Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2017-01-05 Hearing Transcript - County Council Bill 227 Draft 2WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 5, 2017 A regularly advertised hearing on County Council Initiated Bill No. 227, Draft 2 was called to order at 10:33 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Gregory Henkel presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Myles Miyasato. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Raylene Moses. ALSO PRESENT: Daryn Arai (Deputy Planning Director), Malia Ho (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 5 members from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL NO. 227, DRAFT 2) An Ordinance amending Chapter 25, Article 1, Article 2, and Article 4 of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), relating to Agricultural Tourism. The purpose of this bill is to amend the definition of "agricultural tourism" and include new definitions for "agricultural products" and "agriculturally -related products"; and defining requirements for plan approval review of and use regulations for agricultural tourism operations. The County Council is referring Bill 227, Draft 2 to the Planning Director and the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions for comment and recommendations. HENKEL: So, the next agenda item is initiated by the County Council, Bill No. 227, Draft 2, and it looks like Jeff is going to make the presentation. DARROW: Happy New Year. COMMISSIONERS: Happy New Year. DARROW: I have to apologize. Our next presentation is going to be quite wordy, so I apologize for that, up front. I will try to do as thorough of a job as I can so that it will eliminate as many questions as possible. But, with that, as mentioned, our next applicant actually is initiated by [the] County Council. It's an amendment to our Zoning Code, Chapter 25, relating to agricultural tourism. If I can begin with a brief chronological background of what's occurred with agricultural tourism not only here in the County, but in the State. EXHIBIT C In 2008, the Hawaii County Council adopted Ordinance 08-155. This ordinance was created to define and regulate agricultural tourism in Hawaii County in response to the Hawaii Revised Statutes, Sections 205-2, Subsection 11 and 205-4.5, Subsection 13, which both state the following. Agricultural tourism conducted on a working farm, or a farming operation as defined in Section 165-2, for the enjoyment, education, or involvement of visitors; provided that the agricultural tourism activity is accessory and secondary to the principal agricultural use and does not interfere with surrounding farm operations; and provided further that this paragraph shall apply only to a county that has adopted ordinances regulating agricultural tourism under Section 205-5. Emphasis added. My understanding is Hawaii County is the only county that has adopted an ordinance, so currently agricultural tourism is, should be only permitted in Hawaii County. [Section] 205-5 states the following. Within agricultural districts, uses compatible to the activities described in Section 205-2 as determined by the commission shall be permitted; provided that accessory agricultural uses and services described in Sections 205-2 and 205-4.5 may be further defined by each county by zoning ordinance. This is, this next section applies to ag tourism. Each county shall adopt ordinances setting forth procedures and requirements, including provisions for enforcement, penalties, and administrative oversight, for the review and permitting of agricultural tourism uses and activities as an accessory use on a working farm, or farming operation as defined in Section 165-2. These additional provisions that need to be included in the ordinance are the following. They need to have requirements for access to a farm including road width, road surface, and parking. Requirements and restrictions of accessory facilities connected with the farming operation, including gift shops and restaurants. Activities that may be offered by the farming operation for visitors. Days and hours of operation, and automatic termination of accessory use upon the cessation of the farming operation. So, this Ordinance 08-155 was—was adopted in 2008 by the Hawaii County Council. It is within our Zoning Code under Section 25-4-15 relating to agricultural tourism. In 2009, there was a minor change that occurred to the ordinance, and this was Ordinance 09- 143, and the purpose of that was to extend the amnesty period for unpermitted agricultural operations included in Ordinance 08-155 from November 20, 2009 to May 30, 2010. In 2012, our Planning Director initiated an amendment to the Zoning Code relating to agricultural tourism. The Planning Director's proposed amendment was presented before the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions, who both forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Council Member Pete Hoffman introduced Bill 266, Draft 1 in 2012. Over the course of about one year, Bill 266 went through five different drafts. And then at Bill 266, Draft 5 is included within your Background as Exhibit No. 4. This particular bill introduced the terms minor and major agricultural tourism. So, that term is used quite frequently although it's never been adopted. 