Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-01-04 Hearing Transcript - Celestial Sanctum SPP 17-192WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 4, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CELESTIAL SANCTUM (SPP 17-000192) was called to order at 9:52 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joe Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz, Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, and Thomas Raffipiy. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 12 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CELESTIAL SANCTUM 501(C)3 (SPP 17-000192) Continued hearing for an application for a Special Permit to allow the development of a lodge and wellness retreat center, including healing workshops, wellness classes, yoga classes, a certified kitchen, and overnight accommodations for up to 21 guests on an approximately 3.926 - acre portion of a larger 25 -acre parcel of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The subject property is located at 18-4271 Luna Ikena Road, approximately 1.3 miles west (mauka) of its intersection with Volcano Road (Highway 11), Por. of Ola`a, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-8-010: Por. 105. CLARKSON: The next item on the agenda is the application from Celestial Sanctum which was continued from the November meeting. You're going to make a presentation on this? KAY: Yes, Mr. Chair, thank you, and good morning, Members of the Commission. Pleasure to see you in this New Year. All right, as the Chair said, this is a continuation of our hearing that we had in November. The Applicant is Celestial Sanctum, and the application is for a Special Permit. Just to kind of reorient folks to the subject parcel, it's located in the Puna District of Hawaii Island; more specifically, in the kind of between Glenwood and Volcano area. Here we have Volcano Road running generally north -south through the slide, and Luna Ikena Road running generally east -west. The subject parcel is here outlined in red. It's a 25 -acre parcel of which the Applicant is requesting a 3.926 -acre permit area. So, since the last meeting, there was some activity that's been taking place. Like we said, pardon me, the November 2nd, 2017, the Leeward, pardon me, Windward Planning Commission voted to EXHIBIT C continue the hearing for the subject application to provide the Applicant time to meet with all of the surrounding community here and understand their concerns with the proposed project and try to work out a plan to address those concerns. The Applicant contacted all of the lot owners along Luna Ikena Road via a letter, an email, to invite them to a December 17th community meeting regarding the project. Seven lot owners and two observers attended the meeting along with the Applicant and his representative, Zendo Kern. According to the Applicant, the participants articulated the following concerns with the project: the location of the project, commercial development in an agricultural community, impact of increased traffic, unwanted visitors and trespassing, road maintenance issues, and lack of communication by the Applicant. Based on their requests of the meeting, the Applicant proposed amendments to their requests reducing the overall scope of the retreat operation. I'll go through the rest of the presentation relatively quickly. It's the one you saw back in November, but there are a few Commissioners who weren't here then. In the next slides, we'll talk about the request, but I've basically amended the request to show what they're now requesting in red. So, the Applicant is requesting a Special Permit to allow the development of a lodge and wellness retreat center including healing workshops, wellness classes, yoga classes, a certified kitchen, and overnight accommodations for up to ten guests on approximately a 3.926 -acre portion of a larger 25 -acre parcel of land. The Applicant plans to convert an existing five -bedroom, five -full bath, two half -bath, 3,880 - square foot single-family dwelling into the main area for the lodge and retreat center use. In addition, the Applicant plans to convert a portion of the garage and the existing dwelling into two additional bedrooms, down from four, totaling seven bedrooms within the existing dwelling. The Applicant will occupy one bedroom, and the remainder will be available for guests. The Applicant is also proposing to build a 600 -square foot yoga pavilion adjacent to the existing dwelling. Originally, they are proposing to build six additional detached bedrooms, but decided to take that out in their amended request. The Applicant is proposing to offer 13 retreats a year for approximately five to seven days per retreat. According to the Applicant, the facility will not be available to non -retreat guests while a retreat is in session. During the periods when retreats are not being conducted, the Applicant is proposing to offer their lodge to the public for overnight accommodations for up to ten guests, again, down from the original request of 21. The Applicant will provide six on-site parking stalls to accommodate guests, including one ADA compliant parking stall, and the Applicant is proposing to construct several greenhouses to grown organic food for their guests, and to that end, develop a certified kitchen to provide meal service to guests. The operation of classes and workshops will be offered between 7 a.m. and 6 p.m. Non -retreat guests are required to check in at 4 p.m. and check out at 11 a.m. As the lodge and retreat center EXHIBIT C 2 are fully built out, the Applicant plans