Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutCOM 0149.000 2008-2010William P. Kenoi Mayor February 3, 2009 County of Hawaii 891 Ululani Street . Hilo, Hawaii 96720.3982 . (808) 961-8211 . Fax (808)961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kualdni Highway, Suite 103 . Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 329-5226 . Fax (808) 326-5663 Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 333 Kilauea Avenue Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members: /State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 08-000021) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000085) Request: A -20a to ML -1 a Applicant: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Tax Map Key: 1-6-3:18 and 23 Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000087) Applicant: Michael Tokunaga and Peggy Konanui-Tokunaga Request: RS -10 to CN -10 Tax Map Key: 2-2-34:88 Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000088) Applicant: S. Russell and Akiko Oda Request: RS -10 to CN -10 Tax Map Key: 2-2-34:36 Change of Zone Ordinance No. 06 137 (REZ 709, Docket Re): No. 91-000003) Change of Zone Ordinance No. 06 138 (REZ 524, Docket Ref. No. 85-000034) Applicant: Samson LLC Request: Amendment to Condition C of Ordinance Nos. 06 137 and 06 138 Tax Man Key: 7-5-10mortion 13 William T. Takaba Managing Direcror Wally Lau Deputy Managing Director As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6.4.3(C), Hawaii County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sincerely, am P. K of Mayor Enclosures Comm. No, cc: Planning Department Ref. T County orHawai`i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. p; <$ii� 3y,4 3S 7' Ref, Date_FEB 1 us� County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone(808)961-8288 • Fax (808)961-8742 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 08-000021) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000085) Request: A -20a to ML -1 a Applicant: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Tax Map Key 1-6-3:18 and 23 The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on January 15, 2009, reviewed and acted on the above -referenced requests for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural — 20 acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial — 1 acre (ML -1a) district for 10.373 acres of land. The property is located on the southeast corner of the E. Milo Street — Railroad Avenue junction, in the vicinity of the current HELCO Kea'au power plant site, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii. Testimony, both in writing and verbally, was presented during the Planning Commission hearing on this particular application that raised the question of whether legal access exists to the subject property over and across Railroad Avenue and Milo Street. This issue remains unresolved, but there remains an opportunity for the applicant and the objecting party to resolve this issue. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone requests: Hawaii County is an Equal Opportuuiq, Provider and Employer N G:J February 3, 2009 C7 C C=P _A,t The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman co and Members of the County Council County of Hawai `i 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2nd Floor ro Hilo, HI 96720 Un Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 08-000021) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000085) Request: A -20a to ML -1 a Applicant: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Tax Map Key 1-6-3:18 and 23 The Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on January 15, 2009, reviewed and acted on the above -referenced requests for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District and a Change of Zone from an Agricultural — 20 acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial — 1 acre (ML -1a) district for 10.373 acres of land. The property is located on the southeast corner of the E. Milo Street — Railroad Avenue junction, in the vicinity of the current HELCO Kea'au power plant site, Kea`au, Puna, Hawaii. Testimony, both in writing and verbally, was presented during the Planning Commission hearing on this particular application that raised the question of whether legal access exists to the subject property over and across Railroad Avenue and Milo Street. This issue remains unresolved, but there remains an opportunity for the applicant and the objecting party to resolve this issue. The Commission concurs with the following Planning Director's reasons for recommending favorable consideration of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone requests: Hawaii County is an Equal Opportuuiq, Provider and Employer The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 State Land Use Boundary Amendment The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the Urban District for approximately 10.373 acres will not be in violation of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, the County General Plan and the Hawaii State Plan. Under the Land Use Commission Rules, one of the standards for considering an area for urban reclassification 'states that "In determining urban growth for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land contiguous with existing urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-contiguous land, and particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county general plans." Although the properties are not contiguous to Urban designated lands, the area lies 500 feet south and east of the HELCO Kea`au power plant site and the Ulu Pono Town Center, which are on lands designated Urban by the State Land Use Commission. Additionally, the subject properties have historically been used for industrial purposes by the Puna Sugar Company. The reclassification action also conforms to the goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use and Economic Elements of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals, policies, standards and courses of action. It is also a graphic depiction of the physical relationship between the various land uses and establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The subject properties are in an area designated Industrial on the LUPAG Map. The Industrial designation includes uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities and light industrial uses. Since 197 t, the area of the old Puna Sugar Mill has been designated as Industrial in the LUPAG. During the 1989 General Plan Comprehensive Review, the Industrial designation was expanded by re - designating lands in the vicinity from Intensive Agricultural and Orchards to Industrial. This area was considered for industrial expansion as a variety of industrial uses were established in the vicinity through the Special Permit process. The County had determined that the industrial designation would promote and encourage additional utilization of the area. The applicant is also concurrently requesting a Change of Zone from an Agricultural (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial (ML -la) zoned district for 10.373 acres. The reclassification action would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Hawaii State Plan and Puna Community Development Plan by providing future employment opportunities and improved living standards and stimulating the development and expansion of economic activities. The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 3 The Urban classification conforms to the standard that the development is within reasonable proximity to centers of trading and employment and to basic services such as schools, police and fire protection, transportation systems and water. The properties are located less than one mile from the village retail and employment center of Kea`au. Schools and medical, police and fire services are also located within Kea`au. According to the Department of Water Supply, water is available to the site from an 8 -inch waterline within Milo Street. Access to the subject properties is from the Milo Street extension, which is a private roadway owned by W. H. Shipman. According to a 1938 deed the applicant has legal right of access over this roadway, which has a minimum pavement width of 24 feet within a 40 -foot wide road lot. The applicant will provide improvements to the properties' frontage along the end of the Milo Street extension. The applicant will install aerobic individual wastewater treatment system(s) meeting with the approval of the Department of Health to maintain the quality of water from the County -owned potable water wells in the area. Urban Districts shall include lands characterized by "city -like" concentrations of people, structures, streets, urban level of services and other related land uses. Several commercial and industrial uses have been established over the years on surrounding properties and the subject properties through special permits. Recently large areas of land north of the Milo Street extension and east of the Kea`au-Pahoa Bypass have been reclassified from the Agricultural to Urban state land use district, and have been rezoned from agricultural to industrial or mixed commercial -industrial. As industrial and industrial -commercial uses already exist in the immediate area, the urbanization of the project site will not contribute towards scattered urban development. There are no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency designates the properties as Zone "X", areas outside of the 500 -year flood plain. The properties are located over three miles from the shoreline, at an elevation of about 300 feet above sea level and are fairly level with less than a 5% slope. All project generated runoff will be disposed of on-site, so as not to impact surrounding properties. Thus, the reclassification meets with the standard which states that the lands included within the urban district "....shall be those with satisfactory topography and drainage and reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami and unstable soil conditions and other adverse environmental effects." The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 4 While the properties are within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's Agricultural (A -20a) zoned district, it is not currently being used for active agricultural purposes. The subject properties are not currently in agricultural use, nor have they been for over 80 years. Seven of the eight warehouses on site were used for storing and maintaining equipment and.trucks associated with the former Puna Sugar Company mill operations, which was considered an industrial use of the land. In the 1990's, an additional warehouse was constructed and the site was used as a fruit processing facility. The State of Hawaii ALiSH Map classifies the subject property as Prime Agricultural Lands and Unclassified. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the soils in the area is "C" or "Fair" and Unclassified. Immediate surrounding properties are in the State Land Use Agricultural district and are zoned A -20a and A -5a. The Hawaii Right to Farm Act, HRS chapter 165, was enacted to protect farming operations on land in the State Land Use Agricultural District when adjacent land is reclassified out of the Agricultural District. A condition of approval will require the applicant notify prospective purchasers, tenants or lessees of the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. Therefore, the reclassification of this 10.373 -acre area from the Agricultural to the Urban designation will not be detrimental to the reduction of this area from the agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawaii. Furthermore, an Urban classification would complement the existing and future land use pattern of the surrounding area in view of the urban uses already in existence in close proximity to the subject properties. Based on the above, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District complements the State Land Use District Regulations and County General Plan and is supportive of the Hawaii State Plan. Change of Zone The applicant requests a change of zone from an Agricultural - 20 acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial - I acre (ML -1a) zoned district for 10.373 acres of land to establish industrial space for lease or rent, and a water and tropical fruit beverage bottling facility within eight (8) existing warehouses totaling 56,658 square feet in floor area. The warehouses, which are not currently in use, will be renovated. Additionally, the applicant is in the process of drilling a well on the site to provide potable water to the proposed water and tropical fruit beverage bottling operation. No retail sales or visitor facilities are planned. The applicant has submitted a concurrent request for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban district. The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 5 In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Change of Zone request from A -20a to ML -la conforms to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and Puna Community Development Plan. The General Plan is intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. The Puna Community Development Plan translates the broad General Plan statements to specific actions for the Puna district. The Puna district in general lacks industrial areas suitable for small-scale industry. Nearby Shipman Industrial Park contains large lots that cater more to large-scale industrial uses. The General Plan promotes and encourages the rehabilitation of industrial areas that are serviced by basic community facilities and utilities. The proposed project provides an opportunity to rehabilitate abandoned warehouses that have historically been used for industrial uses such as truck and equipment storage and agricultural processing. An action of the Puna Community Development Plan would be achieved by the proposed project in that it would provide jobs to Puna residents and would support the goals of the Enterprise Zone program. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The properties are designated Industrial, which includes uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial -commercial uses. The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 6 The ALISH Map identifies the properties as Prime Important Agricultural Land and Unclassified, and the Land Study Bureau's Productivity rating for the site is "C" or "Fair" and Unclassified. The project site consists of two parcels, containing eight abandoned warehouses that have historically been used for industrial purposes. The properties have not been in agricultural use for at least 80 years. Immediate surrounding properties are in the State Land Use Agricultural district and are zoned A -20a and A -5a. The Hawaii Right to Farm Act, HRS chapter 165, was enacted to protect farming operations on land in the State Land Use Agricultural District when adjacent land is reclassified out of the Agricultural District. A condition of approval will require the applicant notify prospective purchasers, tenants or lessees of the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. Therefore, the requested Limited Industrial zoning is consistent with the LUPAG Map. All utilities and services are available to the site. County water is available to the site from an existing 8 -inch waterline within Milo Street fronting the subject properties as well as an existing 12 -inch waterline within Milo Street approximately 1,500 feet from the properties. The properties are served by a 2 -inch water meter which has eight (8) units of water allocated equal to 4,800 gallons per day (600 gallons per day per unit). A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit daily water usage calculations to the Department of Water Supply to determine if the existing 2 -inch water meter can accommodate the estimated demand, and to install a larger or additional water meter if required. Conditions of approval will also require the applicant to extend 1,500 feet of 6 - inch waterline along Milo Street to the subject properties to provide adequate water flow for fire protection, install fire hydrants if needed, and install a backflow prevention assembly if required. Due to the proximity of potable water wells in the area, the applicant will install aerobic wastewater system(s) meeting with the approval of the Department of Health to maintain the quality of the basal groundwater in the area. Solid waste will be disposed of at appropriate sites designated by the Department of Environmental Management. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. All essential utilities are available to the project site. Police and fire services are available a mile from the site, in Kea`au. Medical services are available at Hilo Medical Center. Access to the project site is from the Kea`au-Pahoa Bypass via the Milo Street extension and Railroad Avenue, which are road lots owned by W. H. Shipman Ltd. The minimum pavement width for these roadways is 24 feet within the 40 -foot wide road lots. A 1938 deed provided by the applicant indicates that the subject properties have a legal right of access over the Milo Road extension road lots, but does not establish right of access for the Railroad Avenue road lot. Therefore, a condition of approval will be included stating that access from the subject properties over Railroad Avenue shall be restricted until the applicant provides documentation establishing right of access that meets with the approval of the Planning Director. The Department of Public Works The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 7 (DPW) recommended that the applicant provide improvements to the entire frontage of the subject properties along the end of the Milo Street extension and Railroad Avenue consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening to include concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. In a letter dated November 5, 2008, the applicant requested relief from this condition because the applicant does not intend to use Railroad Avenue as an access to the site and because the surrounding area is industrial in nature rather than residential so there will be little or no foot traffic along the properties' frontage. A condition of approval will be added requiring the applicant to construct roadway improvements along the properties' frontage at the end of the Milo Street extension similar to the required roadway improvements for the Puna Sugar Mill rezone (Ordinance 04-02). Additionally, condition of approval will be added that no home improvement centers are allowed, because that would create a high traffic use not consistent with the plans presented in the application. The property has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be rectified or which would render the land unusable. The project site is located within Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the 500 -year floodplain. All development generated storm run-off shall be disposed of on-site and not allowed onto adjacent properties or roadways. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The subject properties are located more than three miles from the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazards or affect beach erosion, coastal ecosystems and marine resources. Additionally, they are not located in the Special Management Area. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the properties. According to the applicant, no valued cultural or natural resources exist on the properties and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. Historic resources on the site include seven abandoned warehouses that were built in the mid - 1900's and used in conjunction with the operations of the Puna Sugar Company mill. A condition of approval will require the applicant to comply with the DLNR-SHPD recommendation to submit photo -documentation of the structures prior to alteration or demolition. Thus, the proposed request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The request will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka'Aina" decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 8 Investigation of valued resources: An archaeological inventory survey prepared by Hann & Associates in July 2008 identified seven abandoned warehouses associated with the former Puna Sugar Company mill on the properties. No floral or faunal studies were completed for the properties as they have historically been in industrial use and have recently been graded and grubbed. The valuable cultural historical and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The properties are improved with eight abandoned warehouses. Seven of the eight structures were likely constructed in the mid -1900's and used by the Puna Sugar Company as storage; repair and maintenance areas for the trucks and equipment used for sugar operations. These structures have been determined by the DLNR-SHPD to be historically significant as evidence of the sugar industry in Puna. Therefore, by letter dated September 25, 2008 the DLNR-SHPD recommended that photo -documentation of the structures be completed prior to alteration or demolition. In the 1990's an additional warehouse was built and all eight structures were used for a fruit processing and packing plant. The applicants state that there is no habitat that would appear valuable for native terrestrial or aquatic species. The applicant is not aware of any valuable cultural or natural resources on the properties. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The property does not abut the shoreline; therefore Hawaiian fishing rights is not an issue. No ground alteration is proposed and the properties have been recently graded and grubbed; therefore it is very unlikely that any native plants used for cultural gathering purposes would be affected. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: Conditions of approval will be included to require the applicants to notify the DLNR-SHPD should any unidentified sites or remains be encountered, and proceed only upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-SHPD, and to submit photo -documentation of the seven historically significant warehouses to DLNR-SHPD prior to alteration or demolition. There is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiians rights being practiced on the site, nor existence of any known valued cultural or native resources in the area. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial -1 acre (ML -la) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that is consistent with the General Plan, and will further benefit the general public. The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 9 For your favorable consideration, amendments to the State Land Use Boundary Maps and to Section 25-8-22 (Puna District Zone Map), of the County Zoning Code is transmitted. We are enclosing copies of the staff Background and Planning Director's Recommendation and the hearing transcript for your information. Sincerely, / �` W R L<cA Rodney Waf�nabe, Chairman Planning Commission Lh awai i an rainforest02PC Enclosures cc: Mr. Sidney Fuke Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Department of Public Works Department of Water Supply DOT -Highways, Honolulu Lincoln Ashida, Esq., Corporation Counsel BH (Rainforest WaterS LUREZ.mjc-12/1/08 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND REPORT HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER COMPANY, LLC STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 08-000021) CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 08-000085) HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER COMPANY, LLC has submitted applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural - 20 acres (A -20a) to Limited Industrial - 1 acre (ML -1 a) for approximately 10.373 acres of land. The properties are located in the southeast corner of the E. Milo Street Extension/ Railroad Avenue junction and approximately'/ mile east of the Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road in Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-003:018 and 023. PROPOSED ACTION Request: A State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of Zone from Agricultural - 20 acres (A -20a) to Limited Industrial - 1 acre (ML - 1 a) for two contiguous parcels consisting of approximately 10.3 73 acres of land. The applicant intends to renovate the eight (8) existing warehouses on the properties and use some of the warehouses as a water and tropical fruit beverage bottling plant and rent/lease the remaining warehouses to area businesses for limited industrial and related uses. The warehouses have a combined floor area of 56,658 square feet. The applicant is in the process of drilling a well on the site to provide potable water to the water and tropical fruit beverage bottling operation. No retail sales or visitor facilities are planned. (Planning Department Exhibit 1 - State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Change of Zone applications) 2. Hours of Operation: 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m. daily, but may vary depending on tenant needs. 3. Construction Timetable and Cost: The project will be developed in phases based upon demand for industrial space, pursuant to the overall master plan reflected in Figure 3 of the application. The overall project is anticipated to cost $2,000,000. 4. Landowners: Shikwan Sung, Bong Kim, Hyong Kim, Kyong Sung ATTACH: CCJMM. 149 BILLS 34 & 35 OTHER INFORMATION 5. Special Permit No. 572: Issued on January 31, 1985 to Puna Sugar Company to allow the establishment of processing facilities for dehydration of papaya and other produce on the subject properties. The project was never fully developed and the permit was revoked upon issuance of Special Permit No. 707. 6. Special Permit No. 707: Issued on June 6, 1989 to Amfac Tropical Products to allow the establishment of a fruit packing and processing plant and related improvements on the subject properties. Use of the property for this purpose ceased in the late 1990's or early 2000's. STATE AND COUNTY PLANS 7. State Land Use Designation: Agricultural 8. GP LUPAG Map: Industrial, which includes uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial -commercial uses. 9. General Plan: The applicant has enrolled in the Hawaii Enterprise Zone (EZ) Program, which is a partnership between State and County governments and the private sector to stimulate, via tax and other incentives, certain types of business activity, job preservation, and job creation in areas most appropriate or needed. 10. County Zoning: Agricultural- 20 acres (A -20a) 11. Puna Community Development Plan, adopted September 10, 2008: The plan identifies Keaau as a regional town center consisting of areas for community uses and regional uses (north of Highway 11). It also identifies various opportunities for agricultural and economic development in Puna and actions to achieve these opportunities. One of the actions is to promote the use of the incentives offered by the designation of an Enterprise Zone within Puna to attract businesses to establish in the area and employ Puna residents. 12. Coastal Zone Management, HRS, Chapter 205A: The entire State of Hawaii lies within the Coastal Zone Management Area. 13. Special Management Area (SMA): The Special Management Area is a part of the Coastal Zone Management Program and regulated by the County. The property is located approximately 3 miles from the coastline and not situated within the Special -2- Management Area. DESCRIPTION OF PROPERTIES AND SURROUNDING AREA 14. Subject Property: The subject property consists of two contiguous parcels, one is .644 acres and the other is 9.729 acres is size. The properties are located in the southeast corner of the Milo Street Extension and a 40 to 60 -foot wide partially paved easement (Railroad Avenue). Seven of the eight abandoned warehouses were constructed without building permits in the mid -1900's and were used by the former Puna Sugar Company as storage, repair and maintenance areas for the trucks and equipment used in sugar operations. In the 1990's an additional warehouse was constructed and all eight warehouses were used for a fruit packing and processing plant. The properties are situated at about 300 feet above sea level and are fairly level with less than a 5% slope. 15. Surrounding Zoning/Land Uses: Immediate surrounding properties are in the State Land Use Agricultural district, zoned A -20a and A -5a, and consist of a fruit irradiating facility to the north, a private school (Liberty Christian School) to the west across Railroad Avenue, and vacant lands to the east and south. Further west, south of Milo Street are a floral packing plant and retail nursery store. On the north side of Milo Street near the Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road are two large properties that were rezoned from A - 20a to MCX-20 and ML -20 in 1998 and 2004. The State Land Use designation was concurrently changed for these two properties from Agricultural to Urban. The property closest to the Keaau-Bypass Road is known as the Ulu Pono Town Center and includes an existing credit union and planned drug store. 