2 EXHIBIT C In, on January 8, 2013, the Council's Planning Committee voted to forward a negative recommendation on Bill 266, Draft 5. On January 23, 2013, the County Council voted to postpone indefinitely Bill No. 266, Draft 5 in order to allow the Council to introduce an alternative bill, No. 25, Draft 2. And, this is Exhibit No. 5 within your Background. The bill was presented before the Windward and Leeward Planning Commissions who both forwarded a favorable recommendation to the Hawaii County Council. Bill 25, Draft 2 was postponed to the call of the chair on August 6, 2014, and was never taken back up at Council. So, that brings us to today. So, we—the Hawaii County Council initiated Bill 227 and has sent down Draft 2 to the Planning Commissions, to the Planning Director. The Planning Director reviewed it. These are some of the key points of Bill 227, Draft 2. It attempts to make the permitting process less burdensome by providing changes to the plan approval section to only require applicants to submit plan approval prior to construction or installation of a new structure or for any addition to an existing structure that exceeds ten percent of the existing structure. Additionally, the bill offers an option to the applicant to request a waiver from the Planning Director from the requirement of a site drainage plan upon providing evidence to the Director's satisfaction that there would be no significant run-off resulting from the proposed development. Lastly, Bill 277, Draft 2 creates a yearly registration process along with a $100 processing fee, which includes submitting financial records and a daily visitor count annually. These are some of the key points of Bill 227, Draft 2. The, there have been changes to the agricultural tourism definition to include agricultural based commercial operations. This is a use that was permitted by the Hawaii State Legislature, and it allows roadside stands, retail structures, as well as food establishment, food establishments as part of an agricultural use as long as they're using locally grown or items produced locally within those particular structures. The problem with our County is, is that it's not clear that, it wasn't clear in the bill that this needs to be directly related to a working farm as is, as—it is clear that agricultural tourism was to be connected to a working farm. So, the attempt here is to be able to tie these into together so that they would be both connected to a working farm. Also, within the definition, it was, there was a section that did not include educational tours sponsored, conducted by public and private schools located within the County. This was a little unclear, but we think the reasoning was is that that's permitted already under State law. So, they were just trying to separate them. There's agricultural education tours and there's agricultural tourism. Additionally, there was new added definitions for agricultural products and agriculturally related product, projects. And, again, as we mentioned previously, the Plan Approval Section changed so that not all operations have to submit Plan Approval, but just those that do a new structure or changes to an existing structure that it exceeds ten percent. 3 EXHIBIT C Additionally, there were changes to the requirements of information to be provided, and Plan Approval which included in allow on -street parking, if adequate; deleting the 1,000 -square foot limit for facilities principally utilized for the agricultural tourism activity; and adding an allowance to request a waiver from the Planning Director for the requirement for the site drainage plan upon certain circumstances. Within our agricultural tourism Section 25-4-15, they, the bill removes the requirement to provide evidence of a minimum of $10,000 in variable [sic] verifiable gross sales. There right now currently is a minimum of agricultural gross sales that the farm needs to be producing. That's been eliminated, and instead of that, what you would have is just simply the agricultural products that are created on the property. The gross revenue has to be more than the gross revenue of the agricultural tourism activities. It reduced the maximum amount of visitors allowed before requiring a Special Permit or a Use Permit from 30,000 to 10,000 visitors. Hours of operation were changed. Currently it's 8 a.m. to 6 p.m. The proposal was sunrise to 6 p.m. daily unless otherwise approved by the Planning Commission. So, that was a unique circumstance. To just bring this request to the Planning Commission to change hours on an operation that may not have actually been approved originally through a Use Permit or a Special Permit. Added requirement to provide adequate road and site access for fire, ambulance, police, and other vehicles related to emergency response. The deletion of the 1,000 -square foot limit for facilities utilized principally for the agricultural tourism business. Continuing on, changes to the waiver process that we had spoke about regarding—oh—this is a little different. If the actual agricultural operation is having difficulty meeting that, that gross requirement of having gross sales from the ag products being more than the ag tourism, they can actually ask for a waiver for a period of time from the Director. It also in, added this section that prohibits agricultural tourism in Waipi`o Valley or where the property is only accessible by 4 -wheel drive. It extends compliance from July 1st, 2017 toI'm sorry, it extends the compliance deadline to July 1st, so if there's any non-compliant ag tourism operations, they have till July 1st, 2017, to comply. And, again, we mentioned the yearly registration process where they have to submit financial records and daily visitor counts. They added a section to allow the Director to conduct a site inspection without prior notification. And, lastly, a section for enforcement for violations that occur regarding this section. 