Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-03 Hearing Transcript - Bank of HI REZ 18-231WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 3, 2019 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of the BANK OF HAWAII (REZ 18-000231) was called to order at 9:03 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Joseph Clarkson, Donald Ikeda, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Donn Dela Cruz. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Alex Roy (Planner), Jessica Andrews (Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 18 members from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: BANK OF HAWAII (REZ 18-000231) Application for a Change of Zone from Single -Family Residential -10,000 square feet (RS -10) to a General Commercial -20,000 square feet (CG -20) zoning district for approximately 40,282 - square feet of land. The subject property is located at 1339 Kino`ole Street, at the northeast corner of its intersection with West Lanikaula Street, Waiakea Houselots, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: (3) 2-2-024:003. CLARKSON: With that, we'll proceed to the first item on the agenda which is a rezone application from Bank of Hawaii, and Christian Kay will be making a presentation to the Commission. KAY: Yes, good morning, Mr. Chair and Members of the Windward Planning Commission. Happy New Year—it's good to see your smiling faces in 2019. If I can turn your attention to the screen, as the Chair stated, this is an application for Change of Zone No. 18-000231, Applicant Bank of Hawaii. The subject parcel is located in the South Hilo District of Hawaii Island; more specifically, in the Waiakea Houselots area and is outlined here in red. It's located at the corner of Kino`ole Street and West Lanikaula Street. The Applicant is requesting a Change of Zone from a Single - Family Residential – 10,000 square feet, RS -10 to a General Commercial – 20,000 square feet, CG -20 zoning district, for 40,282 square feet of land in order to develop a new single -story, 7,500 -square foot office building to house banking functions at the site. The Applicant is proposing a 36 -stall parking lot including two handicapped stalls to accommodate customer and EXHIBIT A employee parking. The Applicant is also proposing a drive-through ATM along the northern boundary of the subject property. The Applicant stated reasons for the request is the proposed office building would provide the bank the option to either relocate some of its operations or to provide another branch in proximity to the University of Hawaii at Hilo and this area of the community. Project timetable and costs, the Applicant intends to finalize the construction plans and begin construction within the next year. The anticipated opening would be in 2020. The Applicant estimates the cost of this project at $2.5 million. County zoning for the subject parcel and much of the surrounding area is Single -Family Residential – 10,000 square feet as indicated in the yellow color. Again, for reference, we've got West Lanikaula Street running generally east -west through the slide, and Kino`ole Street running generally north -south. The subject parcel outlined here in black. There have been other rezones from Single -Family Residential to more commercial -type zonings as indicated in the various shades of red. There is some General Commercial –10,000 square feet and 20,000 square feet and some Neighborhood Commercial zoning as well in the area, as well as some Multi -Family Residential indicated in the brown colors. The Open zoning here is the DOFAW Arboretum. The State Land Use Boundary designation for the subject parcel and surrounding area is Urban as indicated in pink. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation for much of the surrounding area is High Density Urban which allows for this commercial -type rezoning again with Open pardon me, Open LUPAG designation synonymous with the arboretum indicated in green. Here's an aerial photograph of the subject parcel outlined in red. Again, we've got West Lanikaula Street running generally east -west and Kino`ole running north -south. Got Kilauea Avenue here at the top right of the slide. This is a lunch shop plaza essentially with Subway and other lunch shops. The subject parcel currently has four single-family dwellings on the property. The Applicant has stated that those will be removed from the property to facilitate this project. Here's the Applicant's submitted site plan. We've got Kino`ole Street running here north -south through the left side of the slide and West Lanikaula Street running at the bottom of the slide east -west. The Applicant is proposing two accesses both each—one each from Lanikaula and from Kino`ole. Here's the Bank of Hawaii office building, the parking lot and, again, the proposed drive-through ATM at the northern boundary of the parcel. Here's a view of the property from across Kino`ole Street with the subject