>> i think the director mentioned that be and then and is to item 11, but actually, this is a proposed amendment to the deer dap, which was attached. i think you should rescind the vote on item number seven, rescind thmove to amend item nur seven, and then vote again. >> i so move. >> without objection. >> roll-call vote to rescind the vote on item number seven. [roll call] >> thank you. on item seven. one thing i noticed in reviewing

the documents was that we did not have, once this is all approved, any further approvprot all of what the developer implements and other -- implements and other, which is very unusual. the redevelopment agency usually has some requirement down the road. there is not much detail at all in the documents now as to what the programs will be. the issue of retail is of crucial importance to the future. they obviously need everyday goods and services just to the quality -- just for the quality of their life. the second big point is that the more they can do on the island, the less they will need to travel off the island, causing a negative impact. there is also going to be, when the time comes and the

commission is sitting, a discussion about the pricing. obviously some of the retail has to be affordable to people living in affordable housing and everybody else, whereas other retail will certainly be more high-end. so, the way to deal with that i would recommend to is that we should approve each sub-phase retail program in general. that does not mean you approve what stores and operators. that is not whether retell program is. it means you would approve square footage is and the proximate type of the business. but again, i would give the -- it would give the residents a chance to talk about what they need in a way that this commission could actually take action and response to their needs. i just do not want to turn complete control without any

recourse on this over to the developers for 20 years. so, i would like to move the following. in addition to the sub phase applications section 1.2 0.1 0.6 retail plan, for any application that includes retail components, the developer shall submit a plan that includes size and type of retail that shall be targeted during that some phase including an assessment of the needs of the project for retail businesses. is that clear? >> is there a second? >> i second. >> any public comment? discussions?

>> roll-call vote on item number seven. >> question about that. so the way it is currently is, what, say they do not have a detailed plan? each phase shall have a commercial component attached to it. you think the demand would grow as people -- as your development housing, you get more demand for what? bigger grocery stores? hair salon and nail salon? i do not know. i do not have a problem with perhaps looking at it. i would hate to see as dictate exactly what is going in there.

i mean, i have had it happen in other neighborhoods. we had some prohibitions on restaurants. i just want to make sure -- i guess i'm just trying to understand how this would be implemented. >> staff can explain it, but there is a sub-phase. there is phasing in the project and as part of each phase moving ahead, the developer would tell us what the retail program was going to be for that phase, not the store, but the type. because right now we have no say. they could do anything they wanted retail-wise today. we would have absolutely nothing to say about it the way the documents currently stand. >> so what happens if the developer submits a retail plan,

we approve it, but that business does not prevent. for whatever reason there is no demand for it. >> well, the plan could be general enough -- and it could always be changed. it will be general in nature. it is not going to say nail salon. it would talk about personal services as a category. >> if i could just add, i think this is fairly consistent with our actions within the deer-up now. this would happen as part of a sub-phase application, some years before you actually built retail. i think it would be a broad plan of the types of retail that could be in that space, a mix of neighborhood serving as well as regional serving.

it is appropriate with the types of other approvals we are making in the deer dap. >> i guess if it is general enough, i can see where it would be helpful to -- i mean, some of these controls are not working anymore. they did work for a while to prevent restaurants from taking over neighborhoods and service businesses like a barber shop and a shoe repair shop, things people need day-to-day close to their home. i'm just concerned though that when we get into dictating -- i would hate to see retail store fronts stay vacant because of what we dictated to be never actually materialized and no one

else can move in. that is just my concern when we have this kind of a amendment. >> again, we're not going to talk about exactly what kind of personal services it is. we need a chance for the residents of the island to tell us what they need. and that they will be heard by the development. if they were going to bring in another high-end restaurants because that's what we most need. >> think it was kind of an oversight in the document. >> i actually think this is a little too restrictive at this point so i am not going to be able to support this at this time. >> can you suggest anything that

gets to the same answer that is not a problem? not as restrictive? >> not right now, i cannot. is this something we can bring up at a later date? does it have to be done now? >> you are approving in the de er dap so if you wanted to make a similar amendment or an alternate amendment, you have to make it now. >> i do not have an alternative, so i will not be able to support it tonight. >> you know for the staff, again about the flexibility. i have a concern. if we grandfather any policy in at this point that is vague and

can be misinterpreted, where is the flexibility to make amendments are whenever later? can the staff help me out? because again, i am concerned about the dictating. when you have a 10-15 year plan, there are changes that are going to be evolving. my position is that the residents already have this ongoing process. they're all going to be engaged in to deciding with the developer how to make this a very viable project. i think that is already built into the plan, so what do you have to say? >> so, the planning would actually administer allowed and permitted uses and conditional uses, which you do not have authority over, but the planning

commission does. this would give you some say in the sizes and types of retail that the developer anticipates putting into the spaces. again, i do not think he would necessarily have -- it would not be dictating types of retail because the retail spaces would be built probably a couple of years after you approve this plan. you would be approving a broad retail strategy. >> now that i have heard -- >> would you except a change to just make it simply asking for an assessment, because i think your point was basically to make sure that it is up to their residence, and whenever will be put in will be relevant to their needs.

maybe it can be amended to just a request -- a requirement to conduct an needs assessment. >> well, that would be good and it is a place to start, but then they could ignore it. that is the problem. i am open -- we need some kind of way to have an needs assessment guide have results. >> so we have the needs assessment and a staff. could that be measured or what kind of actions would be taken? i am trying to look at a friendly amendment as suggested by the commissioner. if we change this to a needs

assessment, does it still serve the same purpose? >> we would then tried to reason with them. >> does it still not achieve the same purpose? >> if i could buy been a little bit on this -- pipe in a little bit on this, i think i feel a little bit better about this now that i understand it. it is a public body. we're going to have a public hearing. if the developer is submitting to us the plan, we're going to have a public hearing. hopefully, we can bring the residents to our hearing. we can hear about it and then we can approve a retail plan.

i guess my concern is about how the plan is going to be, but at least it is a public process. we will have the developer come to us, a public party, at a public hearing, have the residents come to us, and then they can tell us what they need. >> the word targeted was suggested by staff. that does not mandate something that says this is what they are going to, you know, try to achieve. that is the reason that word is in the amendment. >> again, i am trying to see if i'm going to go with this plan or if we change the language, does it achieve the same purpose? i am leaning on the staff to guide me to that. >> we just take out the words

for tie dye approval. it includes an updated assessment of the needs prior to service. that means they could ignore everybody, but that would still give a good amount of leverage to the community. they could press them for what is really needed. >> i would support that amendment. the amendment was seconded. >> weight. are we going to vote on a friendly amendment? >> can i revised my motion and see if it is ok with your second? it is the same, but deleting the words for approval. >> i actually like the approval because that is the public

process that would be missing if we did not have it. >> instead of reeve -- instead of approval, how about review. >> restate your entire motion please. >> and shall civet -- and shall submit a retail plan for public review. >> second. >> any public comments? discussions? hearing none, roll call for item #7 as amended. 6 ayes, 0 no's.

moving back to the regular agenda, roll call vote for item number 11. roll call vote for item number 12. 6 ayes, 0 no's. >> i guess we are done. thank you so much everyone for sticking in. [applause]