to hire up to one additional employee down from the originally requested ten additional employees. The reason for the request is in October of 2016, the owners purchased the subject property with the intention to create a wellness retreat center. They decided to purchase the property after searching Hawaii Island for many months trying to find the right type of location and environment for their center. Both have a history of working in the spiritual, health, and healing arenas and have experience operating a similar retreat center previously in California. The Applicants feel that the property's pristine beauty and relative seclusion make this the ideal location for a wellness retreat center. They relocated to Hawaii in 2016 and are currently living on the property and operating the facility as a 4 -bedroom transient vacation rental currently. The zoning for the subject parcel and surrounding parcels is Agricultural – 5 acres as indicated in green. The State Land Use boundary designation for the subject property and surrounding properties is Agricultural. Our General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designates the subject parcel and surrounding parcels as Extensive Agriculture. Here are some aerial photographs of the subject parcel. Here on the left we've got the entire 25 - acre parcel outlined in red, and it's difficult to see here, but in the yellow -dashed line would be generally the permit area here. On the right-hand side, we've zoomed that in quite a bit. We got Luna Ikena Road running generally north -south through the slide. Here's the existing dwelling, and the, again, the permit area outlined in this yellow -dashed area. My understanding based on the Applicant's site plan is the yoga pavilion area would be generally located to the south of the subject—pardon me, the dwelling. Here's the Applicant's amended site plan. On the left-hand side again, you'll see the entire parcel outlined with the existing single-family dwelling here. Again, originally, they proposed six additional bedrooms and a gazebo area, but now they're proposing to delete that off of the, off of the request. Again, changes in the number of parking spaces as well, and on the right-hand side you see here, it's just zoomed in a little bit. The additional bedrooms will be, that are proposed, will be built in the current garage area. Again, four—from four down to two. Here are some site photos of the subject property. Here's a view of the existing dwelling. From Luna Ikena Road, here's a view of the area where the pardon me, I forgot to take out the attached bedrooms and gazebo are gonna be generally—this is going to be where the yoga pavilion will be built. And, here's a view of the driveway from Luna Ikena Road. Again, just for clarity, they are no longer proposing constructing detached bedrooms and a gazebo. Here's some photos of the access. Here's the intersection of Highway 11 and Luna Ikena Road in the upper left. And, here's some views of Luna Ikena Road generally just showing the condition and width. So, just for clarity sake, some of the testimony that we received in opposition talked about the widening of the road and the impacts of the widening of the road. Even though the Applicant is proposing a lower number of possible guests, the conditions for improvements at the intersection will not change nor will the conditions for the improvements of the road or maintenance of the road from the Fire Department change. So, that's—that along with everything else will stay the same relative to the request and the conditions. EXHIBIT C 3 Based on all of this and the reduction of the scope of the retreat facility, the Director is recommending to maintain his approval recommendation with conditions. The conditions on the yellow sheet, the summary of changes, just show the changes to the number of guests and some of the requirements based on the now amended request, and, those changes are, you know, where we deleted something or struck through, where we added something or underlined in the conditions. And, we did receive one additional letter, comment letter yesterday from Derek Awong, Sr. and that was emailed to you and passed out as well to you this morning. With that, I'm happy to answer any questions the Commission may have. CLARKSON: Any questions from the Commission for staff? KAY: Yes. CLARKSON: I have a question. KAY: Sure. CLARKSON: Has there been any provision to separate the permit area from the remainder of the property to prohibit guests from using or accessing the larger parcel? To your knowledge? Like a fence or some. KAY: Not that I'm aware of. I could maybe let the Applicant speak to that. I mean ultimately there's a condition here that said it will be developed generally consistent with what's being proposed, so if they're proposing that smaller area, then that's what they would be kind of limited to on the property. Given that, you know, it's a 25 -acre parcel and if it's 15 acres, under 15 acres and it's a County Special Permit, so, if it goes beyond that, then they'd have to go State, but in this case, it's a much smaller area that they're proposing to use for the retreat facility use. CLARKSON: So, my question, my further question would be then in cases like this where the parcel is considerably larger than the 15 -acre maximum, if were requiring a Land Use Commission approval, how is this—how is the use of the smaller acreage enforced? KAY: That's something that I think we leave up to the Applicant, and if there's a complaint that comes in for using a larger portion, then we would investigate that and take up appropriate action. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Okay, thank you, Christian. KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: Will the Applicant or their representative come forward? KERN: Good morning. EXHIBIT C 4 CLARKSON: I'm going to swear you both in again. KERN: Sure. Just raise your right hand. [Talking to Ms. Freeman.] CLARKSON: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission? KERN: Yes. FREEMAN: Yes. CLARKSON: Thank you. Please KERN: —Good morning, again, Mr. Chair, Members of the Planning Commission. I have Katy Joy Freeman here, one of the co -applicants here. So, we had the beginning conversation of this on the last meeting and it was asked that we, you know, talk story with the community as things were coming through, and so we did that. We sat down. I did mail out, as Christian had mentioned, I had mailed out notification to every lot owner on Luna Ikena Road. So even those outside of the required area to give notice. So, basically, I took everybody on that, found their address, tmks, and mailed everybody a notification saying we're going to have a meeting—time, date, location, as well as I sent out an email for everybody we had on the list as well as any other property owners that were on the notice to surrounding property owner list that were maybe outside of Luna Ikena Road. So, everybody and then some got that. And, we had a meeting, and as Christian had mentioned, two of the lot owners were able to participate. We had—the Awong's were present, Mr. and Mrs. Freitas were present, Ms. Pa was present, and Ms. Tanaka was present. The meeting was, had its challenging moments partly due to arguments about just the existing road and that arena outside of what we were talking about. Through the meeting, discussions were brought up as Christian had mentioned, about the concerns that were there and what not, and after a little while, it felt like we had gotten to a good place. Mr. and Mrs. Freitas decided to leave. They got there was a bit of a, kind of a heated argument—not to do with the application, but to do with one of the other property owners present there and the actual current road situation. Just the road situation that they have. They have a road association, and there's some tension within that. So, they left, and Mr. Freitas did mention before he left that he said he didn't want anything to happen, period. So, I wanted to make sure that we're representing everybody fairly. Part way through, there was conflict, conflict if you will, and one of the other property owners that was there decided to leave, too, and then after that, we got into more discussion and clarification was made. For example, Ms. Pa was there, and she was concerned about the commercial kitchen and that it being a restaurant. So, we made sure that it wasn't a restaurant, that it would just be used to serve the guests that were there. Wouldn't be open to the public, and that nothing would be open to the outside public except for what, you know, having the guests come in. So, she was okay with that. EXHIBIT C 5 And, then also, I got a call from Mr. Luis Centeno, and he's in California, and he basically said that he would confer with the majority of the other lot owners. He didn't have a problem with it. He said, "I'll just confirm with whoever else was there." And, then through that, we were talking about the issues that were there such as the road, the development, etcetera, etcetera, and Mr. Cabados said towards part way through the meeting, said, "Well, how would everybody feel if I lowered that number down to ten guests and take away pretty much any additional development." So, nothing built outside of the existing home. So, we talked about just adding two bedrooms in the existing home. There's a really large downstairs area that would afford two bedrooms easily. So, it'd keep any development to the existing structure that's already there minus the yoga pavilion which will be an open pavilion kinda like an ag structure. And, so, understanding that he would have to bring the road up to standard and maintain the road as well as do the improvements onto the State highway there. And, after that was done, everybody that was left in the meeting agreed that that sounded reasonable, that that sounded, you know, decent. And, so, we ended up closing out the meeting and that's, so and then I drafted up the proposed changes and sent those off as well as the narrative of the meeting. And, so, we really did try our best to find, you know, a compromise with everybody and to appease everybody, so, like I said, the number of guests has dropped down drastically. Still the same kind of working condihaving, you know, 13 retreats a year, having the overnight accommodations. All those stay the same, and the burden is still upon the Applicant to make those improvements to the road. As you can see, the road does need improvements which will then end up being, you know, 20 -foot wide. That would meet with the Department of Fire. You'd have to maintain those, as well as the State highway, coming off the State highway there. You would have to widen that and basically do an apron. Kind of like what you normally see coming out the State highway with a radius and, you know, two little striped lines going up there a little bit, and he'd also have to put in a streetlight. Not a stop light, which is a light to illuminate the intersection. And, so, the Applicant is still okay with that. I think that pretty much handles the basics of what went down. I'd just like a brief moment to turn the microphone