Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-11-03 Hearing Transcript - Tram Ngo REZ 16-212WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT NOVEMBER 3, 2016 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of TRAM NGO (REZ 16-212) was called to order at 9:01 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aging and Disability Resource Center Training Room, 1055 Kino`ole Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Raylene Moses. ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), Malia Ho (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 6 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: TRAM NGO (REZ 16-212) Application for a Change of Zone from Single Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) to General Commercial -10,000 square feet (CG -10) zoning district for 16,911 square feet of land. The subject property is located on the west side of Kilauea Avenue approximately 90 feet south of the West Lanikaula Street- Kilauea Avenue intersection, Waiakea Houselots 2nd Series, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-2-025:012. HENKEL: The first item today is Agenda Item No. 2 which is Tram Ngo, REZ 16-212, and if I will have the presenteroh, there it is. There's a table over there, and that will be Maija Jackson. JACKSON: Good morning, Commissioners. The first application you're hearing is a Change of Zone request by Tram Ngo. The property is located in the South Hilo District just west of Kilauea Avenue. You can see Kilauea Avenue running in a north -south direction through the middle of the slide. And, then you have Lanikaula Street running east -west, and the subject property is shown here with a large black dot on it. I'll zoom in a little bit closer. So, the subject property is outlined in black. The large green area on the map here is the DLNR arboretum, and it's in the Open zoning which is shown in the green. The subject property is currently zoned Single -Family Residential, which is shown in the light yellow color. You can see a lot of properties to the north have been rezoned to General Commercial over the years. This property kitty corner is a dental office. The property just to the north, I believe, is a real estate or insurance office. And, then you have Tyke's Laundry and some restaurants directly north on Lanikaula Street. The General Plan designation for the property and surrounding area is High Density Urban. This allows high intensity commercial uses, multi -family residential uses. EXHIBIT A And this is an aerial view of the property. It's again outlined in black. There's an existing Single -Family residence on the property and then just north of that is an insurance office and some, I think there's two single-family dwellings. And, then north of Lanikaula, you have a lot of the commercial uses that I discussed earlier. Across the street is the DLNR offices and arboretum. The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from Single -Family Residential – 10,000 square feet to General Commercial – 10,000 square feet for about 17,000 square feet of land. The Applicant would like to convert her existing two-story residence into a beauty salon and personal services building. This is a site plan. You can see the existing dwelling kind of in the middle of the property. Kilauea Avenue is on the right side of the slide, and they're proposing a two-way driveway off of Kilauea Avenue, and then parking in the rear of the property. And, this is a picture of the existing dwelling from Kilauea Avenue. This is looking to the south or the left, so you can see the carport of the house, and there's a home just to the south. And, then just to the north is that home that's being used as an insurance office. And, then this is a view of Kilauea Avenue looking south. This is the driveway here on the right side of the slide, and you can see the old style sidewalks with the landscape strip in the middle. The Planning Director is recommending a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council, and we did just receive a revised memo from the Department of Public Works yesterday. So, we would like to suggest some amendments to Conditions F and G to be in line with that revised memo. And, let me go over a few of those revisions now. So, if you turn to Conditions F and G of the Recommendation—those are on, that would be condition [sic] two of, of the list of conditions. Condition F discusses reconstruction of the damaged sidewalk fronting the property, and you saw that picture in the slide just a moment ago. DPW is actually recommending that, that sidewalk be not only reconstructed but upgraded to a standard full -width sidewalk prior to use of the property or occupancy of the property for commercial uses. And, then for Condition G, this condition we would remove everything after the first sentence where it talks about the Applicant shall provide a pro rata share for the construction of full improvements including curb, gutter, sidewalk. And, just to give you a little background on