to adjust what those conditions stated because Conditions 4 and 5 seem to be the only ones specifically related to the Meadow Gold, or the box truck, parking facility. And then for Condition No. 18 you just remove Condition 4 from that, and the document would otherwise read appropriately for the conditions that are stated. So, that was just my observation. UNGER: Thank you. There is a motion on the floor, so roll call? KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Shimaoka? SHIMAOKA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Kaholo? KAHOLO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Church? CHURCH: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Nobriga? NOBRIGA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Unger? UNGER: Nay. KAY: Motion carries with four ayes, four to one. UNGER: Thank you. 12 EXHIBIT F KAY: Thank you. UNGER: That concludes the agenda, the last agenda item. So the Planning Department will finalize their recommendations, and notify both the intervenors and the applicants. Thank you. The discussion ended at 1:54 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, Secretary Leeward Planning Commission 13 EXHIBIT F