Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0092.035 2004-2006 From: Claudia Rohr [claud@hilo.net] , Sent: Friday, February 25, 2005 12:40 PM To: Safarik, Gary; Arakaki, James; Jacobson, Bob';1'ilago, K. Angel; counciltestimony@co.hawaii.hi.us; chris_yuen@co.hawaii.hi.us; pat_koga@co.hawaii.hi.us; Higa, Stacy; fholshuh@co.hawaii.hi.us; Ikeda, Don~l.lsbell, Virginia; Hoffmann, Pete Subject: communication in regards to Bill 356 and Bill 355. Vase print attachment and distribute Importance: High A abc TCONTINENTFL ptlI RE: Bill 356 and 355 Dear Honorable Chair Gary Safarik, County Council Members, and Mr. Yuen I am writing to make comments to help clarify some points concerning the incremental subdivision of Continental Pacific, LLC's land and to try to list documents that the Planning Department must make available for Council members and members of the public to review in regards to public access and preferential fishing access. These documents will clarify legal issues in regards to public access easement documents and Chapter 34 requirements which pertain to the project areas covered by Bills 355 and 356, which are in dispute at this time. Also these documents will help clarify what easements are outstanding in regards to the preferential fishing access agreement. Some items on this list might augment the list requested by Virginia Isbell in her February 22, 2005 Memorandum, Communication 92.23. I. Incremental Subdivision Chapter 34 states that the public access easements must be (A) on the final subdivision map; and (B) dedicated to the County and documents to this effect delivered to the County before final approval of a subdivision. Regarding the subdivision map requirement: The bills referenced above are a zoning amendment and SLU district boundary amendment covering parcels of land that were created by a previous subdivision of Continental Pacific, LLC Pepeekeo makai land- Subdivision 7644. The Sub. 7644 map details out what is and is not created by survey. For example, the vehicular access easements are not labeled and specified on the table on this map. Thw subdivision 7644 map and table identifies all of the easements and their purpose. The private roads from a public highway or street to the public parking areas at the start of the shoreline access trails are labeled on the map and specified in the table as being in favor of the Pepeekeo Homeowner's Association and not the County of Hawaii. The Pepeekeo Association's prefered fishing access easements are not are not labeled on the map or specified on the table. These flaw were #irst brought up and discussed publicly starting at the September 2003 in the Planning Commission hearings, and promises were made by the developer to correct the map (a simple matter), but for some reason the developer has not corrected the map to date. "'~I am attaching transcripts of that first Planning Commission hearing on September 22, 2003. It also contains important information concerning access easements and the prefered ~shing access ?+3S 1 Comm. °'reaeMld Ref. To: R;;f. Dote agreement. II. Reference materials needed to review public access requirements and private fishing access agreement: 1) September 2003 FISHING ACCESS AGREEMENT, between Continental Pacific, LLC and Pepeekeo Association. 2) Exhibit "A" -specifically dated preliminary subdivision map. Part of the September 2003 FISHING ACCESS AGREEMENT 3) April 12, 2003 Settlement Agreement of Board of Appeals and Subdivision of Continental Pacific, LLC's Lands 4) Exhibit "A"- specifically dated preliminary subdivision map. This map is a different date from the map in item #2. 5) Final Subdivision 7644 map. This details out what is and is not created by survey. For example, the vehicular ublic access easements to the public parking areas are not labeled on the map or specified on the table. The Pepeekeo Association prefered fishing access easements are not are not labeled on the map or specified on the table. I am asking the Planning Director to make these documents available at the Clerk's office. Please keep me advised in this matter. <mailto:fholshuh(a co.hawaii.hi.us> Claudia Rohr 369 Nene St. Hilo, HI 96720 934-8040 z PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTF,MBER 22, 2003 A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of CONTINENTAL PACIFIC, LLC (SLU 03-006, REZ 03-014, SMA 03-009) was called to order at 11:07 a.m. in the County Building, Councilroom-Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairperson Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT: Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Earl Fujikawa Bill Graham Jeffrey McCall Florence Kubota Hannah Springer Aurelio C. Mina, Jr. Francis Smith Bill P. Thibadeau Patricia O'Toole, Deputy Corporation Counsel Chris Yucn, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL PACIFIC, LLC (SLU 03-006/REZ 03-014/ SMA 03-009) a. Application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 3.344 acres of Land from the Agricultural to the Urban District. b. Application for a Change of Zone for 12.640 acres of land from Limited Industrial - 20,000 square feet (ML-20), General Industrial - 5 acres (MG-Sa), Village Commercial - 10,000 square feet (CV-10 to RS-20) and Agricultural 20-acre (A- 20a) to Single Family Residential - 20,000 square feet (RS-20) and ML-20 districts. c. Application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of 30 lots, including portion of a roadway lot, and related improvements. The area involved includes the former Hilo Coast Processing Mill complex and surrounding former sugar cane lands at Pepeekeo, South Hilo, Hawaii, TMK: 2-8-07: portions of 1 and 53. EXHIBIT B GALDONES: Commissioners, we arc on Agenda Item No. 8. Applicant is Continental Pacific, LLC (SLU 03-006/REZ 03-014/SMA 03-009); a) This is an application for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment for 3.344 acres of land from the Agricultural to the Urban District; b) This is an application for a Change of Zone for 12.640 acres of land from Limited Industrial - 20,000 square feet (ML-20), General Industrial - 5 acres (MG-Sa), Village Commercial - 10,000 square feet (CV-10 to RS-20) and Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to Single Family Residential - 20,000 square feet (RS-20) and ML-20 districts; and c) This is an application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of 30 lots, including portion of a roadway lot, and related improvements. Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman, a point of personal privilege, please? I need to publicly declare that my son's signature happens to be on some of these pages in the, not the application but as a notary public; and my understanding is that he has worked with the Applicant. However, I do not have any interest financially or otherwise in this project, so T would like to request ruling by the Cotp. Counsel before I get into this deliberation any further. GALDONES: Well, thank you for the consideration. Ms. O'Toole? O'TOOLE: Well, if she has no interest herself, her son is not the Applicant, unless there are any further information or objections from anyone, I believe she can participate. GALDONES: Thank you. Ms. Kubota, you're comfortable with that? KUBOTA: Pm comfortable with it. Do I have the consensus of the Commissioners that i will not be conflict, as well as Mr. Yuen? GALDONES: Commissioners, any concerns or comments? Hearing none, then the KUBOTA: Thank you. Mc Yuen is okay with it, too, that I participate? YUEN: I don't think it's up to me but T follow the advice of Corp. Counsel. KUBOTA: Thank you. GALDONES: You're welcome. HAYASHL Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before I proceed, the Applicant is going to give you a short presentation, power point presentation. So, at this time, we ask for a couple of minutes recess so they can set up? GALDONES: So ordered. 2 RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 11:09 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at I I :14 a.m. GALDONES: Hold on, Norman, I think we're missing some Commissioners. Oh, we're all here? NOMURA: All here. GALDONES: Okay, we're okay. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Before we proceed with the Applicant's portion, I'd just like to give a short orientation as to the location of the property and what's being proposed. First of all, directing your attention to the zoning map and location map, this is the Hawaii Belt Highway going towards Waimea, and this would be in the Hilo direction. This is the Pepeekeo, Kulaimano Subdivision area. The property is indicated in this location. Access to the property is via Pepeekeo Mill Road, that'll be all the way down to the shoreline as well as the areas that are proposed for consideration under these applications. The first request would be a State Land Use Boundary Amendment to reclassify 3.3 acres of land from the State Land Use Agricultural to the Urban District; and this would be at this location. On this map it would be here. Also requested as part of the, for this particular property would be to rcqucst a zone change from Agricultural 20-acre to a Limited Industrial 20,000-square foot zone district. That area currently, was previously used as the warehouse, warehouse for the Pepeekeo Mill, or Pepeekeo Mill, Hilo ('oast Processing activity. The next rcqucst, which is also related to the zone change, would be to reclassify approximately Well, I'll go according to how advertised it. First of all, the area that is requested is CV-10 to RS-20, consisting of 1.1-acre, it's located here in bloc. As a matter of orientation, the Hamakua Mill processing, power plant is located in this general location, currently located in this genera] location. The second request would be to reclassify, rezone approximately 1.4 acres from a Limited Industrial-20,000 square foot zone or ML-20 to Single Family Rcsidential- 2Q000 square feet; and this would be the area identified in green, outlined in green. And, finally, the fourth area to be reclassified would be the area that, consisting of 6.6 acres; and that'll be rezoned fiom MG or General Commercial-5 acres to RS-20; and that is outlined in orange in this general location. I previously identified this particular request 3 Going back to the location map, this would be, the red line identifies the SMA boundaries. Everything makai of the red line will be situated within the SMA. Initially advertised was a request for a Special Management Arca for 30-plus, approximately 30 acres of, 30 lots within the Special Management Area. However, on further refinement of the map, we found that only 11 lots would be situated within the SMA or will be created within the SMA. And these, the maps would be, the lots will be these lots identified in red, in red dots. Again, this is the power plant, Hilo Coast Processing power plant. The SMA line is indicated in red on this particular map. We are recommending approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban. We also request, recommend approval of the rezoning applications. And, finally, we arc recommending that the SMA for the creation of 11 lots within the Special Management Area also be approved, subject to conditions. All of you received the staff s background report and recommendations. Are there any questions? GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Norman? If not, Norman, and I'm not sure procedurally what is correct here. We probably could go ahead with the power point and then later on have the discussion with the Applicant or his representative. Mc Lim, would that be okay with you folks? LIM: Yes, that would. Thank you. GALDONES: Okay, why don't we do that. Go ahead with the power point presentation then. LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. Steve Lim from Carlsmith Hilo Offices With me today is Mr. Royden Yamasato from our Kona office. Thank you for us allowing us to come before you with this presentation. We apologize for the setup timeframc. It's kind of last minute. But we hope to make a very short presentation and give you some orientation of the project This is essentially a project area that's large running from the Hawaii Belt Road makai to the ocean. The entire project area is about 1,300 acres. The applications before you are Phase 2 of the project. Phase I of the project was a subdivision of approximately 70 lots from, ranging in size from one-and-a-half acres up to Live acres and then to bulk lots of 100 acres each. These were all subdivided out last year, and Phase 2 of the subdivision contemplates the proposed change of zones and SMA applications. These are out at the point at Pcpeekeo, just to the north of HCPC power plant, looking at the area. As far as the subject area, you can sec on the slide there that this is a, where it is. This is the HCPC gear wheels sign that you see. This is the entrance to the project area along what we call the Pcpeekeo Mill Road. This is one of tha, it's a landmark from the East Hawaii side of the island. As we go on to the next one, you can see that the project area is generally located in Bast Hawaii between Pcpeekeo town and Honomu. If you're familiar with the Highway in the area as you go down from Pcpeekeo town and start heading the I]onokaa direction, you'll have a downward slope and see the other side of 4 the street coming back towards Hilo. That's the double lane coming up where everybody treats it like, sort of like a speedway, speeding where you try to pass everybody. The County General Plan shows a mix of Low Density Urban, Industrial and Open along the shoreline. Moving to the next slide, this is the aerial photo with the project area showing the Hawaii Bclt Road and in the middle of the project area. And on the left of the slide at the northernmost peninsula there, that's the Pepeekeo Point area we're talking about for the rezoning. The project runs on the north from the, just south of Waimaauou Stream up there and runs all the way across to the, just to the north of Kapehu Stream at the bottom of the picture. That's the entire 1300-acre project area. The application before you today, of course, centers around the northern peninsula that we've shown you the part of. The existing zone map essentially reflects the past use of the area. And as many of you probably know, this was the Ililo Coast Processing Company operations. They had residences, they had commercial, industrial. This is the old plantation town. We'll pass out a picture that will show some of the uses that were in the area at the particular time. This is a photo of one of, that we got from one of the Hawaii Island Book; and this represents a 1933 picture of what was there. Moving on to the tax map. This essentially is a small area of two large TMK parcels centered along Pepeekeo Point and the proposed Change of Zones, as Mr. Hayashi briefly described to you, moving up onto the site. Essentially, the rczonings are intended to reflect the desire by Continental Pacific, LLC to develop house lots approximately I Yz acres to 5 acres in size on the SMA area. These are limited by the terms of the settlement agreement and CCRs which we're record against the property to single-family dwelling units and related activities. The issues of the public access have been met by the dcvcloper through implementation of a minimum of five mauka-makai accesses. We would be coming in from the mauka Mill Road, down to the beach road at five separate areas where they'll provide public parking areas, and then walking past down to the beach. We've received the approval from Pepeekeo Community Association and the fishing access. An agreement that was entered into with the dcvcloper will provide additional private access to the Pepeekeo Community Association. They will assist in monitoring the public access, ingress-egress. They'll assist in operating a permit system for night fishing, especially. And we have, I think, some representatives from the Association who have come today to speak to us on this. We submitted a copy of the fishing access agreement with the Community Association to the Planning Department as part of oar application. The subdivision improvements for this particular project as proposed in the SMA and rezoned area have already been completed as part of the initial Phase 1 development for the project. With respect to the zoning