4 EXHIBIT C The Planning Director has reviewed Bill 227, Draft 2, and is forwarding an unfavorable recommendation. The Planning Director is generally in favor of the overall direction of Bill 227, Draft 2 in attempting to be defined by the bill which is to make the permitting process less restrictive and less burdensome for the agricultural tourism operations, but issues this unfavorable recommendation based on the need for further clarification and changes within the bill that are structurally significant from that represented in the bill. Basically, what that means is we could have requested an amendment to Bill 227, Draft 2, and sent it up as a request to amend that bill. Our alternative language is so significant that it would actually require to be a new bill. We struggled whether or not to send up a new bill, but we decided not to because of the fact that when we look back at our history, our chronological history of ag tourism, there's been such a difficulty in passing an ordinance because they're having a hard time finding a middle ground to be able to create a new ordinance. So, what the Planning Director is proposing is sending up alternative language in the form similar to a bill as a starting ground. Look, we like the way this is going. Here's some proposals. This is, we think this is a good start. As you go through the process maybe those changes can be added in, and a new bill can be created so it may not end up with five drafts or whatever happened previously. Additionally, the Planning Director, again, is offering alternative language and is suggesting even to further simplify the process by deleting all together the requirement for Plan Approval and to have agricultural tourism operations be required to register one time instead of a yearly registration. When we look back on, since 2008, there's been a requirement in place for all ag tourism operations to either submit Plan Approval or if they've exceeded those limits, to come in before the Planning Commission with a Special Permit or a Use Permit. We've had two people come in in eight years. So, obviously, what we're doing isn't working. So, and—and some of the feedback we're getting is that the Plan Approval process is just too difficult for the average ag tourism operation, especially the site drainage plan. And, that's why this request for the waiver, but there are other portions that are also difficult for them. We think the registration process is a good idea. If we try to get them to do it yearly, we don't think we're gonna have any more success than we did previously. But, if we have them come in simply one time a year or once and then possible propose that if there's any significant changes, they come back in, then we think that might have better success. This registry form that we're talking about will have questions to verify compliance with the standards and guidelines of the agricultural tourism operation as listed in 25-4-15(d) but will also have questions currently listed on the Department's Agricultural -Based Commercial Operation Certification Form and that is our Planning Department's Exhibit 6 for reference. So, again, we're going to be trying to get all the information that we can relative to these agricultural tourism operations through this registry form. Similar to the current permitting process, if an agricultural tourism operations goes beyond the limits, the operations will need to submit for a Special Permit or a Use Permit, which can be determined through the information submitted in the registration form, or a complaint is received EXHIBIT C and we go out and conduct a site inspection and find out that they have exceeded those limits and need to come in. The other thing I might mention is we've only received one complaint in the eight years relative to agricultural tourism, and that happened to be in a residential zone property which it's not even allowed, so. Okay, so these are some of the changes that are proposed in the alternative language, and I'll just run through these. We're almost done. We are—we like the idea of adding in agricultural based commercial operations as part of ag tourism so that's been included. We took out that confusion regarding the educational tours. Just left that separate. We've added in the definition of agricultural based commercial operations, and we've kind of refined it a little bit more than what [the] State defines it as just so that it's clear it needs to be connected to a working farm and that products grown on the property as well as products grown in Hawaii can be sold as part of that. We've deleted the entire Plan Approval section for agricultural tourism, and in the agricultural tourism, some of these are very similar to Bill 227, Draft 2 including the removal of the 10,000 limit. We're going with the idea, again, the gross sales of the ag products exceeds the gross sales of agricultural tourism activities. Maximum amount of visitors instead of 