over to Mrs. Freeman just to, so she can just give a part of—for you, yeah, go ahead. FREEMAN: Good morning. Happy New Year and me ke aloha pumehana. I thank you for giving me a couple moments to share from my heart. It is a gift to be here and to have your time, and I am very sad this morning. I'm just reading this letter for the first time, and I feel that there are some gross misunderstandings. We originally talked with Zendo before we moved to the Big Island so that we could have some help in or communication and being able to understand any challenges that might come our way as we pursue some things that are very important to us. I have dedicated my life to helping the well-being of other people. That is what Ieverything I do is about bringing more well-being, so it's very sad to me that the Awong's have felt burdened in any way and stressed. I am sorry about that, and I think that there's been unfortunately some misunderstanding in style of communication. I was not able to be present at the community meeting. My husband was there with Zendo, again, who we have asked to help represent us in EXHIBIT C 6 communication, and my husband and I have learned over the years that we seek first to understand before we try and be understood. And, my husband is quieter in nature when he's trying to understand what's going on. His feedback to me was that he felt a bit attacked, and he was trying to be quiet to really soak in what was happening, and unfortunately through the letter, I see that that was misinterpreted as a stoic, hardnosed man who doesn't care. My husband has the biggest heart in the world. We are not out for a business venture. We are here for the aloha spirit, to live out the rest of our life on the island to bring well-being to anyone that we meet. We only have intentions to enhance our environment, and we're working as best as we can with the help of Zendo—thank you, Zendo—to open up communication to compromise. You know, again, everyone's got different styles of how we do things. We really want to promote a sense of peace and harmony on our hill, and in the community. So, to say that we have not been, we're not interested in the Hawaiian culture and the community, I, you know, I can't convince anyone of anything. I just know my intentions in my heart and my actions will speak, you know, for themselves. But, we are grateful to be here, and we are humbled to be on this island. I have the deepest respect for what happens here and for all of the neighbors. So, thank you for letting me speak. I wish you the best year ever and, again, thank you to Zendo for helping us open things up. KERN: Sure. Thank you, Katy. Yeah, so, thank you very much for that. On that note, just kind of took a list of the property owners that were there and so far, out of so there's 12 lots on Luna Ikena Road. We tried to contact, we did contact everybody. We had one -two -three-four confirmed people that were in support of it, and we have two that are not. One is Mr. Freitas that decided to leave the meeting. During the meeting in the discussion with Mrs. Awong and Derek Awong, Jr., we thought we had come to an agreeable compromise with the reduction and guests as well as the reduction in development. So, that was where we were standing; thus, the representation and the letter that I had stated. But, clearly, through the testimony, there's still some concerns there, so, you know, they can address those when it's their time to speak. But, in the meantime, if there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. CLARKSON: Any questions from the Commission for the Applicants? IKEDA: Zendo, I noticed one of the complaints was that the—how, shall I say—the guests goes to the wrong homes. KERN: Yeah. IKEDA: Are you guys going to make some kind of correction or identification to let the people know where they are supposed to go? KERN: Yeah, we had offered two different options. Maybe one or both. One is, you know, detailed instructions to the guests when they're coming. You know, this would be emailed or mailed to them saying specifically where, you know, where it is and really saying don't bother the neighbors at all, as well as a sign. When it was brought up to potentially have some signage, you know along the road, there was—it wasn't necessarily, that wasn't necessarily taken the best just because people didn't want to see additional signs. So, yeah, the Applicant was more than EXHIBIT C 7 willing to basically do anything that they could do to eliminate that, that those issues so they could have a sign on their property, detailed instructions, and potentially even just one sign on the bottom that would say, you know, the location is this amount of distance up the road. Please do not, you know, go into any other neighbors'. So, yeah, it's, and the same thing we tried to do, you know, with the conditions as far as trying to make it quiet for the neighbors was to, we actually reduce the sound decibel level to a residential level instead of an ag level or commercial level which would be higher. So, we kept the sound decibel level down during the evening times and early morning times down to, you know, a residential level because basically, you know, trying to keep the lowest impact as possible. Both the Applicants, with my interactions dealing with them, they're very quiet, chill, mellow, low impact which, thus, you know, the yoga side of things. So, that's what, you know, we wish we could make the cars silent, but we cannot. So, yes, Mr. Ikeda, we're definitely be willing. If you had to put a condition in there, that would be