on the extreme Hilo side of the project, which is marked out as potential Lots 21 and 22, the present application will take them from General Industrial- S acres down to RS-2Q Single-Family dwelling zoning. Because that is the location of 5 the former Pepeekeo Sugar Co. building which was built in 1919, according to the sign on the building. The developer has elected as a, in a future application to come back to the County for rezoning to Mixed Use Commercial and Industrial which would allow, hopefully, commercial and office uses in that area, out of the building primarily. There is an existing County General Plan Industrial designation spot down in that area to reflect the HCPC mill and we'll be making that application in the future. But, however, for this particular go-around, the requirements to the settlement agreement provide that we should take it down to Residential-20,000 square feet. Moving on to the next slide, to give you some views, sorry that these are not coming out real The gray shading on the overhead is turning, of course, our colors into purple. But essentially we have, this is views of the project looking from the south border of the property looking back towards the mauka and west side of the project. If you are familiar with the area, as you look down from the highway, you'll see the County's wastewater treatment plant down there on the south side; and in the middle of the project you'll see the Industrial uses at the HCPC plant. As you can see from the photo, what I've tried to do, although I can't be sure because this is a very old photo and things may have moved, is in the pink, outlined in the pink on your map is the area that we're talking about for the SMA and Change of Zone areas. Moving on to the next photos, if, on photo number 12, if you could see, you can't see it real good. But if we could see it, this is a view from the middle of the project approximately on the Mill Road looking in the south direction towards Hilo. Moving on to the next slide, these we can't sec, I think. What we'll try to do is, essentially the, I'll try to use the photo that you do have in front of you. It's, the project area has long been cleared of most of these buildings. And the urban area that we're going in for the SMA and the rezoning is right around that Pepeekeo sign. That's now all essentially demolished, it's overgrown with grass; and the topography in that area is generally flat, with the cxccption of the foundations of the buildings. The public access for the project, as a whole, contemplated, like I say, five separate mauka-makai public acccssways. And you can see briefly from the size that you'll be able to make out the shoreline areas, for the most part, relatively high cliffs with the cxccption of the areas near the lighthouse at the Pepeekeo Point. The developer has reviewed the conditions proposed by the Planning Director. And we've reviewed the Background Report, and we have no comments and agree with the Recommendation for approval. The condition regarding the setback of structures away from the edge of the cliff, even though the certified shoreline might be closer down, is acceptable to the Applicant. We think that the, essentially, this is a reordering of what the former uses at the Pepeekeo Point used to be. We'd ask the Planning Commission for its favorable consideration, and we're open for any questions. Thank you. 6 GALDONES: Thank you, Mr. Lim. Okay, proceeding further, Commissioners, did you folks have any questions of Norman making a presentation? None. Then, Mr. Lim, is there anybody else that's going to be testifying besides yourself? LIM: Not on behalf of the Applicant. I think there's some public witnesses, though. GALDONES: Okay. Commissioners, any question of Mr. Lim? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I don't have so much questions. I just want to thank you for this photo. I think it really helps us understand what's happening and all, so I appreciate it. LIM: Thank you very much. I'm glad we brought it. We didn't know that the part, what wasn't going to come out is that gray screen doesn't show the photos very well. GALDONES: If there are no questions of Mr. Lim, we have three individuals who have signed up for, to testify. Norman, do we have another chair available, or we just have the two there? HAYASHI: I'll get another one. GALDONES: Okay, thank you, Mr. Lim, if you could relinquish that chair. I would like to call on Carlton Bello, William Bannister and Claudia Rohr. Is Claudia here? Okay. ROHR: Sorry, I didn't hear you. GALDONES: Oh, okay, I'll try to speak louder. Okay. Could you all raise your right hand, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Hawai"i County Planning Commission? TF.STiFIERS: I do. GALDONES: Okay. Let's start, we'll get the ladies first here, so, Claudia. ROHR: I think they were here first. Why don't you go ahead and let them go first. GALDONES: Okay. Carlton, we'll start with you. Could you please raise, I'm sorry, not raise, but state your name and residence address? BELLO: Carlton Bello, P. O. Box 42, Hilo, Hawaii 96721. 7 GALDONES: Carlton, you may begin your testimony. BELLO: Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Board, on behalf of the Volunteer Fire Station, I'm the Volunteer Fire Chief of Pepeekeo, Continental Pacific has really helped out with the community and with the volunteers stationed out there. Not only have they given the community hunting and fishing accesses, they've improved the roads for our fire trucks to get down to the areas where brush fires have been coming up now and then. Thcy'vc helped us with our volunteer station by making a donation for a security fence to keep the trespassers out in doing graffiti and vandalism on our station area. In regards to that, I'djust like to say, please vote in favor of their request. Thank you. GALDONES: Thank you. Commissioners, any question of Mr. Bello? If not, Mr. Bannister? BANNISTER: Commission or Board, this is William Bannister, on behalf of the, I always say church there in Pepeekeo, and it's called the Hamakua Coast Assembly of God; and we support what Continental is doing. And I think so, was this year, this past year, they've been very generous to the community. This past year, I think they did a number of contribution for our youth ministry, youth ministry in the community there; and we were able to send 20 youths to the youth convention. And, so, that's really a plus for the community. And, also, they've been helping us out, cutting the grass, you know, it's kind of, the grass kind of, in the part of the section there it's really growing; and they've been really, just being generous to the community. So we just support them and we, too, support what they're doing in there. GALDONES: Thank you. Ms. Mendoza? I received your sign-up sheet. Can you come to the table, too? Thank you. Claudia? ROHR: My name is Claudia Rohr and my address is 369 Nene Street in Hilo. I'm wondering if the Planning Department brought the shoreline plan today to share with us, the subdivision plan showing the shoreline access, the approved plan and public easements? GALDONES: Hold on while we look for it. ROHR: Well, first of all, you might want to continue this until they can get the right materials up so we can discuss this. I'm not in opposition of the approval of the SMA but I believe that you should consider some conditions. I believe there is a settlement with the Board of Appeals for the overall 92-parcel development and some of the, they had some agreements concerning the shoreline access. I've gone down there and run into a lot of frustrating situations. And I have reviewed what works and what doesn't work, where there's actual public casements on title, and where there arc some gaps in the public access. 