3030,000 to 10,000, we feel that 30,000 to 15 [000] might be a more appropriate number. If they exceed 15,000 visitors a year, they'll need to come in for a Special Permit or a Use Permit. Hours of operation. If they decide they want to revise that or change that instead of going to the Planning Commission, they would request the Planning Director upon a finding that there will be no significant adverse impact on surrounding neighborhoods. Instead of the requirement that was in Bill 227, Draft 2 for access, we've kept the existing language that we have where they have to provide, they have an existing legal access to a public highway which may be via a private road or easement. And, again, this was previously a requirement they had to submit as part of Plan Approval. Instead of the, there was, Bill 227, Draft 2 had quite a long period of time you could request a waiver. Up to nine years in certain circumstances. We feel that might be a bit too much. We'd like to keep it at the two years because basically, the whole point of it is you have to have a working farm to have agricultural tourism. If you're asking for a waiver, you know, from that unbalance, then something's not right there. We'll allow that to be able to come into place, but not for a long period of time. We feel it's, they really need to have that working farm as primary principal and the ag tourism as secondary and accessory. 6 EXHIBIT C Let's see. We've added in a change. In the current Zoning Code, it allows for products, agricultural products grown in—we've added to allow agricultural products grown in Hawaii and processed agriculture products where the main ingredient was grown in Hawaii instead of grown only on the Island of Hawaii which is in the current bill now. We have kept in this prohibition of agricultural tourism in Waipi`o Valley and also the 4 -wheel drive access, and the reason why is through this process, we've met with different parties in relation to this, and there was a strong request to keep that in going up to Council. Up at Council, they can either keep it in or take it out, but at this point, they're asking to try to keep that in it at this time. We've, instead of putting a time frame on the time to become compliant if you're non-compliant, we just said 90 days from the effective date of whatever ordinance or if an ordinance is approved. So, they'll need to, they'll have 90 days to come into compliance. We've added sections within this section that are currently permitted through Plan Approval, Special Permit, or Use Permit. So, what that means is there are certain things that you are required to receive. Let's say you want to do a restaurant. A restaurant is not permitted. You have to get a Special Permit. So, we have certain uses that are listed in there that you can do with agricultural tourism, but you need a Special Permit. Overnight accommodations is one that always seems to come up. The Plan Approval comes up because some of these are located within commercial industrial zoning and instead of a Special Permit or a Use Permit, it would go to Plan Approval. We've added in the addition of the registration but only one time and if we feel there's a need, we can ask for the additional information. We're not asking them, each one of them, to submit. In our conversations with other agencies, we heard that dealing with financial records was very, very difficult, and so it's something we shouldn't try to take on, because I don't think any of us are experts, you know, on tax forms or finances or anything. We've added a section for the Director to conduct, the similar section as proposed where they can conduct site inspections without prior notice. We get a complaint, we go out. We take a look at it. And, lastly, we've added in a section. We've toned it down a bit the way that it was in Bill 227, Draft 2 is that they were being specific, but both HRS and our County Code have specific requirements for enforcement, so depending on where it occurs and what property, we need to look at what sections of enforcement would apply. Anyway, that concludes our presentation. Hopefully, we've answered all your questions, but I stand ready to answer if you have any. HENKEL: Jeff, I have a question. The way I understand it, the $10,000 revenue threshold has been eliminated for the ag income. DARROW: Right. 7 EXHIBIT C HENKEL: What about, does the ag income still have to exceed the ag tourism income? DARROW: Yes. HENKEL: What if the agI mean, I can think of an instance. What if you were running a nursery that produces native species for reforestation where it was kind of a non-profit entity? DARROW: Iif that's an agricultural tourism operation and they're coming to see the nursery as being the agricultural working farm or whatever you want to call it, that would, the nursery would exceed the agricultural tourism aspect of it. So, you wouldn't count that as the agricultural tourism. A good example of that is currently in our Code. They allow for agricultural processing facilities to be the primary agricultural activity, and then the visitors would be accessory to that. So, even the processing facility would be considered part of the agricultural gross revenue. So, that would be similar in that case I would think. But, I don't recall ever, I mean again, we've only had two operations come in. HENKEL: In any case, the worse scenario would be that someone would