16. ALISH: Prime Important Agricultural Land and Unclassified 17. Land Study Bureau's Detailed Land Classification System: "C" or "Fair" and Unclassified 18. U.S. Soil Survey: The soils on the site are classified as Ola'a Silty Clay Loam (OaC), which consists of moderately deep , moderately fine soil that has rapid permeability, slow runoff, and a light erosion hazard. This type of soil was formerly used for cultivating sugarcane. 19. FEMA: Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the 500 -year flood plain. 20. Flora/Fauna Resources: No formal flora/fauna study was conducted of the site. As the property was recently graded and grubbed and formerly contained industrial uses, it is -3- unlikely that any rare, endangered or threatened floral or faunal species are in the area. 21. Archaeological Resources: An archaeological inventory study of the properties conducted by Hann & Associates in July 2008 identified seven warehouse structures associated with the operation of the former Puna Sugar Company mill. By letter dated September 25, 2008, the DLNR-SHPD recommended that additional photo- documentation of the structures be completed prior to alteration or demolition. 22. Cultural or Native Gathering Rights: The applicant is not aware of any traditional and/or customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. 23. Public Access: None that traverses the property. 24. Traffic: A Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR) for the proposed project was completed in September 2008 by M & E Pacific, Inc. The report analyzed impacts of the proposed project at the signalized E. Milo Street/ Keaau-Pahoa Bypass intersection and Keaau-Pahoa Bypass/ Highway 11 intersection. The proposed project will generate approximately 27 and 28 vehicle trips per hour in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The report determined that the proposed project will not have an adverse traffic impact at both study intersections. 25. Water Resources: There are County -owned potable water wells located within 2,000 feet of the site and the applicant is proposing to drill a potable water well on the site. The applicant recognizes the need to protect the basal groundwater in this area. PUBLIC UTILITIES AND SERVICES 26. Access: Access to the project site is via the Milo Street extension, which is a private roadway owned by W. H. Shipman Ltd., with a minimum pavement width of 24 feet within a 40 foot -wide road lot. The Milo Street extension/ Keaau-Pahoa Bypass intersection is signalized. There is an additional access at the Hilo end of the Keaau- Pahoa Bypass to the subject properties via Railroad Avenue, which is also a private roadway owned by W. H. Shipman Ltd. Direct access to the subject properties from the end of the Milo Street extension is over a road lot which is owned by W. H. Shipman Ltd. The applicant has submitted documentation establishing right of access over the Milo Street extension road lots based upon a 1938 deed between W. H. Shipman Ltd. and Olaa Sugar Company Ltd., the former owner of the subject properties (see Exhibit 2: November 14, 2008 and November 18, 2008 letters to Planning Director). -4- 27. Water: County water is available to the site from an existing 8 -inch waterline within Milo Street fronting the subject properties and from an existing 12 -inch waterline within Milo Street approximately 1,500 feet from the properties. According to the Department of Water Supply, the properties are currently served by an existing 2 -inch meter, which is limited to 8 units of water for a maximum of 4,800 gallons per day (600 gallons per day per unit). The applicant also plans on drilling a water well on-site, that depending on its quality could be used for potable or non -potable purposes (such as landscaping or fire protection). 28. Wastewater: There is no municipal sewer system in the area. Due to the proximity of potable wells in the area and the applicant's planned well on site, the applicant will install an aerobic wastewater system meeting with the approval of the Department of Health. 29. Solid Waste: Solid waste will be disposed of at authorized County landfills or transfer stations by commercial haulers. 30. Essential Utilities and Services: All essential utilities are available to the project site. Police and fire services are available a mile from the site, in Keaau. Medical services are available at Hilo Medical Center. AGENCIES' COMMENTS 31. Department of Public Works: Planning Department Exhibit 3 — October 30, 2008 memo 32. Department of Water Supply: Planning Department Exhibit 4 —November 6, 2008 memo 33. Police Department: Planning Department Exhibit 5 — October 22, 2008 memo 34. Fire Department: Planning Department Exhibit 6 — October 20, 2008 memo 35. Department of Environmental Management: Planning Department Exhibit 7 — October 13, 2008 memo 36. Department of Health: Planning Department Exhibit 8 — October 27, 2008 memo 37. DLNR Historic Preservation Division: Planning Department Exhibit 9 — September 25, 2008 and October 26, 2008 letters 38. DLNR Land Division: Planning Department Exhibit 10 — October 17, 2008 letter AGENCIES AND ORGANIZATIONS - NO RESPONSES 39. Department of Transportation, Natural Resources Conservation Survey and State Land %is Use Commission APPLICANT'S RESPONSE TO AGENCIES' COMMENTS 40. Planning Department Exhibit 11— November 5, 2008 and November 13, 2008 letters to Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director PUBLIC COMMENTS 41. As of the date of this writing, the Planning Department has not received any written comments or objections from the general public or adjacent landowners on the subject application. In APPLICATIONS FOR S'L'ATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and. COUNTY REZONING (A -20a TO ML -la) HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER Co., LLC Keaau, Puna, Hawai' i TMK: (3) 1-6-003: 018 & 023 Prepared For: Hawaiian Raini'orest water Co., LLC Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant September 2008 Planning Dept. Exhibit APPLICATIONS 11' STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY (- AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and COUNTY REZONING (A -20a TO ML -la) HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO., LLC Kea' au, Puna, Hawai i TMK: (3) 1-6-003: 018 & 023 Prepared For: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Prepared By: Sidney M. Fuke, Planning Consultant September 2008 CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) APPLICANT: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co.,^LLC APPLICANT'S 9/25/08 ADDRESS: 16-665 Milo Street Keaau, HI 96749 LIST APPLICANT'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: LIST PRINCIPAL(S) INCLUDING NAMES OF MAIN OFFICERS: Shikwan Kwan - Managing Membe PHONE:(Bus.) 982-3739 LANDOWNER(S): Shikwan Kwan; Kyong Sung; Bong Kim; Hyong Kim LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(SJ��t —6 C IC DATE: -2-V (May be by let er) LANDOWNER(S) ADDRESS: c/o 16-665 Milo Street Keaau, BI 96749 REQUEST: A -20a TO ML-lacre TAX MAP KEY: (Existing zoning) 1-6-03: 18 & 23 (Proposed Zoning) STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 16-665 Milo Street SIZE OF PROPERTY OR AFFECTED AREA(S) TO BE REZONED: 10+ acres `- AGENT: Sidney Fuke ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res) (Fax) 969-7996 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. ORIGINAL: Sidney Fuke COPIES: Shikwan Sung TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN: F Please be informed that as property owners of TMK: (3)1-6-03:18 and 23, we have no objections to the requests of Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC to reclassify said properties from the Agriculture into the Urban District, to rezone said area from A -20a to ML -la, and to any subsequent permits required to implement the reclassification and rezoning actions. 7 Bong Kim (Date) Hyong Kim (Date) KZ' -n, IL -2:71c)? Kyong Sung (Date) STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (15 ACRES OR LESS) COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT (Type or legibly print the requested information) PETITIONER'S SIGNATURE: ADDRESS: 16-665 Milo Street 1011 PETITIONER'S INTEREST IF NOT OWNER: Managing Member TELEPHONE: (Bus.) 982-3739 (Res.) DATE: Sept. 25, 2008 (Fax) LANDOWNER(S): Shikwan Kwan; Kyong Sung; Bong Kim; Hyong Kim I LANDOWNER SIGNATURE(S): l_ 2008 ADDRESS: TAX MAP KEY: (3) 1-6-03: 18 & 23 be by letter) I:(1 STREET ADDRESS OF PROPERTY: 16-665 Milo Street ZONING: A -20a DATE: Sept. 25, SIZE OF PROPERTY: 10.373 acres CURRENT STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Agriculture REQUESTED STATE LAND USE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION: Urban AGENT: Sidney Fuke, Planning Consultant ADDRESS: 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, HI 96720 TELEPHONE:(Bus.) 969-1522 (Res.) (Fax) 969-7996 Please indicate to whom original correspondence and copies should be sent. I ATTACHMENT Commercial, RM, Resort; & Industrial PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII APPLICATION FOR CHANGE OF ZONE 1. if your request is approved, do you intend to subdivide the subject land in accordance with the approved change of zone? No If yes, please answer the rest of question I and then to question 3. a• How many acres of the requested area do you intend to subdivide? b. Into what lot sizes? C. if your request is approved, approximately how long after the date of approval do you expect to submit your subdivision plans to the Planning Department for preliminary approval? If you intend to subdivide, please submit a preliminary schematic subdivision plan together with your change of zone application form. If you nave no firm plans of subdividing the subject area, do you intend to: a. Sell or lease the land to someone who has firm plans? No b. Sell or lease the land to someone who has tentative plans? No C. Sell or lease the land to someone who has no plans? No C1. Keep it? Yes e. other (please state) f. If you intend to do either a, b, or c, please elaborate on the kind of plans the other party has. Please, also, include in your answer approximately how soon after approval of your rezoning do you expect to transfer the subject land to another party. Retain a portion for bottling facility and rent/lease the balance. 