8 One of the things is that up until a few months ago there was a proliferation of no- trespassing signs on what was supposed to be roads that the public could use to access the shoreline. Some of those have been removed, others still remain; and just, it's very confusing how to get to the shoreline access. First thing is I'd like to suggest that somebody, whether it's the developer or the County, put a series of signs directing people down roads to parking areas, to trails, so they can get to the shoreline. I was with ten different people in three cars and we could not find the open, an opening from mauka-makai on the north side of Mill Road, other than the one next to the main gate. We were trying to find the other two, and we didn't find it that day. The other thing is, is that there's four scenic areas that arc really special. One of them is actually accessed down TMK, well, I'mjust, it's 3-2-8-7, Parcel 13; and it's whcrc the old radio tower was. And there has been a beaten path there for a long time because that's one place whcrc you can actually get to the shoreline down in the water; and that's one of the favorite fishing spots. And the second one is near the Chinese cemetery; and if, I think we do have the subdivision plan and I could point it out now. It doesn't appear to me that the public has a right to walk down the road that accesses the easement to the Chinese cemetery. I can't find that on this document or in any kind of casement document. And then there's also, well, I'd just point out whcrc 1 think public access should be assured, if I could on the map. GALDONES: Norman, could you give her a microphone? Thank you. ROHR: It's a complicated map. As you come down Mill Road, everybody knows that is, it's where the big cog is. You come down, and if you went all the way down here, you would hit the Hilo Coast Power Company. In the settlement agreement with the Board of Appeals, this railroad right-of--way was supposed to be open to public access. I'm not sure if it's in, 1 don't know if the easement exists or not for that. There's a parking lot right here and there's also a parking lot right here. This road right here should have an casement for public vehicular access. The reason why is that if you confuse the public enough, they're just going to feel like they're in the wrong place. It's hard enough to get around if you can't make, you know, the logically circular drive to get from one place to another. I was with a group of people who were hiking on the shore. And when we got to the end, it would have been nice to be able to pick up people, drop one car off, go over and get the car, bring people back to the original spot, things like that. But it's an obvious, since there's two parking areas and there's no way to get to this one, unless you go along this road, it's logical to go the whole way. The other thing is there's a break in the trail right here because of a gulch; and there's a really beautiful scenic spot on the other side of the gulch. And, so, it looks like there was supposed to be a public access along this road right here, but it says it's reserved for the Community Association. I think it should be for the public. It's confusing to me. But 9 since you can only get to about here, and in order to get to the spot, there's a pretty little island with the tree growing on it, it's very, you know, quintessential Hamakua Coast. And, also, right over here is like another Onomea arch. ll's a very beautiful shorelinc. So this road right here, I think, should be provided for public access. That would be pedestrian. But I think this road, people should be able to drive on. Then I'm not sure if we have the right to drive down to the parking lots or not. I think that should just be checked. At the moment I can't remember. But i do know on this side is a complete mess. As you come down this road, you're supposed to be able to park and then walk. You're supposed to be able to drive down to certain parking lots and then walk on trails over to the ocean. But the problem is this is one spot everybody has always fished. And the other spot is near the Chinese cemetery; and I don't believe it lines up with this one road and parking lot So if you gave the public the right to at least walk down this road, there's a main gate here which I think is, I don't think it's consistent with the values of the SMA program or the guidelines; but if he wants to have the gate, fine. At Icast people should be able to park and walk, then they can go down to their favorite fishing spots. They shouldn't have to come in and go along this rough trail for four miles or two miles to find their old fishing spot. By then, you know, they're not really sure, arc they in the right spot or they're not in the right spot. There's a lot of confusion. So signage seems really important. Rather than having "No Trespassing" signs, there should be signs saying the public has a right to access the shorelinc via certain points, and there should be directions pointing people to it that's explicit. Because right now you can't find it. Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Rohr? KUBOTA: I have a question. GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Ms. Rohr, according to your testimony just a while ago, you pointed out two spots that were fishing spots, popular fishing spots you say, and you say the accessibility is not clear or unfounded, you couldn't find it or your were confused? ROHR: Well, since this is an SMA hearing, if I prepared maps for this, I would have marked in yellow all the public access easements so I could show you exactly what I meant. KUBOTA: Thank you, thank you. ROHR: But it's difficult to get to those two from the designated parking lots. KUBOTA: Okay. I'm just confused because I'm in receipt, a memo, a letter submitted by the Fishing Access Committee, Pepeekeo Community Association, dated 10 September 15, 2003, and your concerns for the location of access is completely satisfactory to the Fishing Access Committee. And I'm just confused that these people that do use that facility feel that it's acceptable to them. In fact, they arc on record supporting this request for approval. And I'm just confused with your presentation because you say you can't find it and, yet, these people seem to know where the access is. ROHR: Well, I took a subdivision map and marked the easements in yellow and tried to find them. Maybe some people are less concerned with whether they trespass or not, but I was concerned with which easements were there, where I could travel. I don't believe people have the right to walk down that road that's closest to the ocean, that they have to go to the trail and walk along the trail to get to each of the spots; and that doesn't make sense. Therefore, you have the easement to the Chinese cemetery, you have no access to the casement to the Chinese cemetery. So it's sitting there isolated. If you don't connect it with other roads that have public access, it's incomplete. Maybe they feel comfortable that everyone has an understanding, I don't know. I'm just talking about which public documents arc in place and what the real legal picture is. GALUONES: Mr. Yuen'? YUEN: Yeah, I think I can help clarify the situation here. The letter that you're referring to and the access agreement from the Pepeekeo Fishing Association is a private side agreement that gives members of that association vehicular access to certain points on the coast, so they have a preferred type of access under that agreement. The County-negotiated access is largely, dots not have drive-in to all the points that is under this agreement with the Pepeekeo Association. The County access, which is mostly, most of that is outside of this permit here, this SMA permit, because this, and this rezoning. Because this rezoning and SMA only covers the small area right at Pepeekeo Point, rather than the entire three-plus miles of coastline All right? Bul addressing specifically the questions that Claudia Rohr had about those accesses, the public, we have a delay in formally implementing the accesses because there arc some really nifty-gritty issues that have to be worked out on the ground. I went out with a representative of the Applicant, Hank Correia, about three weeks ago to look at areas where we have to adjust how the access goes. Because it's, when it was written up, the idea, we had not walked it, the idea was that the pedestrian access be more or less along the top edge of the cliff and that people could walk there. But we knew that you would hit places where there are little