parcel here on the corner. A view of the property from across Lanikaula Street with the subject property here, the four existing dwellings here indicating the property. Here's a view of Kino`ole Street looking south. The subject parcel is on the left-hand side; if you're looking north, the subject parcel on the right-hand side. And, a view of West Lanikaula EXHIBIT A 2 Street looking east again with the subject parcel here on the left, and a view of West Lanikaula Street looking west with the subject parcel on the right. We are proposing adding a condition. This is something that when we initially accepted the application, we spoke with the Applicant. There are actually three lots of record that are within the subject parcel. There were some concerns about building across those lot lines so as we spoke with the Applicant, and it was agreed upon at the beginning, we're going to add a condition to require consolidation of these three parcels into one, three lots into one parcel prior to receipt of Final Plan Approval. Also, you would have received today a proposed amendment to Condition G, which is the condition that indicates limiting access from West Lanikaula Street to right -in, right -out. Department of Public Works, Traffic Division had some concerns over traffic backing up making a left-hand turn into the bank property from Lanikaula and backing up into the Lanikaula- Kino`ole intersection at certain times of the day. At any rate, the Planning Director is recommending that we forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council for Change of Zone Application No. 18-000231 with the additional Condition C added. I'd be happy to answer any questions that the Commission may have. CLARKSON: Yes, are there any questions for staff from the Commission? RAFFIPIY: Question, so with adding on Condition C and say we're re -lettering the remaining conditions? KAY: Correct. RAFFIPIY: So, everything's going to be all changed. KAY: Correct, and the other thing, the brief paragraph above the proposed condition, we would also add into an amended recommendation report just so there is that history and connection, but, yeah, that's correct. Everything else would be re -lettered throughout the rest of the conditions. RAFFIPIY: All right, thank you. KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: I just have a little question about the narrow piece of property. KAY: Yes. CLARKSON: It kind of looks like a right-of-way or a road. Has it been determined that no other party has any interest in that real estate? KAY: I'm going toI believe that's the case, but I'm going to let the Applicant address that. EXHIBIT A 3 CLARKSON: Okay. If there are no further questions, will the Applicant or their representative please come forward? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Commission today? FUKE/PACKARD: I do. CLARKSON: Please use the microphone when you speak. Please introduce yourself and who you're representing or in what capacity you're representing the Applicant and proceed. FUKE: Sure. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant. I'm here representing the Applicant. With me today also are the Applicants, Ms. Natalie Fogel and Keene Fujinaka both with the Bank of Hawaii. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street. PACKARD: Aloha, my name is Mike Packard. I'm a traffic engineer with SSFM. I'm here representing Bank of Hawaii. FUKE: Mr. Chair, before I start, could I ask the staff to go back again and show the I guess the Google Earth picture of the property which shows the subject property in relation to, all the way down to, I think you had it down to Kilauea? KAY: Yes, sir. FUKE: Thank you. Mr. Chairman, the Applicant has had a chance to review the staff's report, and as always, the staff's report is comprehensive, and there's no additions or corrections to them. As far as the proposed conditions and also the condition that was articulated this morning, the Applicant has no issues with all of those conditions, you know, with the exception of one, and that's the reason why I had requested the staff to direct your attention to what's on the screen there. What we would like to propose is to have and which is before you, is to give the Applicant the ability to have full movement access along Lanikaula Street at least for a one-year period because that's the reason why I had Mr. Packard coming up here in case there are specific questions dealing with the traffic study. But, his study basically had concluded that there really would not be any significant impact to the Lanikaula-Kino`ole Street intersection, you know, by allowing left -turn movement. On the other hand, both the Department and the Traffic Division, you know, said that well, maybe not so, but although there is no substantiated studies along that line. So, what the Applicant would like to propose is that to provide an opportunity for them to have full movement access along Lanikaula Street, you know, within