3. What specific building plans do you have for the subject land? Include in your answer the following: type of building (apartment, office, launderette, etc.); financing arrangement; timetable for construction; and any other information which you feel might help us in evaluating your request. Please refer to olannine and environmental 4. Have you performed any study which would demonstrate a need for your proposed building and/or development? No if so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided below. -2- 5• Have you performed any study which discusses the environmental impacts your request would nave on the surrounding area and/or the County? If so, please elaborate on your findings in the space provided below. Please refer to accompanying planning and environmental report Yes 6. Are there any buildings on the subject area? Yes If so, what kind? There are existing structures that will be renovated. What do you intend to do with those buildings if your request is approved? 7• Is the subject land currently being used for any agricultural activity? if so, please list the kinds of products grown on and how many square feet or acres of land per product? -3- Mrs E. To your knowledge, has there been any flooding and/or drainage problem on the subject area? No If so, please describe the problem. 9. Do you think that the roads leading to the subject area needs improvement? Yes If so, what kind? The driveway needs to be improved Is the road adequate for the proposed traffic volume or load? Yes 10. What sort of governmental assistance and/or improvements do you feel will be needed in the subject area when developed? a. Schools b, Roads C . Sewer d. Drainage e. Police Protection f. Fire Protection 9. Recreational Facilities h. Recreational Facilities i. x -4- yes NO x x Forthose checked "yes,"p-base eabomte whattype orknds of in pmvem ents and/or assistance are needed. Driveway access to be improved by applicant, 11. Have you peffinn ed any histoma sus study and,6rsurvey ofthe subectama? Ifso,whatwem the results? P -base, a -bo, subm ira copy of the study tngetherw 1h this change of zone suppbm ant Please see attached environmental report. S tnatum : Address: Tebphone: DaiB: 6338Ai54A P.D.584 16-665 Milo Street Kea u, HI 96749 982-3739 Sept. 25, 2008 COUNTY ENVIRONMENTAL REPORT APPLICATIONS FOR STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (Agricultural to Urban) and COUNTY REZONING REQUEST (A -20a to ML -1 a) HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO., LLC KEAAU, PUNA, HAWAI-I TAX MAP KEY: (3) 1-6-003: 018 & 023 INTRODUCTION The applicant, Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC, is requesting to have two (2) contiguous parcels consisting of a combined area of 10.373 acres reclassified from the State Land Use Agriculture to Urban district and subsequently rezoned from the County Agriculture (A -20a) to Limited Industrial (ML -1a) zone. The property is the site of abandoned warehouses that were initially - associated with the operations of the former Puna Sugar Company mill, located in Keaau, Puna, Hawai'i, TMK: (3) 1-6-003: 018 & 023. More L recently, the site was used for a fruit packing and processing plant. If approved, the applicant intends to renovate these warehouses and make them available for rent or lease to area businesses for limited industrial and related uses. A portion of the warehouses, however, would be reserved for the applicant's planned water bottling plant. L II. PROJECT LOCATION As noted earlier, the subject site, consisting of 10.373 acres, is made up of two (2) contiguous parcels identified by TMK: 1-6-003: 018 and 023. Parcel 018 consists of .644 acres, while the other consists of 9.729 acres. The affected area is the site of some abandoned warehouses that were used in conjunction with the operation of the former Puna Sugar Company mill. These warehouses and a new structure were used until the late 1990's for a fruit packing and processing plant by Amfac Tropical Products, another subsidiary of the parent company of the former Puna Sugar Company. More specifically, the site is located on the south side of the Milo Street Extension, approximately 450 feet east of the Keaau By -Pass Road. �.-- Surrounding uses to the west include a private school (Liberty Christian School), a floral packing plant, a retail store, and the Ulu Pono Town Center. The eight and one-half mile former plantation camp is also -- located in the general area to the south. (Figure 1) STATE OF HAWAII N luniau O Hpuu 0 � uo�vnl - - UAHU CJ pUl n vueu D cE r� vw4°ouwE �% HAwul ' N y�rc T� ` PROJECT LOCATION, PM ,Y N T / \, PA CTFJC OCEAN 4J '� ISLAND OE HAWAII VICINITY MAP NOT TO SONE Shipman Commercial ) I� '• Business Center \ LOCATION MAP NOT TO SO /—�) STUDY / INTERSECTIONS } �C- r a Puna 1 Sugar Mill Company Ulupownnb Iy 5 To' 1 Center _ PROJECT If z. III. PROJECT DESCRIPTION A. Proiect Concept and Components The site consists of 8 warehouse structures. Of these, 7 were associated with the operations of the former Puna Sugar Company mill complex. A new warehouse building, consisting of 3,600 square feet, was constructed in the late 1990's as part of a fruit packing and processing plant by a company called Amfac Tropical Products. All of these warehouses have a combined area of 56,658 square feet. (Figure 2) The applicant intends to renovate the older structures and utilize some of them for a water and tropical fruit bottling plant, utilizing the water on the site. The applicant currently is drilling a water well on the site. The balance of the renovated structures would be rented or leased to small businesses interested in light industrial uses, such as warehousing, self -storage facility, auto repair, and the like. The applicant already has received a number of such inquiries over the past six months. These structures are and will continue to be single -story in height, not exceeding 40 feet. On-site paved parking, as required by the Zoning Code, would be provided. Landscaping throughout the site would also be implemented in conjunction with the development of the project. As noted earlier, the applicant is in the process of a water well drilled on the site. A well construction permit (Well No. 3701-01) was recently issued on June 27, 2008. If successful for potable purposes, the applicant is contemplating establishing a water and tropical fruit bottling plant on the site. No retail sales or visitor facilities are planned for this component of the project. Access to the site is from the extension of Milo Street. There is also an alternative access at the Hilo -end of the Keaau By -Pass. These accesses have a minimum pavement width of 20 feet with 4 - foot shoulders. Tentatively, the proposed operating hours of the industrial park would be from 7:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., daily. However, it is anticipated that there will be times when this may vary to accommodate the needs of the respective tenants. The proposed development is not intended to be directly competitive to the Shipman Industrial Park. The principal, difference is that the subject area is not intended to be subdivided and sold into smaller lots; instead the intent of the applicant is to have users rent or lease space within the planned renovated structures. The market here is directed towards the small businesses. B. Proiect Timetable and Cost The applicant intends to secure the balance of the required permits and begin making the appropriate improvements immediately upon approval of these applications. Hopefully, this can be done early next year. Although the project would be developed in phases, it would still be done pursuant to an overall master plan, generally as reflected in Figure 3. The rate of development, however, would be a function of the demand. Upon full build -out, the proposed improvements are expected to exceed $2 million. This cost would include the renovated structures, parking areas, related drainage improvements, L landscaping, and the like. IV. INSTITUTIONAL CONSIDERATIONS f A. State Land Use l_ The subject property is designated Agricultural. As such, a boundary amendment to cover the requested 10.3+ acre is required. As the requested area is less than 15 acres, however, l._ the County has jurisdiction to act on the request. A more detailed discussion of the request's relationship to the State Land Use Urban guidelines and criteria are found in Chapter IX of this report. On June 6, 1989, the Planning Commission issued a Special Permit (SPP No. 707) for a fruit packing and processing plant on the subject site. This use ceased in the late 1990's or early 2000's. (Exhibit A) 1, While a Special Permit could also have been applied, upon the guidance of the Planning Director, the boundary reclassification and county rezoning approach is being taken. Please refer to the letter, dated September 5, 2007. (Exhibit B) B. County General Plan The County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide [am A (LUPAG) map designates the site Industrial. As such, a General Plan amendment to the LUPAG map would not be required. Relative to the Industrial designation, the General Plan notes that "These areas include uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, and light industrial uses." The requested zoning and planned uses would be consistent with the uses envisioned within the Industrial area. A further discussion of the project's conformity to the