gullies, and then you have to adjust where the access goes; so that has to be done. And, also, the County has to enact rules governing public access under the settlement agreement. I also anticipate doing that pretty soon. So the formal, so formally, the County, the public accesses are not in place. When they arc in place, they will include the right to drive to all the parking areas. So you can take the Mill Road down to the end of the Mill Road and park, and you can take that railroad right-of-way and drive to the other parking areas along the railroad right-of-way. And on II the Hilo side, you can take that road that goes down to the coast and drive to those two parking areas on the Milo side of the mill. As far as the, the pedestrian access does stop at the mill property, and there is a Pepeekeo Community-only access that goes mauka from there. So, and the reason is the mill property is not part of this ownership or this application and we did not negotiate a preferential access. We did not negotiate a public access where that Pepeekeo Community access is on the Hilo side of the power plant, okay. Now on the questions you had about the access to the place where you can get down near the water in front of where the radio tower used to be would be by pedestrian trail from the end of the Mill Road going around the point. That's about 1,500 feet walking. ROIIR: And they used to be able to get to it YUEN: T understand. ROHK: By just driving down the road or walking down the road, right? YUEN: 1 understand, yeah. ROHR: Okay. YUEN: Then you asked about the Chinese cemetery which is in a Honokaa direction from the Mill and it's not on, it's not part of this SMA or rezoning application. It's about, oh, it's about half a mile or so north of Pepeekeo Point. That spot is accessed by, again, walking from a parking area at the road that goes past the banyan tree. There isn't, and then you have to go down to the coast and walk along the coast. That is a distance of somewhere between 2,000 feet and half a mile, is my estimate of how far that is. There is a problem in doing that right now. There's a Little gully and we have to work out what we do to get across that little gully. That's one of the issues that we're trying to work out on the ground. ROHR: Well, at least think about signage and realize that when you make You know, here are these special deals for the Pepeekeo Association, Community Association, but the SMA guidelines arc for public access. So you're basically saying that, oh, they cut a deal with the local association but the public has a different set of rules. Gee, wouldn't that be nice if I could do that in my neighborhood, I live down near Richardson Beach Park, if I could have special rules to use the beach park. But, no, the whole public has access to the beach park [mean, the whole concept is public access. I think that not allowing people to at Icast walk along the roadway and be able to access those laterals is unreasonable because not everybody is in good enough shape, and there are some people who want to go visit the gravcsitcs. And they have to make special arrangements? T mean, it just seems a little bit unreasonable that people can'tjust walk down the road. 12 The idea of a gated community is to keep some sort of sense of safety, I can imagine that. But having aone-way in, one-way out situation I think is just a safe People coming in on foot has to be safe. Why can't we use that road? We've been using it for years and years and years. This was not, this was a road that wasn't shut off to the public. But the signage is the main thing, no more trespassing, and putting the rules up, telling people they have a right to go in. Because I've gone with pcop]e who have refused to go in because they believe they were trespassing. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further questions of Ms. Rohr? Commissioner Graham'? GRAHAM: Claudia, I'm wondering which, obviously, even though you live down Richardson you take a lot of interest in this area. I wondered if you have been to meetings of the Pepeekeo Community Association or really discussed these issues with other groups therein. You know, how that has gone for you and ROHR: When I called the Pepeekeo Community Association, she said that they were in between presidents so they wouldn't be participating in this, because they were between presidents. And, sec, they still are, they're faith is in that original agreement, the appeals agrecmcnt. But the way that reads is this is the one shot that the public has to try to give you input, and only you can put these conditions on. Christopher Yuen in the Planning Department is not allowed to change that agreement, only you are. So it's a very small thing to ask for signs to be put up with public access signs. I don't know who's going to pay for them, I guess you can decide now. But there should be directional signs, and there should be signs saying you have a right to, you know, access a shoreline via this trail between the hours of 6 and 6; if you want to be here for night fishing, register with, and a phone number. But, you know, you need to disclose what the true ndes are. And the way that that agreement reads, the Planning Department can't oppose this. That was in writing before. IIe couldn't oppose it if he wanted to. He agreed not to oppose [his SMA application. He can't change anything, only you guys can change it, And I'm sorry but when they were doing that agrecmcnt, I was unaware that they were dealing with all these public access issues. So I've tried to look at it and I think there's some holes in the accesses. I don't think that there's easements dedicated to the County down to each of the parking lots; and I think before this SMA permit is approved, they should be in place. Why should this go on and on and on without all the pieces in place? This is the one moment. GALDONES: Thank you, Ms. Rohr. Any further questions of Ms. Rohr? GRAHAM: Yeah, I just wanted, again, to try to be real candid about how one's feelings are. If these people, by these people, I mean, Pepeekeo people, have been working with the Planning Department and the Applicant in coming together to make an agreement and we do have written documentation that they are happy with the agreement, it's hard for me as a person at a later date who's not from the area, on the basis of someone who may come and make what seems to me a coherent and reasonable 13 comment, I have no way of knowing whether maybe the negotiating group and all discussed this and had their own reasons why they did it in a different way or something like that. So it's hard for me, kind of very late in the game, to try to base any change to what has been done on the limited knowledge I have or on one or two persons' testimony when it has been negotiated. So ROHR: Well, they have a special agreement that doesn't apply to the public. It's not the same agreement that the public has to live under. And the Sierra Club was going to come today but they were told not to come till this afternoon because this hearing was going to be so late. I've gone month-after-month asking for the shoreline trail and then told by the Planning Director they're working on it, they're working on it. All I had to go by is this final subdivision that was approved and the easement documents that are written on that; and it's not complete, it's not a complete picture. There's not enough easements in place. And we have Christopher Yuen's word that, oh, they will be in place. But, hey, I want to make sure that the things that I care about are in place, too, notjust Pepeckeo Community Association that gets a special deal. They have a special deal, you know, the tshing people have a special deal. The Community Association can go through the gate with vehicular access. The public can't do that, we have to walk. Okay, so, I've reviewed it; and it's not all very clear how you park. At least make the developer put in signs so it's clear. That should, I mean, we have signs down in our neighborhood and the County had to pay for them. Do you think the County should have to pay for all these signs? It's a very complicated system to access something