a year's period, just for a trial run, and should at that point in time after a year or for that matter, two or three years down the road, that Public Works, Traffic Division, determine that, no, you have to make some changes to that area and then you have to limit that access point to just one way in and one way out, then it becomes incumbent upon the Applicant to so make the change within the six-month period. And, that's essentially what we're EXHIBIT A 4 proposing here as the proposed language, and, you know, we respectfully request your consideration, you know, on that. Just prior to coming up over here, I was talking to Mr. Packard about how possibly this can be accommodated, and he did have like a possible solution, but which hasn't been vetted with the Traffic Division, but that's the reason why I wanted to put that screen up, so—Mike? PACKARD: The primary concern that was relayed to us was that left -turning vehicles on Lanikaula would delay the potential for through -travelling vehicles to continue and that theoretically would back up through the signalized intersection. So, the way we achieve the relief from that typically at an intersection is to provide a dedicated left -turn lane. Well, if you look at the aerial as it is today, you can see how the left -turn lane has been, for the signal has been delineated this way. And, as you get further back towards Kilauea, you have a hatch median over here. So, it shows that the width of the road retained is the same width throughout. So, instead of having the left -turn lane start at this location, the taper could be a lot shorter, and you could actually delineate the road for three lanes with a center either two-way left turn lane or just have a very short left -turn lane which would allow those left -turning vehicles to get out of the throughput way and not have to back up into the intersection. The amount of traffic that's projected to go to the bank is fairly low. All it takes is one vehicle to cause that delay and back up into the intersection, and so that's why I thought just the shortest storage lane would allow for vehicles to provide that relief and continue operations. It's something very common and that's been done in Hilo, and so it's something that I thought would be appropriate for consideration here. FUKE: So, essentially, what would happen would be similar to—wait, where's the button, oh, I'm sorry, oops, oh okay. [Mr. Fuke was using the laser pointer on the presentation screen.] So, it would be similar to this shopping complex. As you can see, there is kind of like currently right now, there's like left -turn allowance over here, and then it kind of like follows through over here. So, that same kind of concept over here would also be applied over here. And, so that's what the Applicant is basically requesting to at least give them a chance to institute that at their cost, and after a one-year period or even beyond, should Public Works determine sorry, it's just not working, then it becomes incumbent on the part of the Applicant to make all of those changes at their cost. CLARKSON: I have a question. I don't quite understand. You want to leave the lining the way it is for one year? Or you want to put in the shorter third lane, the turn lane for one year? FUKE: It, the lane—the existing left -turn lane heading mauka on Lanikaula Street over here would have to be reduced a bit to allow for a dedicated left -turn lane, you know, into the site. So, all of this would have to be done pursuant to a plan that they're going to have to develop, run it by Traffic Division, they sign off on it, and then they implement it. EXHIBIT A 5 CLARKSON: Are there any questions about any of the Applicant's presentation by any other Commissioners? RAFFIPIY: Question. You were saying there are two proposals—one is to make that left -turn short and one is to create did you say create, that center lane, to make the left turn in all, in always? PACKARD: So, it could be one of two ways. You could, you could just concentrate just that the, at the, the one end and just delineate that one little left -turn lane. However, if you look at the stretch of the entire road, it has three lanes at the one intersection at the other. So, you could continue it throughout, which would allow for left -turns in and out throughout the entire stretch of road which there are other residential and commercial properties. So, they would all benefit from having that delineation. RAFFIPIY: Thank you, sir. CLARKSON: Any other questions? Does the Planning staff have any comment? YEE: What—Michael Yee, Planning Director. What's the opposition for folks travelling along Lanikaula and then making a left -turn on Kino`ole and then making a right turn into the property? They're still going to make a left turn. They just gotta make one additional right turn. PACKARD: Yeah, absolutely, and it's all about circulation and expected movements, and your hope is that the majority of people that