General Plan is found in Chapter IX of this report. Please note that in a September 5, 2007 letter (Exhibit B), the Planning Director confirmed the General Plan LUPAG map designation of Industrial and added that "This (industrial designation) would be in line with a request to change the zoning of the properties to a Light Industrial (ML) or General Industrial (MG). Puna Community Development Plan ("CDP") The CDP was adopted by the County Council on August 27, 2008 to serve as a guide for decision -makers. The subject area is outside of the Kea'au Regional Town Center. A detailed discussion of the project's relationship to the CDP is found in Chapter IX of this report. County Zoning The County zoning of the requested area is Agriculture (A -20a)). If the Light Industrial (ML -1a) request were approved, all related land use and development codes such as Plan Approval, parking, landscaping, fire, ADA, and the like would be complied with by the applicant. It should be noted that within the Keaau Village area, there are no industrially zoned areas. There are 2 areas located outside of the village core with industrial zonings. One is the Shipman Industrial Park, located approximately 2 miles north of the village. The other is in the vicinity of the subject site, where there are both ML and MCX zoning designations. E. Other Permitting Considerations The site is not located within the County Special Management Area (SMA). As such, no SMA Use Permit would be required. However, as noted earlier, other construction -related permits would still be required. These would be of the "ministerial" variety; such as Plan Approval, building permit, Department of Health clearances, and subdivision. V. ENVIRONMENTAL CONSIDERATIONS A. General Description The 10+ acre site is shaped somewhat like a parallelogram. Its longest side running in a north/south direction varies between 673+ to 876+ feet, while the width varies between 518+ to 530+ feet. The site is a corner lot, with the Milo Street Extension forming its ( northern boundary and a 40 to 60 -foot wide partially paved easement forming the western boundary. The former Puna Sugar Mill is located northwest or kitty corner of the subject site. This ( area was recently rezoned into the ML -20 district. As noted earlier, the site has 7 abandoned warehouses that were part of the Puna Sugar Company mill operations and during the 1990's, as a fruit packing and processing plant. In conjunction with the latter operations, a new warehouse building consisting of 3,600 square feet was constructed. B. Climate, Soil and Topography According to the U.S. Department of Commerce, National Climatic Data Center, Climatological Data, Annual Summary, Hawaii and l_ Pack, the mean annual rainfall in this area ranges between 125 to 175 inches. The wetter months tend to occur between October ( through April. The average daily temperature ranges from a l_ minimum of 72 degrees to a maximum of 77 degrees Fahrenheit. Wind patterns in the area are generally trade winds (easterly) during the day and westerly during the evenings. The property's elevation is approximately 300 feet above mean sea level. The site is fairly level with no significant on-site undulations. The topography of the site slopes slightly in a west to east directions. The grade, however, is less than 5 percent. As the site has been significantly modified, the basic soil characteristics of the site have also been altered. Nonetheless, according to the Land Study Bureau Overall Master Productivity Rating, this site is classified "C" or "Fair". According to the US C. Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service Soil Survey Report, the soil is classified as being part of the Ola'a series, specifically, the Ola'a Silty Clay Loam (OaC). This series is characterized by moderately deep, moderately fine soil. Permeability is rapid, runoff is slow, and the erosion hazard slight. This type of soil was formerly used mainly for sugar cane. Under the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system, the site is classified Unique. Natural Hazards 1. Drainage The Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) prepared by the U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency designates the area of the proposed development to be in Zone X (areas outside of 500 -year flood). There are no drainageways through the site. Accordingly, the site has not and should not be subject to flooding. As there may be an added level of impervious surface resulting from the proposed development, there may be an issue relating to potential increased run-off. In that event, drywell(s) or similar type of accommodations will be implemented, subject to the review and approval of the Department of Public Works and State Department of Health via the Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit process. 2. Tsunami Hazard Given its elevation (300 and distance from the nearest shoreline (7+ miles), it is located outside of the Civil Defense's Tsunami Evacuation Zone. Thus, there should be little or no threat from high waves. 3. Volcanic and Earthquake Hazards The United States Geological Survey (USGS) classifies the subject site as Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, on a scale of ascending risk, 9 to 1. This classification is similar to Keaau and the City of Hilo. There is very little that can be done to protect structures and improvements on the site. Relative to protection of life, however, this would be achieved through the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the County Civil Defense agency. Such notices will be prominently placed within existing structures. The entire island of Hawaii falls within Earthquake Zone 4, according to the County Building Code. The applicant understands and accepts that all structures must be constructed to meet with the more restrictive seismic hazard structural requirements of the Building Code. D. Flora/Fauna Resources Although there was no professional survey conducted of the faunal resources of the site, the applicant does not believe that rare or endangered faunal resources are likely to be found within or ( proximate to the subject site. This is due to the general area's absence of vegetation — as it was recently graded and grubbed - and the relatively developed state of the surrounding area. However, there are pockets of "California" and "Guinea" grass on I the site, both of which are non-native and not endangered. Thus L, the floral impacts should be minimal. Further, the quasi -urban setting of the site and immediately (, surrounding areas, combined with the former industrial use of the site, impacts to any endangered faunal species should be r negligible. Nonetheless, there are faunal resources in this area, l , none of which would be endangered or threatened. These include bird species such as the Spotted Dove, Francolin, Common Myna, and the like. Domestic animals such as cats and dogs, and other L_ animals like rats and mongoose can also be found. As such, it is unlikely that the development of this property would cause any adverse faunal impacts. E. Historic/Cultural/Archaeological Resources An archaeological inventory survey was conducted of this area by Haun and Associates, a copy of which is found in Exhibit C. This report, dated July 2008, did not identify any pre -contact �- archaeological remains. Instead, it identified only one post -contact site. This site was the 7 warehouse structures associated with the operations of the Puna Sugar Company mill. The structures were used largely for warehouse and the repair and maintenance of trucks and equipments associated with the sugar operations. These structures were purportedly constructed during the mid -20tH century by Puna Sugar Company when mechanized vehicles became more prevalent in the sugar harvesting and processing operations. The report assessed the site as being significant under Criterion "d", which refers to information important for the understanding of the historic land use of the area. Accordingly, the report concluded that "no further work or preservation is recommended". Nonetheless, during the course of developing this project, should any — although very unlikely - archaeological features or sites are (� uncovered, work in the affected area will immediately cease and the applicant will notify the Planning Department. F. Valued Cultural Resources The recent Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina" decisions require decision -makers to consider a project's impact to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights. Specifically, there must be a discussion of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and associated traditional and customary practices of this site and the impact of this project to these resources and practices. In this situation, the subject site is not adjacent andlor proximate to the shoreline. As such, fishing and coastal access is not an issue. Given the site's past sugar related use for over 100 years, it is extremely doubtful whether the subject or immediately surrounding area was used for the gathering of plants by native Hawaiians. Furthermore, as noted earlier, the area of the requested area is practically denuded of vegetation and whatever vegetation exists today appears to be all introduced. The applicant also notes that he has not heard of any reports from other property owners living in the area of native Hawaiians being observed gathering plants within or proximate to the subject site. As such, it would appear very unlikely that the site would serve such purpose today and/or in the recent past. Nonetheless, if legitimate claims are made and can be documented, the applicant will make appropriate access accommodations. H Based on the above, it does not appear that the project would have f any