that people access for 50 years. Nothing's changed. It's just that now everybody's trying to manipulate their way around gates and no trespassing signs and trails. So at (cast there should be signs. And you can'tjudgc by the Community Association, they have a special deal. KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman? GALDONES: Ms. Kubota. KUBOTA: I'd like to ask Corp. Counsel a question, if I may. GALDONES: You may. KUBOTA: Thank you. Ms. Rohr keeps referring to special deals that are made by the Applicant with the community association and the fishing group. Is it illegal to do that? Are they permitted to do it or is it something that is illegal? O'TOOLE: No, it's not illegal. That's just between them. So what you have to focus on is what conditions you want to make for the SMA permit here. But, Pm not totally familiar but I believe there was some kind of appeal of the subdivision and then there were settlements and agreements made probably as a result of that. But 14 KUBOTA: And like Commissioner Graham says, you know, we have a Planning Director who was in on the agrccment and he has assured the public that these accesses, the public accesses as required or agreed upon on April 12'~ of 2002, will be put in place. So, you know, at this point, I just want to know that what the Applicant has done in agrccment with private, private agrccment with various community organizations is perfectly legal and they can go ahead with it, they're not doing anything illegal O'TOOLE: No. KUBOTA: Thank you. GALDONES: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yeah, I just wanted to say that we will have signs up for these public accesses but they arc, as I mentioned earlier, there are a few issues that still need to be worked out. KUBOTA: Thank you. GALDONES: Any further questions of Ms. Rohr? If not, there's another person who has signed up to testify. Ms. Mendoza, I need to have you sworn in, please? Can you raise your right hand'? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Mawaii County Planning Commission? MENDOZA: I do. GALDONES: Please state your name and your resident address, and you may begin your testimony. MENDOZA: Okay. My name is Lorraine Mendoza and I live in Pepeekeo, 28-533 Kaakepa St. Okay. We submitted, Fm speaking on behalf of the Pepeekeo Fishing Access Committee, which is a committee under the Pepeekeo Community Association. We have submitted a letter supporting the SMA 03-009 with the Applicant being the Continental Pacific, LLC. I have also submitted a letter on behalf of the Pepeekeo Community Association, in my capacity as president. This negotiation that we're talking about, this agreement, discussion began with this on October 4'~, actually at a September 2T~ meeting in 2001. As a result of that meeting, Peter Kubota, a representative of the company, came and gave his presentation about what the development was, what the development plans were for the area. Of special interest to those in attendance was the fishing accesses that would be granted or not granted to the fishermen that have perused the areas for years. So as a result of two years of negotiations going back and forth, we finally came to an agrccment. There were about seven different accesses that were identified by the 15 fishermen and, oh, a little bit more about the committee. The subsequent meeting after this September meeting brought together about 30, 35 people from the community, all of them fishermen, not necessarily from Pepeekeo alone but, also, from Ninole. These are people that have used the shoreline accesses to do their night-time fishing. And, as a result of that, there was a steering committee of about six members, T think it is, and we have been sitting in on meetings and sometimes two or three of them a month to go over the concerns that were voiced by the fishermen. So the agreement that's spoken about is one that was entered upon with the preference from Continental Pacific to deal with the fishermen of the area, specifically, you know, people that perused the area. We have come to an agreement and we are satisfied with the accesses that were granted. And the specialness or the uniqueness that, you know, people are mentioning here about this agreement is that the relationship between landowner and the community shows a very passionate and sensitivity to the identity of the area. I cannot, with all regard, have people that have fished there for 30 to 40 years be deprived of their fishing grounds simply because of a development, a development that has money. But what, what they did was, I told them about our strategic plan, the vision of maintaining a rural lifestyle; and one of the top ten priorities was environment, which was accesses to fishing, hunting, gathering rights. And they've been sensitive to this and thus have allowed the Fishing Access Committee, accesses, you know, vehicular access to a certain point along the shoreline and after that point, it was like walking. The fishermen were agreeable to that. They could go down to a certain area; and they were agreeable to walk east or west of that area knowing full well that they have to carry their fishing supplies and whatever load they have to do. But the fact is that they have agreed to that. There are little things, there arc things that we need to work out, Like who will be granted access. But this is a community that operates like a typical community. You know, there are no timelines or guidelines. So, you know, i commend Continental Pacific for being very patient. It took us over, well over two years to bring this to fruition. And we held the meeting, and we got the agreement of the Fishing Committee members to go ahead. We read, rather, I read the agreement out loud, 1 read the rules out loud, I read the waivers out loud; and they each got a copy of it. So they are very well aware of what was at stake and what they were authorizing the Fishing Access Committee to agree to. So our support of SMA 03-009 is for the Continental Pacific, LLC. GALDONES: Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Ms. Mendoza? YUEN: I have a question. GALDONES: Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Yes. [just had a question and whether you had the agreement reviewed by any Icgal counsel on your side. I'm just concerned that you, from looking at it, you may have an agreement that's not necessarily binding on the private lot owners in 16 the future that the access goes over. You have an agreement between Continental Pacific and your Association. That's, it's just a suggestion that you might want to look at that aspect of it. Because in the Long run, Continental Pacific will be selling probably all of this property and no longer be a landowner in the area; and then your dealings will be with individuals who buy the property, the lots that the accesses go across. GALDONES: Okay. Any further questions of any of the testifiers, Ms. Rohr? THIBADEAU: Mr. Chairman? GALDONES: Mr. Thibadeau? THIBADEAU: Are we in a new subject now or can I ask another question? It's not related to fishing rights. I have a question about the total project Is now the time? GALDONES: Ycs, it is. THIBADEAU: Well, Pd like clarification or understanding and it has to do with fair share contribution. My understanding is that the County does not apply the fair share contribution concept to this project because, according to the testimony from the attorney, the County's consistent policy has been not to impose the fair share contribution if it there's no change in density. Is that correct? YUEN: I would say that's correct. What they've done, they have not done it for projects that reduced density. And even where they increase density what they've done is deduct the number of units that you could do under your present zoning, and they only charge you for the upzoned portion. So, in that case, this would also result in no fair share contribution. So the Department is not recommending that a condition like that be put on this application. Because with respect to the rezoned area, they could build more residential units under the present zoning than under the zoning they're requesting. THIBADEAU: So the County Department