why DPW revised their memo yesterday. Planning staff met with Department of Public Works, and you've seen quite a few rezones come through lately. I think at your last meeting, there was a discussion on what the appropriate sidewalk treatment was for those properties along Kilauea Avenue further south, and for those properties, the Commission decided that pro rata share was an appropriate requirement. We talked to DPW, and they felt that the one time they did recommend that, it was a unique situation. There was—there was a bank along the property that would make the topography EXHIBIT A 2 difficult to, difficult and very costly for the applicant to construct a retaining wall in that situation. So, that's why at that time for that unique situation they recommended pro rata share. There was also a high likelihood, they felt, that the County would come in at some point in the near future with a project to do sidewalks along that section of Kilauea Avenue. So, in the discussion with DPW, they felt that the pro rata condition should only be used in unique situations whether it's topography or some type of engineering issue, and that it really isn't appropriate in situations where there's no future County project slated for that section of the road because then there's no guarantee that it would ever actually be built. So, that's—that's why, that's one of the reasons for the revision in this application. And, so yes? CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question. So, this means that they are required to subdivide when required by the Department of Public Works and dedicate ten feet along Kilauea Avenue, but other than that subdivision and dedication, they would have no further financial obligation for the improvement of Kilauea Avenue. Is that correct? JACKSON: Well, that's not quite correct, because if you go to the condition before that in DPW's revised memo, they're actually asking that the Applicant construct full -width sidewalks prior to occupancy of the property for commercial uses. So, they are basically asking them to construct the sidewalk fronting their property. CLARKSON: No, I understand that. JACKSON: Okay. CLARKSON: But, that repair and reconstruction of the damaged sidewalk would be in the 10 - foot strip. Once the 10 -foot strip is dedicated to the County, they would no longer have any financial responsibility for what happens on that strip. Is that correct? JACKSON: The impression I got was that the reconstructed sidewalk was to occur within the 10 -foot future road widening strip. CLARKSON: I understand that. JACKSON: Okay. CLARKSON: They're going to be required to reconstruct the sidewalk within the 10 -foot strip. JACKSON: Yes. CLARKSON: And, sub—and some later date, when required by Public Works, they would have to subdivide and dedicate that 10 -foot strip to the County. After that's done, they have no pro rata share costs— EXHIBIT A 3 JACKSON: That's correct. That's correct. CLARKSON: if the County comes in and widens the road and tears out this reconstructed sidewalk and does whatever they're going to do JACKSON: —Then the County would pay for it. There's, there's no additional cost to the Applicant. CLARKSON: Okay, they should be happy with that. JACKSON: So, if you'd like, I can go over some specific language to recommend for those two conditions. Okay, so for Condition F, we would just reword using the language provided by Public Works. Basically, it would say something like, "The applicant shall reconstruct the damaged curb and sidewalk fronting the subject property with new concrete curb and full -width concrete sidewalk meeting with the requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act and the approval of the Department of Public Works." And, then, we would also maybe combine the first sentence of Condition G into one condition and say, "A ten -foot wide future road widening strip along the property's Kilauea Avenue frontage shall be subdivided and dedicated, at no cost to the County, when required by the Department of Public Works, but no later than prior to Certificate of Occupancy." And, then the remainder of Condition G would be deleted. Would you like me to repeat that or? No? Good? Okay. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions. HENKEL: Thank you, Maija. I neglected to mention if there's anybody that would like to testify, please fill out the yellow sheet and submit it to staff If you have any written testimony to any agenda items, submit it to staff also, and make sure your cell phones are off or on silent mode. With that, thank you for that presentation, Maija. Are there any more questions from Commissioners to staff? MIYASATO: I have a question. HENKEL: Yes. MIYASATO: Maija, you know, I guess the original application was a Neighborhood Commercial, and at a later date, that got changed for a request for a General Commercial? JACKSON: Yes. MIYASATO: When this was submitted to all the departments, and they replied, they—did they reply to the Neighborhood Commercial? JACKSON: They