fine. CLARKSON: Anymore questions? RAFFIPIY: I do have a question. Mr. Kern, after you made the modification, did you meet with all the landowners again and present, make the presentation to them to make the modification? KERN: What we did was at the meeting after the modifications were brought up and addressed and talked about, we talked about it there at the meeting with everybody that was present. Basically, you know, double, triple confirmed. So, we talked about reducing the numbers down to here, to down to ten, etcetera. And, then after that, I sent out a letter. Basically, I sent the same letter that I sent to the Planning Department notifying everybody to say hey the meeting was held and here's the changes that were made. Just so, you know, everybody that was present, everybody that wasn't present. And, since then, we didn't have another follow-up meeting from that. I didn't receive any calls to get into that any further. It was pretty much everybody had gotten that. So, it was done through that way, more of a notification that way. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. KERN: Thank you. CLARKSON: I have a question. So, you're operating now as a vacation rental, transient vacation rental, four bedrooms. So, would you describe the difference between what's happening now and what would happen if this application is, the permit is approved? How many more bedrooms? KERN: There would be two additional bedrooms. So, right now, right now, it's a five -bedroom home. CLARKSON: Right. KERN: The Applicants live in, stay in one of the bedrooms so there's four that are open. EXHIBIT C CLARKSON: Right. KERN: So, there would be, they propose to build two additional bedrooms downstairs so within the same structure. Thus, creating seven bedrooms in total. The Applicants occupy one and there's six bedrooms leftover. How it would differ now? And so right now, it's basically, you know, vacation rental style. You know, up to five guests. One, you know, one family. So, what would be different is they would be allowed to do the 13 retreats a year, which you'd have more, you know, yoga, workshops, more of a group type activity. They would also be allowed to have the commercial kitchen which would allow them to serve their guests, which is a little bit different than just a regular bed & breakfast where you can offer overnight accommodations for up to ten guests and serve them breakfast. They want the ability to serve, you know, breakfast, lunch, or dinner. That's the certified kitchen, and that would be again limited to their guests. So, the difference would be obviously allowableso, five more people, no more additional development, the certified kitchen, and allowing to do the 13 retreats per year with still only limiting that to ten, ten guests. And, again, they would still have the burden of, you know, making the improvements to bring the road up to par and what not. And, I did explain very well as far as the Special Permit area that everything has to stay within that Special Permit area. Thus, it was made maybe a little bit larger than it, you know, could have been just to give that, that buffer zone around there. So, that's pretty much how it would change. The conditions don't change, but the request has come down significantly. CLARKSON: And, how long has it been in operation as a vacation rental property? About a year? KERN: About a year. CLARKSON: Okay. Any other questions from the Commission? Okay, thank you. KERN: Thank you very much. CLARKSON: You have the KERN: We've read CLARKSON: —the Background and Recommendation. Has that been revised? KERN: Yes, and so to answer your forthcoming question, yes, the revised Recommendation and Background Report is acceptable by the Applicants. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. KERN: Thank you. EXHIBIT C 9 CLARKSON: We have two parties wishing to testify, Derek Awong, Jr. and Derek Awong, Sr. Would you both come up, please? Could you raise your right hands? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth in this matter before the Commission? AWONG (SR.): I do. AWONG (JR.): I do. CLARKSON: Either one may proceed. AWONG (JR.): Good morning. Just to be clear, I'm a hundred percent against the Special Permit being approved for this property. I think the Special Permit should be set up for special circumstances, say if Mr. Cabados was a farmer up there, and he had a hard time with his farm, and he needed to rent rooms out to make that work. Those types of things I would be a hundred percent okay with. If the thing they were running was a retreat center for youth, for underprivileged youth, I would be okay for. Right now, what I see it as is just a bed & breakfast up our street. When we went to the meeting with Zendo, he asked what we would be okay with, and I told him I would be okay with how it's running right now. Because as it runs right now, there's already been incidents with people driving onto other residents' properties and issues with the road. I didn't know what they were running now. I didn't know what they had approval for so my back and forth through Planning, I found out that they are allowed five guests there now, and they're allowed to serve breakfast through that transient accommodations. So, if they kept it at that, what the County allows now, then that would be fine. I don't, I rather it not be approved that they're allowed twice as many guests coming up and down the road. The road keeps getting brought up. The road as it sits right now is fine for what it's meant to be used for. It's an agricultural road. Everyone goes up and down. We