does not feel there's any change in the density at the present time'? YUEN: There's a decrease, actually, in the potential build-out versus the present zoning, so we do not recommend a fair share assessment. THIBADEAU: And then in a build-out, you have no way of going back to assessing a fair share contribution, if there's a major increase in the build-out, for example? YUEN: Right But that's controlled by the conditions of approval that even, and even that, the maximum under the zoning, under the proposed zoning, would be less than the maximum under the present zoning because of the CV zone. THIBADEAU: Oh, okay. 17 YUEN: Then if you take the project, if you take the broader project, there's the RS, the adjoining property, the Pepeekeo Point where the mill was, there's this big area of RS-7.5 that's not going to be buih on to that full density as well. THIBADEAU: Thank you. That's the clarification I was looking for. GALDONES: Okay. [f there are no further questions of the testifier, I'm going to excuse the testifier. Anybody else has any questions to the testifiers? Otherwise, thank you very much Yes, Ms. Rohr? ROHR: Could 1 make a comment concerning their agreement? GALDONES: Yes, you may. ROHR: It seems to me that since this private agreement between the Pepeekeo Community Association fishermen and Continental Pacific demonstrates the concern of fishermen for the right to go to these lands and fish, that it should be used as a model for public access for everyone. It's kind of odd to make a detailed negotiation with one single community association group. What happens if those people move? Do they not have the right anymore to fish there? Doesn't make sense to me. What about their children when they move away'? They can't fish there anymore? It should be a model of an agreement. GALDONES: Your comments will be taken into consideration in our deliberation. Thank your for your sharing. If not, I'd like to thank the testifiers and you may be excused. Mr. Lim? Mr. Lim, I'm trying to set up some logistics here. We arc just about into lunch hour. You expect it to go any longer? LIM: Just to clarify the public access issue. This is a map of the Phase I subdivision approval with the rezoning STAFF: Plcasc use the microphone. LIM: Oh, sorry, sorry, again, with the rezoning area at Pepeekeo Point where I'm pointing the pen here. The yellow I've drawn on the map are the five mauka- makai accesses GALDONES: Mr. Lim, is that the same map that's up there? LIM: Yes. This is the ocean side on this side and it's GALDONES: Would you mind putting it up there and working from the board? LIM: Sure. 1 guess one of the questions that Ms. Rohr brought up was her belief that you had to walk along the makai-most roadway in the subdivision to get 18 across the project area, and that's not correct. The, I don't know if you can see them from here but, essentially, the makai-most roadways along the entire project area, with the exception of the northern-most GALDONES: Mr. Lim, you want to go up there and point? LIM: Okay. For some orientation, this is the Final Subdivision Map for Phase 1, the ocean being at the top of the map in, and the mauka over here with the Hawaii Belt Road. We've got five public access easements which are located here: On the north side; another one, second one here; third one here right at Pepeekeo Point in the SMA area; fourth down here at the bay; and the last one is down here at Kapehu Stream all the way on the north side, on the Honkaa side of the property. The present plan and, like Mr. Yuen said, we'll have to get into the final declaration of the cascmcnts and everything else. But the present plan is to take it down, take the people in off of Mill Road, and then along the makai-most roadways for the northern portion of the project, and then the railroad right-of-way into the north portion of the project. They'll also have a public access parking lot along the makai-most roadway here. So, as a practical matter, the public access and the people who come on that will have cascmcnts along the roadways for the makai-most road all away across the project, with the exception of the north side. These public access, vehicular access-ways will get to public access parking lots that arc located right adjacent to the makai-most road. Then the people will walk, pedestrian access mauka-makai, down to the shoreline. As you can see. along the entire coast of the developable area, with the exception of the area owned by the HCPC, there's a 10-foot wide pedestrian public access that goes all the way across the, I think iYs about three miles across the whole coastline. And so we think that the public access provided is adequate. The points of the mauka- makai access going into the, from the makai road down to the ocean, were discussed with and approved by the Pcpeckco Community Association. GALDONES: Mr. Lim, the agreement that was worked out with the community association and the access that you arc talking about, can they be one and the same? LIM: Part of the reason why we had the Pcpcekeo Community Association involved in the process is because, as you can see, all of these mauka-makai accesses will go between the lot lines. So people's houses will be right there. The desire for both the community and the Applicant was not to have a parking lot for the public down at the ocean. IYII be very disruptive to the houses down there; and we fdt that getting the community association involved in the process would also assist the developer in managing the public access. They're going to be the ones who cooperate with the Applicant to run the permit system, pass out keys, have the people sign waivers, etc. So, you know, a lot of this is in recognition of the County's limited resources. [think that, 19 you know, the public access easements will be in place once Mr. Yuen gets his rules adopted, and that will address the liability concerns, also. GALDONES: Mc Lim, in reference to these signages, is it part of your plan to put signage so that there is clear understanding of where the parking is, where the accesses arc? LIM: Yes, I think that would be part of the negotiations with Mr. Yuen when we do the final access casements. The County does have standard public access signs, you've probably seen them along the roadway, and we intend to put those in, also. GALDONES: Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Lim? KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman, just for clarification GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: The mauka-makai access easements that you spoke of over there in yellow, they are for the public and not exclusively for the community association, correct? LIM: That is correct. KUBOTA: Thank you. LIM: Those arc for pedestrian public access easements. The only difference with the community association is they will be able to drive down to another parking lot further down KUBOTA: Right. LIM: Because they're going to be monitoring the public access. KUBOTA: Right. Just there, though, just at that point? LIM: Just in those five areas, yes. KUBOTA: Okay. But the public will park on the easement roads and then walk in? LIM: That's correct. KUBOTA: Thank you. 20 YUEN: If I can clarify. The public, in most of these cases, will have a walk of about 7 or 8, probably 800 feet farther to get to the shoreline than the Community Association, than the Members of the Community Association. These negotiations, like anything else in negotiations, and there's a degree ofgive-and-take. Most of the area involved, though, most of the areas for the public access we were discussing did not involve an SMA permit. if you' Il note the subdivision on, we anticipate that on the Hilo side, they would be coming in for an SMA, another SMA permit for the lots there. But on the northern side or the [Ionokaa side of the property, you'll notice the lots arc set backed, they're set backed at a distance where they did not require an SMA permit. So the basis for requiring public access would be under the Subdivision, the public access, Code, in the Subdivision, which is Chapter 34, which is a pedestrian access, which requires pedestrian access rathcrthan vehicular