would come to the bank would over time understand that and change their route. The issues become the unexpected person heading in that direction and then reaching this restriction, would the sign actually stop them from turning in or are they going to do it anyway, because people are creatures of habit and they do what they do. So, instead of trying to force things through signage, we were trying to find a way to alleviate that. But you're right. The turns are not any more difficult. RAFFIPIY: Question. What are your proposed hours of operation? FUJINAKA (from audience): Our proposed office hours are CLARKSON: Wait HALL: —You have to speak FUJINAKA (from audience): Oh, I'm sorry CLARKSON: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? FUJINAKA: I do. To answer the question, our proposed ours of operation are going to be similar to our current branches which are Monday through Friday—Monday through Thursday, 8:30 to 4; Friday 8:30 to 6. EXHIBIT A 6 CLARKSON: And you are? FUJINAKA: Oh, sorry. I didn't get the memo. My name is Keene Fujinaka. I'm the market manager here for East Hawaii at Bank of Hawaii. RAFFIPIY: Thank you. FUKE: I'm sorry, like um, I forgot to answer your question. So, the three parcels are all owned by the bank right now. CLARKSON: And, no one has easements over that FUKE: No CLARKSON: skinny parcel? FUKE: Correct. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. Any further questions? At this time then, thank you, gentlemen. We'll proceed to public testimony. We have two people signed up to testify on this matter. Will Dwight Vicente and Martin McGinn please come forward? Please raise your right hand. VICENTE: I'm going to object at this time to the swearing. My understanding is that each and every one of your took an oath to the U.S. Constitution, and your nationality is in question. CLARKSON: You can—do you swear to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? MCGINN: Yes. CLARKSON: Unsworn testimony maybe totally disregarded. Just as long as you understand that. Introduce yourself whoever would like to go first and please proceed with your testimony. VICENTE: My name is Dwight Vicente. I represent the Hawaiian Kingdom. The lands here are either under the 1840 Mahele—it's either Crown or government lands. The United States used the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 to apply the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 to this Kingdom as it did elsewhere around the world. And, that's why you have the TMK rather than the use of the Crown and government contracts, the land leases. And, you have, like in this case here, you have—or back to the treaty, the treaty was not signed by King Kalakaua nor was it signed by U.S. President Grant. It was signed by three individuals who could be pretty well called "The Three Stooges." Three American citizens who was not authorized by either the Hawaiian Kingdom or the United States Constitution to do a treaty. And, this is what brings us to this hearing today is because the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 has led us to this, this hearing. It was illegal back then. It's illegal now. The amendment to the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty is illegal. It EXHIBIT A 7 was for Pearl River or Pearl Harbor. What the United States tried to do with the treaty is to make this Kingdom a part of the Ohio River Valley under the Northwest Ordinance which is Article 5, and we are still not part of it. In the 1898, 1.8 million acres of the Republic of Hawaii gave to the United States, that was not under lease by the Hawaiian Kingdom. The 2.4 million acres were under lease. Under King Kalakaua, it's 25 years. And, you're going to notice that the, the guys that leased the lands all claim they own the lands. They did an adverse possession against the Hawaiian Kingdom. So, that's questionable whether these foreigners could be here because the Reciprocity Treaty was illegal to begin with, and all the other treaties of the other countries all ended in 18-1887, or should I say 97. The other point I want to make is the banks here are not chartered under the Hawaiian Kingdom, and the money used is not based on gold and silver. Its Federal Reserve notes which is "In God We Trust." Don't trust the money. So, the money is questionable. You are passing around fake money that's not authorized by the Hawaiian Kingdom nor under the U.S. Constitution. The U.S. Constitution recommends gold and silver. So, allowing these illegal developments to continue here and to prosper based on funny money is questionable. Usually, they use funny money when they're trying to take over another country. Like Vietnam and all these other countries, they did that, that scam. So, with that, I'll reserve the rights of this Kingdom under the Queen's Protest of January 17, 1893, against U.S. Minister Stevens, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2. It has yet to make its way to the U.S. Supreme Court, and the other one is the constitutionality of the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875 since the—King Kalakaua nor the U.S. President signed it. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you for your testimony. Next, please. MCGINN: My name is Martin McGinn, and I'm a property owner of the lot just to the north of the proposal, proposed lot, and I just want to talk about livability question with the proposed especially with the drive-through being right on the property, basically ten feet from our property, and so, there would be cars constantly going through the drive-through, and there is no privacy barrier included in the plans, and, you know, I just think if Bank of Hawaii is going to be a good neighbor, then they really need to build a wall, a privacy wall between the properties. Because, I mean, we have, there's going to be constant, there's going to be cars idling all day long basically. So, there's air pollution, there's noise pollution. So, if I'm in my garden, I'm going to be ten feet away from these cars that are idling, and, you know, there's going to be all kinds of vehicles, loud ones, people with their monster trucks. You name it, and basically, I realize that this is probably, this proposal is probably a forgone conclusion, but at least they should be a good neighbor and put up a privacy wall. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Any questions for either of the testifiers from the Commission? RAFFIPIY: I have a question, Mr. Chairman. What is a privacy wall? What kind of privacy wall? What do you have in mind? What kind of wall? EXHIBIT A MCGINN: I'm thinking of a rock wall— CLARKSON: Please speak into the microphone. MCGINN: Sorry. I'm thinking of a rock wall that would go all the way on the north side of the property, of their property, so that it would cut down on the air pollution and also the noise from the cars. You know, if you look at the proposal, that, that drive-through is right on the line. Right on the north line. CLARKSON: Thank you. Oh, another question. Go ahead, Commissioner Ikeda. IKEDA: No, not to this gentleman. I'd like to call Mr. Fuke up. CLARKSON: Okay, if there are no further questions for either of these testifiers, at this time, we'll have, there being no other— IKEDA: Mr. Clarkson, it's in regard to this gentleman's concern that I'm calling Mr. Fuke. CLARKSON: Thank you. At this time, the Chair will request a motion to close public testimony. REPLOGLE: Are we not going to want to hear from this gentleman again after we speak with Mr. Fuke? IKEDA: That's right, because I want KAY: If I may interject, Mr. Chair, this might help. There was discussion as part of the early notification of this application where Mr. McGinn and Mr. Fuke had some back and forth emails. Based on that, we did add as part of Condition B a requirement. It's the third line down. "As represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors or assigns shall install a privacy fence along the northern boundary of the property to mitigate adverse noise and visual impacts to adjacent properties." So, that has been added as a condition of approval. CLARKSON: Yeah, well, after public testimony, we'll want to query the Applicant on the nature of that fence. I certainly will. IKEDA: My concern is what they're proposing, is it, is the gentleman satisfied with the condition that they just stated? MCGINN: I'm sorry. I didn't understand. IKEDA: They made a condition that they had to put up some kind of a safeguard or privacy fence, and so, did you receive any information on that or? MCGINN: No, I didn't receive anything like that. EXHIBIT A 9 IKEDA: That's the reason I wanted to call Mr. Fuke up. CLARKSON: Okay. IKEDA: Because I wanted to see CLARKSON: Yes, we can do that after public testimony is closed. Is there a motion to close public testimony? IKEDA: Excuse me, Mr. Clarkson. I think if you close public testimony, we call up Mr. Fuke, I'm not sure we can get the gentleman back on to hear his concerns if it was satisfied, because I want to satisfy his condition. MCGINN: Thank you. CLARKSON: My understanding is that even after public testimony is closed IKEDA: —That we can call him back CLARKSON: we can call IKEDA: We cannot, right? Malia, we cannot, right [Ms. Hall shook her head "no. '] CLARKSON: Cannot talk to a member of the public? [Ms. Hall shook her head "no. '] IKEDA: Malia, we—that's right. And, that's my concern. CLARKSON: All right, I stand corrected. Please be seated, but those of you who are sworn in will remain sworn in, and at this time, I'd like to call the Applicant and their representatives forward. VICENTE: Dwight Vicente. I want to enter into the record the Reciprocity Treaty of 1875. CLARKSON: Please please do that with the staff at the front desk as written testimony. VICENTE: All right, thank you. CLARKSON: Please be seated for the time being. IKEDA: Mr. Fuke, you heard the gentleman, and I do support what he's saying, so