potential adverse impacts relating to native Hawaiian cultural and historical resources and/or practices. ,-- G. Water and Coastal Resources The subject site is located over 7 miles from the coastline. As such, coastal impacts resulting from discharge of drainage systems from the site should not be significant. Being a non -coastal property, no coastal access will be affected. The applicant is aware that there are potable wells within 2,000 feet of the subject site. Furthermore, the applicant is also developing a well on the subject site, less than 1,000 feet from the warehouses. Accordingly, the applicant is sensitive to the need to protect the basal groundwater in this area. In that like, the proposed development will dispose of its [ wastewater through the use of an aerobic system. This system will be designed in a manner meeting with the requirements of the h State Department of Health. Further as noted earlier, prior to the installation or use of any drywells on the site to address on-site drainage concerns, the appropriate UIC permit from the State will be taken. At that time, impacts to water and coastal resources will be carefully examined. LH. Noise, Air Quality, and Dust r The existing background ambient noise level is associated with the l traffic along the Keaau By-pass, wind, foliage, birds, and the like. Collectively, that type of noise level would be relatively low, averaging less than 45 Ldn. While the project will introduce additional vehicular traffic to this area and, in tum, affect the ambient noise level, the impact should not be as pronounced as the By -Pass traffic. Further, with the requested rezoning, the traffic is expected to be a diurnal and not nocturnal. The impacts to any residences in this area, thus, should not be significant. There will also be short-term noise impacts during the construction phase. To mitigate this impact, the development of this project — particularly the site work - will be limited to daylight hours and on weekdays. Contractors will also be required to comply with established State Department of Health guidelines and standards relating to noise and emission controls. V1. The proposed development should not generate any direct air qualitV impacts. As the project itself is not expected to have uses that generate adverse air pollutants, the only discernible air quality impact would be associated with vehicular traffic to and from the site. While the added traffic will have an impact to the ambient air quality, the impact should not be significant. This is due in part to the higher EPA standards for vehicular air emissions and the prevailing tradewinds. All of the required parking area within the project site will be paved with an all-weather, dust free surface. Landscaping will also be required as part of the Plan Approval requirement. As such, with the exception of minimal construction dust in the beginning, long term dust generated by the project should be insignificant. Scenic and Visual Considerations In the Natural Beauty element of the General Plan, there are sites or areas listed as scenic resources. The subject site is not listed as a scenic site. However, there a few examples cited within the Keaau area. These included the royal palms fronting Keaau School and the view of Mauna Kea and Mauna Loa from major roadways. The development of the proposed site should not have any visual impacts on those and other listed scenic resources in the area. The site is located makai of the Keaau-By-Pass, and as such, will not affect any of the views to the two mountains. SOCIAL AND RELATED CONSIDERATIONS A. Surrounding Land Uses The mixture of land uses in this area suggests an area in transition. The transition is from a former mill and sugar cane site to some residential, light industrial, and commercial uses. Within a mile of the site, there are an existing former plantation camp (8 and % mile); flower packing and storage facility; retail store dealing with agricultural products; Ulu Pono Town center with a credit union and a planned drug store; a church, and an educational facility_ Given its location, the proposed development should not be incompatible with the existing and approved uses for this area. The project should not any direct impacts on the existing residential uses along the mauka or west side of the By -Pass, as the By -Pass essentially serves as an effective buffer. The�other residential area 10 is a former plantation camp located about a mile from the site. Access to the planned project is different from access to the camp. Additionally, landscaping will be provided; and no noxious uses or uses that are nocturnal in nature are planned for this site. Given the above, the mixture of uses suggests an area in transition, and the proposed development would not be incongruous with that pattern. B. Economic Impacts LThe requested zoning would have some measure of economic impact, as it would provide short-term employment opportunities for those in the construction and related industries. At the same time, there would be longer term economic impacts, as I the site would provide opportunities for those interested in leasing l_ or renting areas for small-scale industrial uses. This type of opportunity is not readily available in the growing community of Keaau and its surrounding areas. While there is the Shipman Industrial Park, the lots there are predominantly 1 -acre or larger in size and oriented more for larger businesses rather than small businesses. In that regard, this site has been placed into the Hilo -Puna ( Enterprise Zone. (Exhibit D) The Enterprise Zone (EZ) l _ partnership "Is a joint state -county business effort to stimulate — via tax and other incentives — certain types of business activity, job preservation, and job creation in areas where they are most �_. appropriate or most needed." Once certain type of businesses are eligible such as manufacturing, energy related, or wholesale. There are also hiring requirements. In this situation, with the _. endorsement of the County Department of Research and Development, the application was approved by the State. The industrial rezoning would also increase the tax revenues to the County. However, there could be some real property tax consequences for the adjoining residentially or agriculturally zoned properties. As the assessed valuation of the subject property rises due to the higher commercial/industrial use, there could be some fallout to neighboring properties. However, landowners who are intent on keeping their property for residential or agricultural uses would have the option of dedicating their land for residential or agricultural uses. I1 C. Agricultural Impacts- While mpacts While the site has been classified "C" or "Fair" by the Land Study Bureau, the actual agricultural use of the site has been quite minimal over the past 80 years. The subject site has been used for the most part as industrial while the sugar mill was under operation since the early 1900's to 1980. Since that time, the site has been used on and off for limited industrial uses or left in its current vacant state. Given the above, the agricultural impacts resulting from this rezoning should be negligible, if at all. VII. INFRASTRUCTURE CONSIDERATIONS A. Road and Traffic [1 I With the completion of the Keaau By -Pass, the subject site has two direct accesses to a major cross-town thoroughfare_ One of these accesses — Milo Street Extension — is signalized, thus affording f safe and efficient vehicular movements in this area. The other is over a private road (easement) located at the Hilo -end of the By - Pass. Both of these easements have a right-of-way of 40 feet, up to the Ulu Pono Town Center near the signalized intersection, L where the right-of-way is 60 feet. For the most part, the width of the pavement within these rights-of-way is at least 24 feet. Given that situation, a Traffic Impact Analysis Report ("TIAR") was prepared for this project by M&E Pacific, Inc and attached hereto as Exhibit E. The report analyzed the project's impact to where the By -Pass intersects with the Milo Street Extension as well as at the Belt Highway (Highway 11). In analyzing the impact, the report took into account the projected traffic volume of the project as well as the gradual increase of the ambient regional traffic. The project was expected to generate 27 and 28 vehicle per hour ("vph") in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The report noted that at the Milo Street intersection, the Level of Service ("LOS") was operating at service level A in both of the peak hours with school traffic. That intersection is anticipated to "operate at LOS C for the 2018 ambient morning peak hour and at LOS A for the afternoon peak hour." It added that the additional traffic generated by the project should not change these results and l_ 12 IN concluded that "the proposed project would not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection." Relative to the Belt Highway intersection, the LOS is operating at B and C in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The northbound approach at the Belt Highway, however, is operating at LOS D in the morning peak hour. The projected ambient level (without this project) in the year 2018 should operate a LOS E in the pm peak. The report added and concluded that "The additional traffic generated by the proposed project would be very small and is not expected to change these results in both peak hours, indicating that the proposed project would not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection." B. Water There is a 12 -inch County water line up to the Ulu Pono Town Center. The line then tapers to 10 inches up to the subject site. This line provides water from the wells located proximate to the subject site through the Ola'a-Mt. View