replied to the Neighborhood Commercial, and Planning staff re-evaluated whether it should be recirculated to the departments, and we checked with Public Works and EXHIBIT A 4 Water Supply, and they had the same standards. They apply the same standards for General Commercial that they would apply for Neighborhood Commercial, so we felt that it didn't need to be recirculated to those agencies. MIYASATO: Okay, and the property to the south of this. It kind of had like hand railings and stuff Is that a commercial also or just a residential home? JACKSON: The property to the south is zoned Residential, but I believe it's being used as a dentist office within an existing dwelling so it's like a home occupation. MIYASATO: Okay. JACKSON: Oh, actually, no, I'm sorry. I think that was a Use Permit. I believe that property just to the south received a Use Permit I think back in the nineties to operate the dentist office. MIYASATO: Okay, so it's not a residential home. No? JACKSON: No. MIYASATO: Okay, thank you. HENKEL: Anymore questions from [sic] staff? With that, will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Good morning. Will you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. HENKEL: Please state your name, the area you reside in, and proceed. Speak directly into the mic. FUKE: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant, and I'm here assisting Ms. Tram Ngo who is seated over there. It's an interesting property because it's the residence of a former neighbor of ours, and so when the Ngo's bought the property and with the intent of relocating her beauty salon over there, you know, it was kind of exciting for me. We went throughI discussed the staffs Background Report and the proposed conditions with Ms. Ngo except for the one that just came up today `cause I was, you know, alerted to that. I'm just trying to get a better handle or understanding as far as what specifically the conditions are stating. You know, like, is the condition, is the proposed condition that they construct or improve a curb, gutter, sidewalk section fronting the property based on the existing right-of-way or a new right-of-way with the ten additional foot, I think, partially responding to Mr. Clarkson's question, as well, and I couldn't quite understand that so JACKSON: It would be based on the new right-of-way. EXHIBIT A 5 FUKE: So, then, the existing right-of-way is 60 feet, so the new right-of-way would be like ten additional feet, and then basically then, you know, what you see right now on Kilauea Avenue on that section of the street, then you would have like a jog, a jog into, into the property with a 10 - foot wide sidewalk. That's correct? JACKSON: That's correct. FUKE: Okay. What we would like to suggestI mean, you know, this is kind of like an evolving situation as the staff had mentioned because the last time I was before the Commission, and also, I think Mr. Nishimura was representing another, you know, his client for properties along Kilauea Avenue, the staff had originally recommended that there would be a curb, gutter, sidewalk section, you know, fronting the right-of-way. Fronting the property rather. And, I think during the course of the discussion, what ultimately came up was the Commission had agreed to what Mr. Nishimura had recommended and which was to do the pro rata share. The pro rata share, which was then, you know, incorporated in Mr. Nishimura's client's request, and, likewise, when I was working on the application right down the street, I think the Commission also agreed to have that condition imposed as well. In this particular situation, I think that what, the Applicant has no objection in terms of retrofitting whatever the existing sidewalk is right now within the existing right-of-way, and at the end of the day, in setting aside the ten additional feet and putting the full on curb, gutter, sidewalk section, also she has no objections, you know, to do that, what the staff is saying. The only request that we would like to make is that at this point in time, what she wants to do is essentially renovate the bottom. You know, bottom floor, and then put her salon over there, and possibly live upstairs. And, obviously, you know, the cost for the renovation to do that is going to be relatively insignificant. The cost of putting in a full on curb, gutter, sidewalk fronting the property is going to be relatively exorbitant. It's going to probably be more than what the cost to basically move into that existing dwelling. If, on the other hand, you know, at some point in time, it's decided that that entire building gets torn down and then when you take out your financing, you can roll in the cost of the off-site infrastructure improvements, you know, into that same financing package, so the request that we would make is that if there's going to be merely the occupancy of the existing dwelling that consideration be given to allow just the modest improvement to the existing sidewalk in that area. If on the other than there's going to be a totally