I wanted to hear what you guys propose, and if it satisfies his conditions. EXHIBIT A 10 FUKE: Thank you very much, Commissioner Ikeda. Planning Department, ExhibitI think its 15 or 13 but, you know, reflects that email discussion between myself and Mr. McGinn, and I closed it by basically saying that they will be able to, you know, construct a fence or some sort of barrier in that area and that if Mr. McGinn had any further suggestions, to please contact me, but, you know, there has, aside from today, there have been no contacts. But, the preliminary thought was along these lines. Obviously, you cannot have a fence that exceeds six feet because that will mean that you have to have a setback requirement. So, the thought was to have like a standard fence, probably 5-1/2 foot high, and then you would have a stream of landscaping, probably some kind of cypress or things that kind of like it's narrow and it grows tall and such that it would provide that visual and noise barrier. It won't totally eliminate noise I must confess, but at least it will help modify or at least mitigate the concerns. So, that was the thought, and the staff had indicated earlier that there is a condition that requires such, requires that the Applicant address that in conjunction with the Plan Approval process, so, they would have to come up with a landscaping plan generally along the lines of what I was just sharing with you. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, can I call Mr. McGee [sic] up. I want to know what he, what he thinks about it. CLARKSON: Okay, you have a question for Mr. McGinn? IKEDA: Mr. McGee [sic], you heard the Applicant's statement. Do you agree with it? Do you have any more concerns about it? MCGINN: I guess I'd like to know what, excuse me, the type of fence it is and also just the construction of it and if it will, I guess if it's aesthetically pleasing. You know, I'm not sure what the intent was, and I think, I also wonder if it seems like it should be written in the plan rather than something that's just said, well, you know, it might be, you know, put in there, but I guess I'd like to see it in writing. IKEDA: Mr. Fuke, isn't it part of the conditions? FUKE: Yes, the condition right now reads, "privacy type fence and landscaping shall be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties" in accordance with the Planning Department's landscaping rules. So, the Planning Department, they have that obligation to look at not only Rule 17 relating to landscaping, but with this added restriction. The only thing I can suggest, Mr. McGinn, and the Applicant is here, is that during the course of the Applicant's architect preparing the appropriate plan, perhaps that can be, you know, you'd be in a position to review it, and I can't make that commitment, but Ms. Fogel can, right here, and she is nodding and affirmatively so. MCGINN: I guess I'd just like to know the height, you know. If it's six feet, is the max, I guess I'd like to see it six feet without having that other restriction coming into play. And, then, I guess, I would like to know the material of the preferably, you know, I've talked to the other EXHIBIT A 11 owners, too, and on the adjacent properties, and they would also like to have a rock wall because it's more in keeping with Hawaiian culture and aesthetics. CLARKSON: Any further questions? I have a question, Christian. Could you please display the site plan for the new facility? KAY: Sure. CLARKSON: I just want to check the traffic pattern along the—okay, so you have parking, entry, okay, thank you. My personal feeling is that both of those property lines should have an acoustic barrier of a masonry type wall of maximum height, and I sympathize, indeed, with being a neighbor next to a high -traffic area, and I'm going to hope that one of the Commissioners who makes the motion for action will make that part of their motion. Any further questions? Thank you both, gentlemen. At this time, the Chair will ask for a motion for action on this matter. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I'll CLARKSON: Oh, now we close public testimony, motion for closing public testimony. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I'll close public testimony. REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Public testimony is closed. Now, a motion for action, please. IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the application for Change of Zone, Docket No. REZ 18-000231 based on the Planning Director's recommendation which shall be adopted. Also, can we add in that, on that, is it Condition G where they were going to put the barrier between the property. Could it be a stone wall? KAY: That would be Condition B. IKEDA: B, yeah. KAY: Yeah, it's in the third line of Condition B. Right now, there are two places that read "privacy" or "privacy type fence" in that condition. IKEDA: Okay. EXHIBIT A 12 KAY: So, would you like to IKEDA: —amend it and put in, is it