go up and down it, trucks, trailers, excavator, tractor—no issues with the road. If the road widens, if it widens at the bottom—right now, when you drive pass it on the highway, you would never know what's up there. There's an old farm house there that's decayed. No one comes up our road. If there's a streetlight and the road is widened, smoothened out, it's like a beacon for people to turn up our road. Oh, what's up here? We live up there because we wanted it to be quiet. We wanted to live in an agricultural community. So, for that purpose, I would push that it's not approved, and they just be allowed to run as the County permits now. AWONG (SR.): Good morning, all. You've—everybody has my letter. I did want to make a part of my letter clear, and I'm pretty sure Zendo didn't hear it either, but Mr. Cabados while all this heated discussions were going on, just because I sat this close to him or a little farther, right under his breath, and I wrote it here, it says he made the comment to everybody, "Why don't you all just sell your lots and move out." Nobody heard it `cause everybody was going at it in their own discussions. So, that is when I left the meeting knowing this thing wasn't moving any EXHIBIT C 10 further. He's—that's why I took his attitude as being smug and being callous and not even concerning the community or the neighbors. I will, I want to make note that along with what my son said, Mr. Galdones, the Pas, the Freitas's, they're all adamant about nothing or a commercial development, lodging development, not take place in our subdivision. I spoke to them personally, not through letters, so what Zendo just said, the fourth party to this, the gentleman from California, I believe he lives out on the main highway, but from what I heard Zendo say, he would be in concurrence with the general consensus of our subdivision. And so, all I can say these people I actually spoke toI don't, I don't have, I don't want to belabor it, but I think my son made the points clear, and I do want to thank you for your consideration in preserving our ag zoning and preserving our country style which is what we all moved in there exactly for. Thank you. AWONG (JR.): In the beginning of the meeting when my father and Mr. Freitas were still in the community meeting that we had, the meeting started to get out of hand. My father told Mr. Cabados, well, he asked Mr. Cabados if he would speak for himself because no one wanted Zendo to speak for him. We wanted him to take questions, answer questions, concerns that we had, and he said no. That was where the friction started and that's what ended up blowing up when Mr. and Mrs. Freitas left and then my dad left. CLARKSON: Do we have any questions for the testifiers from the Commissioners? So, you've already indicated just as a clarification that you're somewhat okay at least with what they're doing now. Have you complained or made any complaints to the County about the existing situation? AWONG (JR.): I have not. CLARKSON: Okay. AWONG (SR.): I, like my son, I wasn't really aware of it. That's, you do what you want to do. I didn't know that they were operating until my wife told me. She researched it, saw it on-line, and so did Mrs. Pa, and Mrs. Pa made the statement at the meeting that there's a caveat in their, on their website. It says restaurant coming soon. So, if you're going to target your clientele, restaurant coming soon is telling the world, hey, we're gonna have a restaurant. I don't think it's limited to the, although they say it's going to be limited, I think the inference to everyone is hey there's a restaurant coming up, another restaurant in Volcano. That's how I took it. CLARKSON: Thank you. Any other questions? Thank you. You may be seated. AWONG (SR.): Thank you. AWONG (JR.): Thank you. CLARKSON: Is there—well, let's see if there are any other testimony from the audience? Mr. Kern, would you like to add something? EXHIBIT C 11 KERN: Thank you. Yeah, just real briefly. I don't want to get into the he said, she said part of it. We're all here representing the best that we can in trying to find a compromise, but I did want to say that Mr. Cabados sincerely apologized for his absence this morning. There was an emergency business situation that he had to take care of. Otherwise, he would be here, and I meant to say that at the beginning of the meeting, but I forgot, so I just wanted to say that. Otherwise, really just trying to find, you know, find a balance and find a compromise and put forward the best that the Applicants can do and with, you know, all due respect to the neighbors in just trying to make it work with everybody. So, with that, we humbly ask for your support, and I'm happy to answer any other questions that there may be. CLARKSON: If there are no further questions, I'd like to hear a motion for closing of public testimony at this time. HENKEL: I move that public testimony be closed. RAFFIPIY: I second. CLARKSON: Okay, it's been moved by Commissioner Henkel and seconded by Commissioner Raffipiy to close public testimony. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. So, at this time, we'll solicit a motion for action. Yeah, I just want to make sure, Commissioner Raffipiy, you've read the transcript and record from the November meeting? RAFFIPIY: Affirmative. Yes, sir, I did. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. MIYASATO: Chair, I'd just like to make some comments before anyone makes a motion, and you know, I'm sure that you have good intentions with this application. You know, a Special Permit is a privilege, yeah, and one of the conditions is that the desired use shall not adversely affect surrounding properties, and, you know, I appreciate you folks meeting and trying to compromise and come out with a win-win. That was the reason I made the motion for the continuance. And, you know, I also appreciate the fact that you did reduce the amount of guests and the development itself and to try and accommodate the neighboring community. You know, from the testimonies that we've received, every testimony that I've gone over is in opposition to this application, and after your proposal was made for the reduction, we didn'tI didn't receive any testimony in actual support of the change that was proposed, the reduction change. And, so because of that, I will not be supporting this amendment. HENKEL: Can I comment? CLARKSON: Commissioner Henkel? EXHIBIT C 12 HENKEL: I'd like to thank you folks for your eloquent testimony. You know, I'm thinking that most of the opposition, though, it comes from personalities and, you know, cultural differences and that neighbors could grow closer as they're there. The most significant concerns that I've seen are the traffic and the condition of the road, and I feel like the Applicants have done all they can to mitigate that. You know, they've reduced their footprint. I think that if the, if that 25 acres were used for a designated purpose, it could generate a lot more traffic, you know, with farm workers going in and out every day instead of like one week a month, which is, you know, about what they're proposing. You know, one retreat a month for ten people, that's, you know, thirteen retreats a year. That's about one a month. CLARKSON: It would be a continuous operation HENKEL: —But, a farm would do that daily with workers going in and out. I've worked ag. So, I mean, I feel like they're doing everything they can to mitigate it, and I would support it, and hope that you people can grow closer as neighbors. CLARKSON: Any further discussion from any other Commissioners? YEE: In November, I had commented about our current Code doesn't really address specifically enough yoga retreats and stuff Back years ago, you know, we couldn't anticipate the popularity of and, you know, yoga retreats, wellness centers, and even the short-term vacation rentals, which have, you know, severely impacted our communities. But, absent of having a specific Zoning Code that really addresses it specifically, we're left with having to deal with these Special Permits, and it's a struggle. I said that in November, and it continues to be, and that's where the Commission, you know, really has got to be careful about where we issue Special Permits. So, I appreciate the conversation, and we're trying to evolve it. We're going to put forth, you know, the County Council will put forth transient vacation rental, an ordinance, we'll propose that later this year. And, hopefully, someday, we address this specifically, but until that day comes, we're really left with trying to see when what's being proposed will adversely or not adversely affect the community, and I wish we had a crystal ball to really know what those impacts are, but we don't, and so, we try to take our best, you know, calculated, you know, guess at what the impacts will be. But, with that, we do have to listen to what we're hearing from community and others, and this is a road. It's not as if we're talking about a subdivision of a hundred lots. We're, you know, I think Zendo said, there was about twelve, and so, if we're hearing an overwhelming amount of input, one way or another we have to take that into consideration, so I just leave you with that. Thank you. MIYASATO: Director, you know with that said, if this application were to be denied and rules for retreats or something similar be adopted, would they be able to reapply at that time? YEE: Yes. The short of it is yes, but I'm not sure that day is coming real, real soon. MIYASATO: Okay. EXHIBIT C 13 CLARKSON: Any further discussion? We're going to have to vote on one motion or another. I'd like to hear a motion from someone on the Commission. Myles? MIYASATO: Well, if there's no further discussion, I move that the application to amend Special Permit Docket No. SPP 17-192 be denied based on the fact that this application would adversely affect the surrounding properties. CLARKSON: Is there a second? RAFFIPIY: I second. CLARKSON: It's been moved by Commissioner Miyasato and seconded by Commissioner Raffipiy to deny this application for a Special Permit. Would you call the role, please? KAY: Would you like further discussion on that or? CLARKSON: Well, if there is any. Any discussion on the motion itself? KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Miyasato? MIYASATO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela Cruz? DELA CRUZ: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Henkel? HENKEL: No. KAY: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Okay, the motion carries five to one. EXHIBIT C 14 MIYASATO: Chair, I move that the adoption of written findings and recommendations of the Commission be continued to the next scheduled meeting to allow time for staff to prepare the findings and recommendations consistent with the Commission's decision today. CLARKSON: Does this need to be a roll call vote? KAY: I don't believe so. CLARKSON: Is there a second? MIYASATO: I need a second. DELA CRUZ: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: As usual, you will be informed of the Commission's actions in writing. The discussion ended at 10:39 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT C 15