new building over there, then, yes, the dedication and the full construction of the curb, gutter, sidewalk, you know, be, be a requirement. So, that's our only request. HENKEL: Thank you. Does any Commissioner have a question for the representative, Mr. Fuke? CLARKSON: I do not. I have a question for Maija. I still don't understand the—the Public Works' recommendation is that the damaged curb and sidewalk fronting the property be reconstructed. Now, this doesn't say a new sidewalk and gutter be constructed ten feet in from the existing roadway. EXHIBIT A 6 JACKSON: That's correct. So, this is—this isn't necessarily a Planning DepartDPW's memo that's saying it, but it's been standard Planning practice that when, that when a road needs to be widened, that any improvements be constructed within that widening strip. That's how we've consistently been applying improvements into future road widening strips for rezones. When the improvements are constructed, it's supposed to be constructed within the future road widening strip. Otherwise, you—you just have it, the road never becomes widened. CLARKSON: Do you have a map of the existing right-of-way, and where the curb and sidewalk are now? In other words, in that photo that you just showed, is the curb and sidewalk within the existing 60 -foot right-of-way or is it outside the 60 -foot right-of-way? JACKSON: It's within the 60 -foot right-of-way. CLARKSON: And, so, you're suggesting that our recommendation be that this functionality, the curb and the sidewalk, be moved be moved so that the sidewalk is adjacent to the 80 -foot right- of-way. The outer edge of the 80 -foot right-of-way. JACKSON: So, that it's within the 80 -foot right-of-way, at the outer edge of the 80 -foot right- of-way. So, it essentially moves ten feet inward. CLARKSON: So, well— KANUHA: Commissioner Clarkson, if you can take a look at what the Public Works memo says, you know, I think it's pretty straightforward there. Okay, they're saying that it has an existing right-of-way of 60 feet and because of the designation, the proposed right-of-way is 80 feet which means that ten feet needs to be taken from both sides of the right-of-way. So, that's the ten feet that you have that's being imposed on this. And, then the curb and sidewalk improvements fronting the property would have to be constructed within that right-of-way. So, it's within the ten, you know, it's the ten—the additional ten feet is where the curb section would have to be constructed. CLARKSON: Okay, if the, so this, this whole curb, sidewalk as reconstructed is all gonna move— KANUHA: —Ten feet, yeah CLARKSON: —some unknown ten, roughly ten feet to the right. KANUHA: Correct. CLARKSON: Okay. And, who, well, okay—who is responsible for making the transition onto the new sidewalk and off the new sidewalk when it runs into those bushes there. I mean, I okay. I'll make my—I'll just, we'll discuss it when a motion has been made. HENKEL: Mr. Fuke? Do you wish to respond? EXHIBIT A 7 FUKE: Sure. To directly answer your questions, that's why the Public Works Department would still have to look at the construction drawings to make sure that there is that kind of transition, you know, between the ten additional setback sidewalk and where the existing sidewalks are. So, they would have to make that. As I mentioned earlier, you know, the Applicant has, you know, like no objections to ultimately comply with what the Department and Public Works are recommending. It's more a question of, you know, from a financing standpoint and a practicality standpoint, to provide like a phasing in program. The phasing in being that if they're gonna just basically convert the existing structure, then improve that existing sidewalk. If they're gonna tear town and rebuild, you know, particularly because there is a slight drop between that sidewalk and the—and the property. So, if you're going to do that, the additional, you know, 10 -foot setback, it's not like merely just expanding the sidewalk, the existing sidewalk over there, but you're going to have to put some, some retaining activities over there, and, that's going to be quite involved costs. And, that's why the suggestion that I've been making on behalf of Ms. Ngo is that if they tear down, rebuild, they're going to get the total financing, and that financing can then incorporate the costs, the significant costs of putting in this curb, gutter, sidewalk fronting the property. And, along those lines, I mean, this is kind of sitting, I mean flying off the handle right now, but in terms of suggested language so, to accomplish that then what I would like to suggest is that Condition F can be amended by basically saying that the Applicant shall reconstruct the damaged sidewalk fronting the subject property prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any conversion of the existing structure for any commercial use on the property. So, that basically says that if they're just going to utilize the existing building, the ground level or whatever, then