access. The vehicular, where the Pepeekeo people arc driving down are on, they're on, there are roads that they would drive down but they arc not roads that are actually necessary for the subdivision itself. In other words, it's not a, the people can get to their lots without using those roads. So it's not actually a subdivision road. GALDONES: Commissioner Graham? GRAtIAM: Mr. Lim, and also maybe to Planning Director Yucn, he spoke before of the issue where the Community Association, the Fishing Committee and all could make an agreement and he was concerned a little bit about the long-term situation where Continental was no longer the owner and all. Somehow in the documentation I read about this, I've also picked up some concern of these other agreements that are part of our conditions and all -about, you know, will they, in fact, be honored; and is there sonic action, we, as a Planning Commission should take to be sure there aren't For example, no-fence, wall structure, landscaping shall be installed that impedes usage of public access agreement; also, about retaining the existing natural appearance of the shoreline, no grading or grubbing within a 40-foot setback from the shoreline, and no more than 50 percent of large trees. So I think you can sec where I'm going. You know, at some point when you sell this property and somebody decides they're going to cut down all the trees, [mean, we can't really blame you for that because you've probably passed them this documentation. But does the County, does the public have any recourse? How do we enforce these things and is there anything we should be doing now that would enhance our ability to enforce them in the future? L1M~ Well, the conditions of the SMA permit as proposed by the Director would be passed on to the buyers. We have CC&R's for the project that embody a lot of the other conditions that are talked about in the settlement agreement with regard to road maintenance and water systems and those types of things. The Director has mentioned them as conditions of the SMA permit and we'll be putting them in the project documents for the sales of those lots. I think we're, we don't have any objections to having the position of the community association solidify legally either. But I don't know that there's anything more that the Planning Commission could do to force compliance. I think that this is all part of the entitlements for the project. All of the 21 permitting that occurs on the lots with regard to the structures will have to be in compliance with these conditions that are proposed. I think, you know, the developer has, I think, demonstrated to the Community, at least, and they hope that you could pick up from that, that a lot of it is, you know, they're not from Hawaii but they have developed a very good feel for, I think, what the people in Hawaii want to see. They've gotten along well with the Community Association and tried to be a good neighbor; and I think they're continuing to do that. They have a lot of land to sell down in that project area and I think for the long term, they want to be a good player, good neighbor. GRAHAM: Thank you. GALDONES: Commissioners, any further question of Mr. Lim? None. Commissioners, we are to act upon the recommendation that is before us. But before we do that, I'd like to make a recommendation to the Commissioners. In light of the complexity of the changes that are before us, it is not one simple matter that we arc dealing with but there are several changes that is being recommended here. I would like to recommend to the Commission that we do a site inspection; and if Commissioners are acceptable to that, I'm willing to entertain a motion to that effect. And I think if there is second, I'd like to speak on that. KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman? GALDONES: Commissioner Kubota? KUBOTA: Mr. Chairman, personally, I don't feel I need to do a site inspection be but for the sake of discussion, I will move that we go on a site inspection. GALDONES: Is there a second? GRAIIAM: I second. GALDONES: Okay. Any discussion? KUBOTA: Your discussion. I'm anxious to hear your rationale for it. GALDONES: These proposed changes will change the complexity of that area, at the subdivisions throughout the area. In the past, the sugar company had set aside certain agricultural land for subdivisions, for some housing areas; and in doing so, there were some exchanges. They had exchanged other housing areas and converted those into agricultural lots. But that was all part of the plan and, therefore, you have the Kulaimano Subdivision and you have the Andrade Camp along that area. And the way it is designed is such that there arc certain areas that will be considered to be industrial areas, so that there will be industries that can be built within that area. 22 The proposal that I see, you will be putting a subdivision that is close by an industrial area; and that is considered to be prime agricultural ]and. The concern that I have is that it may limit other industries to be built within that area while we're having a residential area within the same complexity; and, therefore, it will stymie any kind of economic development, any kind of an industry within that area. The other concern that I have is the County is also looking at, or they have this problem to deal with the landfill and there were some discussions about possibly Hilo Coast Processing Company, the Hilo Coast power plant burning some of that trash. I dolt know where that is, so it's a possibility of industries being built within that area. I'd like to take a look at the total plan that they have there so that T can feel comfortable that by allowing these changes to occur within that area it will not stop any other industries to be built to enhance the economy and also provide land for other people who want to go into agriculture or who wants to build a home within that area. That is the reason why I'd like to go there and also take a look at the casements that are being proposed, arc being worked out within the Community and also, the County, if we have the proper access to those areas. For me, it's a comfort level. I want to look at the total General Plan. As a Commissioner looking at, as Planning Commissioner, I want to make sure that my decision that we make here is a correct one or i can feel comfortable that we're heading in the right direction. KUBOTA: Can I ask you a question? GALDONES: Sure. KUBOTA: Within your rationale, when you say we will be limiting other industrial activities, are you speaking specifically to this application or the general area of Pcpcckco? GALDONES: The general area; and why I say that is because the statement that was made by Director Yuen that a possibility may occur where this area may be sold to somebody else, there's a possibility that it could be developed to become residential also in that area. I[ow much more, if we allow a portion of that to be residential, how can we stop other areas to become residential, also? it is a concern. Maybe I'm just being paranoid, but I just want to be comfortable that those concerns I have are addressed. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I also feel like if we arc going to be seeing more, like a further SMA application and all, that we may keep this feeling that you're expressing of wanting to be comfortable. it may keep recurring, so it's best to get to it as soon as possible. So I'm certainly in favor of a site visit. GALDONES: Any further discussions on the motion? Otherwise, call for the question. ALI those in favor of a site inspection, say aye? 23 COMMISSIONERS: Aye. GALDONES: Opposed, say nay? Motion carries. So, Norman, if you could arrange for a site inspection. Mr. Lim? LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. in light of the Commission's vote to take a site visit, I'd ask that the Commission expeditiously set that and bring us back for a hearing as soon as possible. We have, obviously, it's a large land purchase, we havc vcry high monthly carrying costs. GALDONES: So noted. LIM: Thank you. GALDONES: Thank you. The discussion ended at 12:34 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 24