have to get a Special Use Permit if they deviated from it. DARROW: Yeah. Yeah, if they don't, if there's any question, and what will be happening is that one of our divisions will be reviewing that regis—that registration form. If they feel that they've exceeded the limits that are allowed under the, if this gets passed, then they will be asked to come in for a Special Permit or a Use Permit. HENKEL: Does anyone else have any questions for staff? CLARKSON: Yeah, what was the one complaint about? DARROW: This was a, believe it or not, it was, I won't mention the name, but it was a coffee farm, and it was being conducted in a residential zoning, and it was kind of well known. It was actually on, like they did TV shows on it and what was happening was buses and everything were coming up to the property and so it was basically the impacts that were being generated in the residential zoning of the activities that were occurring. Before I conclude, I wanted to mention, too, that we did receive a letter from Cory Harden after the Background and Recommendation were distributed to the Commission. Additionally, this morning, just for further clarification, it can be difficult to read the Ramseyer's version, so what I have done is passed out one of the current Code sections having to do with the definitions, Plan Approval, and agricultural tourism, as well as the Planning Director's proposal alternative language, so you can kind of compare them with each other and be able to see the differences. It's a little easier than trying to do it with the Ramseyer version. Anyway, thank you. EXHIBIT C HENKEL: Thank you, Jeff Now, being at County Council, they're the initiator, there's no one here representing them to, so we'll move right on to the, into the public testimony portion if no one else has any questions for Jeff Darrow. Okay, we have one person signed up. Cory Harden, would you come up, please? And, would you raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? HARDEN: Yes. HENKEL: Thank you. You have I'll give you a little more time. You're the only one, and I noticed that the thing you submitted was a little bit lengthy so five minutes? Is that enough? HARDEN: I don't, I don't talk that much, so, anyway, so, do want to first thank you folks for your service on the Commission. And, I'm speaking for Sierra Club, Moku Loa Group, and we support agricultural tourism, but we really would like to see it encouraging agriculture more than tourism. You also want to see neighbors' interest protected, and health and safety protected. So, much of what I said about Bill 227 also applies to the current situation, and I'll just go through some highlights. You guys already have enough to read on this thing. And, since, the other counties haven't done any ag tourism regulations yet, whatever we do here may set a precedence for the other counties, so I'm glad that people are really taking time to think about it. So, just kind of some highlights. I looked at a checklist and it said, have people thought about if staff have a way to contact other staff on a large property in case of some emergency with visitors coming on who don't really know how to act on a farm. Are guests told not to eat produce that hasn't been washed, because they might not know anything about rat lungworm disease? If there's a whole lot of guests coming, are there people out directing traffic? Like, sometimes, there's annual events where a lot of people come and what happens with the traffic. Road access can be a problem if you have some of these, you know, gravel roads out in Puna someplace that are barely hanging together. And, then you have buses and vans and a lot of visitors coming that can put wear and tear on the road, and then the neighborhood association goes hey, you put all this wear and tear. Then, there's a disagreement about who actually put the wear and tear on, who has to repair it. So, we're saying, no private road access unless the agriculture operations only entire road, or they have an easement for the ag tourism operation on the road. Other events we'd like to see not allowed are musical events, dances, mechanical amusement rides, dirt bikes, all -terrain vehicles and other off-road motor vehicles, and hunting with guns. Perhaps hunting without guns would be okay, but, you know, you got the noise and so forth. 9 EXHIBIT C If the County does not approve in 60 days, we'd like to see automatic denial, not automatic approval. It's too easy to get bad projects through if the County Planning doesn't have time to look at it. We'd like to see fees and fines that are enough to fund enforcement `cause the Planning Department, is always, you know, has difficulty with enough resources to handle all the stuff they are asked to handle. We'd also like to see limited number and size of ag tourism operations in each neighborhood so a neighbor doesn't get overwhelmed with a lot or a huge operation. The noise from the ag tourism should not go pass the property line. Animals should be kept safely and humanely and confined so it's safe so they can't get out and hurt anybody. We're also concerned about neighbors' property taxes going up `cause you have the ag tourism, the land's more valuable and the surrounding property there, the value in taxes go up. And, we would like to see a way to avoid a rise in farmland prices if the ag tourism people are buying up a lot of land. And, we'd