before they get their occupancy permit, they still have to reconstruct the existing sidewalk. And, Condition G would then be reworded to basically say—you keep the first sentence, the ten - foot wide future road widening strip, etc., and subdivided and dedicated at no cost to the County when required by the Department of Public Works, and then you would say that for any new structure for commercial uses, a 10 -foot wideI'm sorry—it would begin Condition G would be amended to read, to begin, to start off like this here. For any new construction for commercial use, then you start a 10 -foot wide future road widening strip, etc., etc., you know, period. And then you go down to the Applicant shall construct full improvements to the entire property frontage along Kilauea Avenue consisting of etc., etc., etc. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, can I, can the Department request a short recess so we can consult with the Applicant and see whether or not we have his suggested wording straight and whether or not we'd be able to support some of the changes he's suggesting. HENKEL: Yeah, that's a good idea. Let's recess for five minutes, ten minutes. Chair Henkel called a recess at 9:27 a.m., and the meeting was reconvened at 9:36 a.m. HENKEL: Okay, the meeting is back—the meeting is back in session. Mr. Director, do you have something to say that you worked on? EXHIBIT A KANUHA: You folks—you folks ready? Daryn will—Darya will let you guys know what we talked about. ARAI: Thank you. Sorry, and appreciate the Commission giving us the courtesy. It is true that all of this is evolving and evolving quickly, and a lot of it is because we are trying to promote consistent and reasonable application. It shouldn't be like ad hoc—when it sounds good at the moment, you know, you provide certain reliefs. We're just trying to apply, be consistent, and fair in the application of the requirements. That all being said, while the discussion was going on, I took the liberty to go outside and make a call to Public Works to really understand and get clear what is their best recommendation as it applies to this specific property. Given that you have existing sidewalks in this particular area fronting the property, it is unlike some of the other rezonings that you've seen where there are no formal sidewalk improvements. It would create a concern to Public Works if we were to require the sidewalks be located at the outside of a future 80 -foot wide roadway because it would create that physical jog. So, their recommendation is to reconstruct the existing sidewalk that you see in the photograph on the screen to a full -width sidewalk which would mean all concrete. None of that grass strips that you see along the existing right-of-way which is currently 60 feet. Just to let you know, we can—we think that's a reasonable approach given the situation and recommendation of Public Works. Note also that other situations have occurred along alignments where the roadway doesn't even meet the minimum commercial standard of 60 feet. This section of Kilauea is currently at 60, so we can continue to argue that if you put the, reconstruct the sidewalks at the existing 60 -foot right-of-way, you still meet the minimum standards for a commercial zoning district even though the County in the future would like to see the right-of-way eventually widened to 80. But, when that happens, the County would then take the initiative to work with landowners in the area to secure the necessary widening. That all being said, we can now recommend that Condition F can largely remain as is with further clarification that—and, again, I'm just going to paraphrase and give us and staff the liberty to—to provide the necessary language when we finalize the condition. But, basically, it's the Applicant shall reconstruct the damaged sidewalk fronting the subject property to a new concrete curb and full -width concrete sidewalk meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any commercial use of the property. And then somewhere in there we'll make it clear that it's within the existing 60 -foot wide right-of-way. I'm not sure how we're going to language it, but I just wanted to let you know that's how we think the condition should be structured. Condition G, as indicated by Maija in her presentation, that the pro rata share provision shall be continued to be deleted because we are asking for the improvements prior to occupancy. So, hopefully, I'm clear in what our more current recommendation would be. KANUHA: Mr. Chairman, thank you. Thank you, Daryn, for the clarification. As you go to Condition G, the last couple words in there basically—Condition G reads, "A ten foot side future road widening strip along the property's Kilauea Avenue frontage shall be subdivided and dedicated at no cost to the County when required by the Department of Public Works." So, it EXHIBIT A 9 makes it clear that, that—basically, you can't do F if you don't have G. So, it indicates that F is are the improvements that are going