a rock wall? Stone? Is it a stone wall? MCGINN (from audience): It's rock IKEDA: Rock stone wall, whatever. KAY: So, it will read then, "As represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors or assigns shall install a stone wall" IKEDA: Yes KAY: "along the northern boundary of the property to mitigate adverse noise and visual impacts to adjacent properties." And, further down in the condition where it speaks to the landscaping, it says, "The privacy type fence and landscaping shall be indicated..." Shall I change that to "the stone wall and landscaping?" IKEDA: Yes, yeah. KAY: Okay. RAFFIPIY: I second that motion. CLARKSON: Canis it too late to add, north boundary, add east boundary, too? HALL: You would need a motion to amend the motion? CLARKSON: I move to amend the motion. HALL: Not you, somebody else has to do it. Sorry. REPLOGLE: So, what is it you want? CLARKSON: I think the masonry wall should be along the east boundary as well as the north boundary. There's a house right next door to REPLOGLE: Excuse me, I'd like to make a motion to amend the motion so that we include the wall not only on the north boundary, but the east boundary as well. KAY: For consistency sake, can I say—it reads "northern." Can I say "eastern" boundary? REPLOGLE: That's fine. That's fine. KAY: Okay. Thank you. So, it will read now, "As represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors or assigns shall install a stone" pardon me, a stone "wall along the northern and EXHIBIT A 13 eastern boundaries," we'll change boundary to boundaries, "of the property to mitigate adverse noise and visual impacts to the adjacent properties." And, then it says, "The stone wall and landscaping shall be indicated on the plans" for the proposed mitigation, so that shouldn't change. There's no differentiation there on location. RAFFIPIY: I second the amended motion. CLARKSON: All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Ok, the amendment carries. Now, we'll do a roll call, please on the original motion. KAY: All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair. I can take that vote. There's still the question of Condition G in terms of the access limitation. Did you want to address that as well? CLARKSON: Thank you for the reminder. KAY: Thank you. IKEDA: Do we have to make another amendment? Withdraw? Can? KAY: Yeah, it might be better to withdraw the motion. IKEDA: We'll withdraw the motion, and we'll add on—is it to shorten the left—was it shorten— HALL: I think just add this condition. IKEDA: We'll just add, we'll add Mr RAFFIPIY: Question, Mr. Chairman. So, that the issue right now is to, as stated in this Condition Gto choose between the? IKEDA: No, no, we're just going to add on. RAFFIPIY: So, we just add on? IKEDA: Yes. RAFFIPIY: Okay. KAY: If I may, if you're going to move forward with the proposed Condition G, you would have to delete the existing condition limiting right -in, right -out restriction or restriction to right - in, right -out and replace it or come up with some different language to replace that. EXHIBIT A 14 IKEDA: Okay. Okay, so I move to replace the present Condition G and replace it with this new Condition G. KAY: One other thing that just came to mind. There was the other Condition C that we were going to add which would then shift all of the other conditions down, so if we make a vote with respect to Condition G, then that may jack us up if we work on that additional Condition C. So, we may just say proposed amendment to new Condition H? IKEDA: Okay. As stated. KAY: Okay, perfect. So, and Jeff mentioned that it might be good to indicate a minimum height limit for your wall. The maximum limit is six feet, but you may want to put a minimum just to clarify. IKEDA: Okay, minimum six feet that would be preferable to the KAY: Okay, so with all of that said, we're still waiting for a motion for action on everything. CLARKSON: No KAY: Or maybe I'm wrong. IKEDA: Okay, so CLARKSON: I think we need a vote on the amendment to Condition, new Condition H regarding the left -turn lane. IKEDA: Right. KAY: So, my understanding is Mr. Ikeda removed his motion that was on the floor. There is no current motion on the floor. IKEDA: Okay, so we need to make a new motion about the walls on all the north, east, and the boundaries? KAY: And, then adding Condition C, and the new Condition H. IKEDA: Right. KAY: So, if it's helpful, I can go ahead and read what the amendment to Condition B would read, "As represented by the applicant, the applicant, successors or assigns shall install a six-foot stone wall along the northern and eastern boundaries of the property to mitigate adverse noise and visual impacts to adjacent properties." I don't know that we need to repeat that at the bottom to say six-foot stone wall again since we've already indicated it, but that's the call of whoever is making the motion. EXHIBIT A 15 IKEDA: Let's be sure that it's in there. KAY: Okay, I'll add it to both. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I just need to make one clarification if I may. I'm sorry, out of protocol, but if it's six feet, then it requires a setback, so the wall has to be less than six feet. REPLOGLE: Five feet nine. IKEDA: Five feet nine, yeah. KAY: Okay. That's a good height. All right, sounds good, and I'll put that in both places that it indicates a stone wall. Okay, and then new Condition C would be the yellow sheet in front of you, the language regarding consolidation. And, then finally new Condition H is either what the Applicant has proposed as proposed amendment to Condition G or whatever other language you'd like come up with. There is a suggestion from staff that in front of, "No earlier than one year," it read "If approved by DPW." The Traffic Division ultimately, they're going to make the call on traffic treatments and, you know, treatments on the roadway, so there was a concern that this proposed left-hand turn lane, restriping, may or may not be workable, and there's no language in this existing condition that speaks to that. All this is saying is they have a year to determine whether or not there's going to be any impact from the left-hand turn lane despite what was said on the record, so if you'd like to clarify that and add something to that, that's— IKEDA: —Yes, we would like to add in what the Applicant was requesting about giving them a one-year trial period. KAY: Okay, with "As written by the Applicant?" IKEDA: Right. KAY: So, we'll go ahead and replace now Condition H with, "No earlier than one year after issuance of an occupancy permit for the proposed project and any time thereafter, should the County Department of Public Works determine that the Lanikaula Street access be modified and limited to right -in, right -out movements, only to address impacts at the intersection of Lanikaula Street and Kino`ole Street directly attributable to left -turn movements into the site from Lanikaula Street, the access shall be so modified in accordance with the requirements of the Department of Public Works with the applicant's and/or its successor's cost within six months of receipt of such a notification." One more clarification, couple more clarifications here. I'd like to for consistency sake, would like to make it West Lanikaula Street and add the proper Hawaiian diacritics. IKEDA: That's all right. EXHIBIT A 16 CLARKSON: Okay, is there any further discussion of this motion? Is there a second? KAY: There was not a second yet. REPLOGLE: Second. CLARKSON: There being no RAFFIPIY: So, the motion, the motion incorporated their, their requirement? KAY: That's correct. So, the motion incorporated their proposed language as Condition G which is now going to be Condition H with my suggested changes in terms of the West Lanikaula and the proper Hawaiian diacritics. RAFFIPIY: With a one-year, one-year KAY: Correct. RAFFIPIY: Okay. KAY: As written as far as I understand. CLARKSON: Together with the other amendments to the consolidation of the properties and the five foot, nine inch stone wall on both. RAFFIPIY: But, didn't we just read this no earlier than one year after the issuance of an occupancy permit? KAY: Yeah, that's correct. That is Condition—that's going to be new Condition G, pardon me, new Condition H. It was proposed as Condition G from the Applicant this morning. So, aside from the minor changes for clarity on the road name and the Hawaiian diacritics, it will go as written. Is that correct, Mr. Ikeda, so my understanding is correct? RAFFIPIY: But, that will only give them the one year. It wouldn't give after one year that they're asking for. KAY: As written, it would give them the one year to essentially determine whether or not the left -turn is going to have impacts. RAFFIPIY: Okay, got it. KAY: After which Department of Public Works can require limiting access or other improvements. RAFFIPIY: Okay, thank you, yeah, makes sense. EXHIBIT A 17 KAY: There's also another condition in here that kind of captures it as well. It's the standard condition that we add. It says, "The applicant shall be responsible for the design, purchase, and installation of streetlights and traffic control devices as may be required by the Traffic Division, Department of Public Works." So, if at that point, as they're talking about going and approaching this restriping concept, then that condition would also kind of capture that as well. RAFFIPIY: Thank you very much. Appreciate it. KAY: Thank you. CLARKSON: If there are no further, if there is no further discussion, I'll ask staff to poll the Commission on this matter. KAY: Yes, thank you Mr. Chair. Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. KAY: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Motion carries four, nothing. CLARKSON: And, the Applicant, you'll be notified in writing of the action of the Commission today. The discussion ended at 9:52 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission EXHIBIT A 18