like to see the operator of the ag tourism business be the owner, operator, or occupant of the farm, not have people from far away making decisions. So, okay, you've got plenty to read and think about, so thank you. HENKEL: Thank you, Cory. Are there any questions for the testifier from the Commission? Thank you. You may be seated. Is there anybody else that would like to testify? If so, sign up. Okay, then, we can look for a motion to close public testimony. IKEDA: Move to close public testimony. MIYASATO: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Ikeda and seconded by Commissioner Miyasato to close public testimony. All in favor say aye. COMMISSIONERS: Aye. HENKEL: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. Any discussion? II feel that, you know, the future of agriculture on the Big Island is important, and it is going to grow. It's bound to grow as shipping costs increase and so forth. We, you know, we've got all this ag land. And, I look at ag tourism as a way to kind of stimulate the growth of agriculture, but I, I like what Council and the Planning Director are trying to do to simplify it, and I'd like to see it as an entrepreneurial opportunity for smaller individuals to make a living in tourism that relates to what we're doing. But, I also see the need to make it safe. So, that's all II like the idea that Cory brought up about a 60 -day automatic denial. Is that something we can add as a recommendation if we decide that we like that? DARROW: Maybe if you can expound 60 -day automatic denial on? 10 EXHIBIT C HENKEL: If the, if the Council, I guess is it—Cory pointed out that right now, if the Council doesn't act on an introduced bill within 60 days, it's automatically approved? DARROW: I'mI have no idea. HENKEL: Do you—can you help me out, Malia? DARROW: I don't think that— HO: Yeah, that's a, we can't really change that. Those are Council rules, but yeah, they have, basically if they don't act, but they also are very aware of like if they don't act on approvingI think this is for the bill, though. I don't know if this would beI didn't, haven't read the, if this would be actually in 227 or not. HENKEL: Daryn? ARAI: I'm not sure, but normally on Council initiated bills, when the Commission has, the Director has a 120 days in order to bring the matter, offer his recommendation or her recommendation to the Planning Commission which then conducts the hearing. Once the hearing is held, I think they had 60 days if I remember correctly to make its recommendation so we need to check our rules, but I think that's how it was structured. We do have certain time limits in which to act and make a response back to the County Council. We cannot simply drag it on. So, we can verify the actual days, but there was—but as it stands right now, you're in good standing obviously, but if there's any reason to that you think you're going to ask for a continuance of this particular matter, then we'll need to double check to make sure you operated within those prescribed timeframes. HENKEL: Okay, and for clarification, we're looking for a favorable recommendation or an unfavorable recommendation for the Council, and the Planning Director has recommended against, unfavorable. DARROW: Correct. And, again, with that unfavorable recommendation, we are forwarding alternative language, suggestive language that they could consider. HENKEL: Thank you. Yes? CLARKSON: I have a question. Considering that there's been so little interaction but so few complaints, so few applications, where is the motivation for changing the original ordinance coming from? And, I mean, even a speculation as to, you know, why it's happening. Is this just a language clean up? Is this somebody on the Council has got concerns? If so, what are they? DARROW: Well, this particular bill was initiated by Council Member Margaret Wille, and as far as her, I mean, in testimony, she had said that her goal was to simplify the process to make the permitting process easier for current agricultural operations to comply with because, as mentioned, because only two have come in, that means the remainder of them are actually non - 11 EXHIBIT C compliant with the current Code. So, that's, I believe the goal is to make it so that it's an easier process and to achieve compliance. HENKEL: Any more comments? Then, I'll look for a motion to action. I'm sorry, did I close public testimony? Did we close? Okay. Sorry. MIYASATO: Chair, I'll make a motion. You know, I agree with a lot of your comments, and I'll make a motion. I move that an unfavorable recommendation be forward to the County Council on Bill 227, Draft 2 based on the Planning Director's recommendations that Bill 227, Draft 2 needs further clarification and changes and proposed alternative language which shall be adopted. IKEDA: Second. HENKEL: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato; seconded by Commissioner Ikeda for an unfavorable recommendation. Would you do a roll call vote? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that, we'll take the roll call. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Clarkson? CLARKSON: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman. HENKEL: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes five to zero. The discussion ended at 11:15 a.m. Respectfully submitted, 12 EXHIBIT C Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 13 EXHIBIT C