to be required within the existing 60 -foot right-of-way, and at some point in time, when required by the Department of Public Works, the additional ten feet will be required to be subdivided and dedicated. And as Commissioner Clarkson to also address another question you asked, Condition H talks about the driveway connections. You know, how they should be met. You know, there is requirements for those accesses when you come off the road. HENKEL: Mr. Fuke, do you have a response to that? FUKE: It's an improvement, so it's good. You know, I think its fine. You know, like Condition, Condition F to me, you know, very simply, if you were just to restate it like, "The Applicant shall reconstruct the damaged sidewalk within the existing right-of-way fronting the subject property meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works for any commercial use on the property." You know—"prior to the issuance of the Certificate of Occupancy for any commercial use on the property." That's fine. I think that if you just leave it up to Public Works, they can determine whether you want to increase the width of the sidewalk or leave it as it is all that stuff so it provides enough discretion, I think, to Public Works. And, as far as Condition G, I think that like what the Director has indicated, at some point in time that the County wants it, then they're going to ask for the ten additional feet, and it would really be up to the, I think, the Commission or the Department to decide and whether you want to retain the balance of the portion which is the balance of the portion saying that, okay, the Applicant dedicates the ten additional feet. Now, it should also be responsible for paying his pro rata share for whatever costs associated with the construction of the curb, gutter, sidewalk fronting it like how you had the other one. So, it's basically along the same line as what I was trying to suggest in the beginning that give consideration for the interim, and then you have a long-term solution. The long-term solution is Condition G. HENKEL: Any more questions from the Commission to staff or their representative, Mr. Fuke? ARAI: And, Mr. Chairman? HENKEL: Yes, Daryn. ARAI: And just to emphasize and clarify just so you know exactly what's on the table, our understanding in discussions with Public Works, the reference, the reason why in our, some of the proposed language, we were all saying makes—speaks to a full -width concrete sidewalk is because they made it clear. Public Works has made it clear that these type of landscapedI'm not sure exactly what it's called—but, is no longer appropriate. It was something done in the past, but their current standards is concrete all the way. So, we just wanted to make it clear so they know what the expectations will be. EXHIBIT A 10 HENKEL: Anymore questions? CLARKSON: Yes. HENKEL: Commissioner Clarkson. CLARKSON: Could you please read what the final proposed Condition G will say? ARAI: The Condition G can pretty much remain as is with the exception of deleting that section of the condition where it reads, "The applicant shall provide their pro rata share..." Everything from that point on shall be deleted. Condition F is where you'll see some language change to allow for the reconstruction of the damaged sidewalk fronting the subject property to a full -width concrete prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy for any commercial use on the property. That would be our recommendoh, and we'll make a, we'll make sure we clarify within the existing 60 -foot right-of-way so the expectation is not to put it on the outside of the 80. HENKEL: Is that acceptable to you, Mr. Fuke? CLARKSON: Thank you. FUKE: Thank you very much. It's good. Thank you. HENKEL: Okay, if there's no more questions, thank you, Mr. Fuke, you may be seated. I've got no one signed up to testify. Is there anyone in the audience that would like to testify to this issue? Then, I'll look for a motion to close public testimony. MIYASATO: I make a motion to close public testimony. HENKEL: And a second? DELA CRUZ: Second. HENKEL: All in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Then, public testimony is closed, and now I'll look for a motion to action. MIYASATO: Mr. Chair, I'll make a motion. I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone Docket No. REZ 16-212 based on the Planning Director's recommendations and findings with the amendment to Condition F as read by the Planning Department, and the amendment to Condition G—the deletion of the pro rata, which shall be adopted. EXHIBIT A 11 HENKEL: Is there a second? CLARKSON: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato and seconded by Commissioner Clarkson. Maija, are you going to do a roll call? JACKSON: Okay, thank you. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. JACKSON: Commissioner Moses? MOSES: Aye. JACKSON: And Chair Henkel. HENKEL: Aye. JACKSON: Okay, the motion passes six, zero. The discussion ended at 9:47 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 12