System's Station No. 3. County water is thus available for the proposed development. As noted earlier, the applicant is also having a water well dug on the site, and depending on its quality, could be used for potable and/or non -potable purposes (such as landscaping, fire protection, and the like) C. Wastewater There is no County wastewater system in this area. Due to the proximity of potable wells in this area as well as the applicant's planned well on site, the applicant will construct an aerobic system meeting with the requirements of the State Department of Health. D. Solid Waste Solid waste will be handled by commercial haulers who will dispose of the refuse at authorized county landfill. E. Other Government Services As this area is already part of the village of Keaau urban area, it already has access to a number of services. Thus, no extension of government services would be required, and existing facilities should be sufficient to accommodate the demand expected from this project 13 F As this project is a commercial one, it should have little or no direct impacts to schools, parks, and other related facilities. The Police and Fire Stations and emergency medical services are located in the village of Keaau, approximately a mile away. The nearest public health facility is at the Hilo Medical Center, approximately 10 miles from the subject site. This facility is one of 5 licensed hospitals on the island. Other Utilities All other utilities such as telephone and electrical services are available to the site. VIII. IMPACT SIGNIFICANCE ANALYSIS A. Relationship Between Local Short -Term Uses of Environment and Maintenance and Enhancement of Long -Term Productivity The short-term use of the site would probably be the same as the current use of abandoned warehouses. This non-use would probably continue until some alternative uses are planned. This project should not result in any significantly adverse short or long-term impacts that cannot be properly mitigated. There will be direct and indirect economic benefits resulting from the construction and implementation of this project. There will be construction jobs created in the short-term and at least an undeterminable number of full and/or part-time positions created as a result of the future small- scale industrial uses. Relatedly, the project will generate increased tax revenues that can supplement the State and County's fiscal resources. Because of its location, this project will provide a service that can be made reasonably accessible to Keaau Village and it surrounding communities. While there is the Shipman Industrial Park, that area is geared more for larger and heavy industrial users, as the area is zoned MG (Heavy Industrial). The availability of lease and/or rental space for smaller light industrial businesses is not available in this area. Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitment of Resources The area of the requested rezoning has already been extensively disturbed. As such, the commitment of natural or other resources 14 (such as botanical and avifaunal) would not appear to be significant, if at all. Likewise, the likelihood of finding any archaeological or cultural remains on the site appears remote. Further, any unanticipated finds can be properly mitigated upon consultation with appropriate government agencies. C. Mitigative Measures The applicant intends to provide any reasonably required off and on-site infrastructure in conjunction with the development of this project. These may include on-site drainage, landscaping, and water improvements. All of these, if required, will be done in conjunction with the permitting and permit implementation phases of this project. (y Although the potential of discovering additional archaeological features on the site is remote, if any inadvertent discoveries are made during any phase of this project, the Planning Department will be notified. Additional landscaping will also be incorporated within the project site, as well as along the boundaries that may be clearly visible from residential areas or a public road. The landscaping would be consistent with the Planning Department's landscaping rules. D. Alternatives to the Proposed Project 1. No Project Under the status quo alternative, the site would remain as an abandoned warehouse site. Under this scenario, the site would not be utilized to its highest and best use, as envisioned by the General Plan, and the Kea'au Village and its immediately surrounding �- areas would continue to be under served relative to light industrial uses. 2. Development Based on Existing Open Zoning Under this alternative, the area of the requested zoning would still not be utilized agriculturally, given its current condition. 15 IX. While there are abundant, vacant agriculturally and open zoned areas in this vicinity, there is a Light Industrial zoned property across the street, it is undeveloped. Because of the existing structures, the applicant's site, on the other hand, can be readily made accessible for small businesses. . 3. Mixed Commercial/Industrial Uses Another option could be an Industrial/Commercial — Mixed (MCX) zoning. While that may be consistent with the General LUPAG's map Industrial designation, the liberal commercial uses allowed within that zoning may serve to dilute the effectiveness of the existing Village Commercial (CI) areas within Kea'au Village. At the same time, the demand for light industrial areas would not be fulfilled. 4. Evaluation of Alternatives Leaving the property in its current state would not maximize the use of the land. There is very little agricultural use that can be done on the subject property. As such, while there would be some measure of open space with the abandonec warehouses, there would be diminished tax revenues, less opportunity for the creation of new jobs, and fewer services to the public. While alternative industrial zoning, such as the MCX, is possible, such zoning could result in potential negative impacts to existing commercially zoned areas. Under that scenario, there would be a land use vacuum for the needed light industrial areas. At the same time, the requested zoning would be consistent with the Industrial designation of the County General Plan LUPAG map. As such, it would appear that none of the alternatives would be more prudent and beneficial than the requested ML -1a zoning alternative. REGULATORY ANALYSIS - County and State Land Use Policies A. State Land Use Urban Standards As the requested area covers less than fifteen (15) acres, the County can process the request. Pursuant to the Planning Commission Rule No. 13, the request must meet certain standards. These standards and their justification follow: W1 Conformity to the General Plan and Community Development Plan The project's relationship and conformity are demonstrated in sections B, C, and D below. . 2. Relationship to State Land Use Urban District Standards ' The State Land Use Commission's Rules provide the standards for determining the Urban district boundaries ( (Section 15-15-18). Their relationship to this request is noted as follows: a. "City -Like" Characteristics Although not adjacent to the subject area, this general I area is characterized by a concentration of people, structures, streets, and rural/urban level of services. I The Kea'au Village is less than '/z mile from the l_. subject area. The Village has a variety of land uses, including residential (single and multiple) and commercial. There are no industrial or enterprise zones, however. b. Factors of Urban Characteristics The site is proximate to centers of trading and employment. It is within an area where there are existing commercial uses and intended to serve as a mini -employment center for the Kea'au Village. All of the related urban amenities and services such as school, parks, and protective services are also located less than a mile from the site. As such, basic governmental and utility services are readily available to this area. This reclassification will not necessarily result in providing a sufficient urban reserve area for growth, as the applicant intends to develop the property immediately. The area immediately surrounding the _ site, however, could be used for possible expansion. In that sense, the surrounding area may be suitable - for a growth reserve area. 17 r_ - e. e. Natural Hazards Topographically, the site is suitable for development. It does not have slopes in excess of 15 percent. The site has no known unstable soil condition or floodways that traverse it. While the site falls within Lava Flow Hazard Zone 3, this classification is similar to Kea'au and the City of Hilo. There is very little that can be done to protect structures and improvements on the site. Relative to protection of life, however, this would be achieved through the evacuation routes and warning systems provided by the County Civil Defense agency. Such notices will be prominently placed within existing structures. It is also situated outside of the tsunami zone. Although within Zone 4 of the earthquake hazards, this is a category that applies to this area, as well as major urban areas like the City of Hilo. Contiguous to Urban Areas By design, the General Plan LUPAG map suggested that the industrial area of Kea'au Village be non- contiguous, but proximate to the village. The areas suggested by the General Plan were the subject site and the Shipman Industrial Park. Pursuantto that, the property immediately north of the subject site was reclassified into the Urban district and rezoned ML. Another property in this general area (Ulu Pono Town Center) was also rezoned for urban and mixed commercial/industrial (MCX) uses. Relationship to County Growth Plans This site does not represent the creation of a new urban concentration, as the general areas surrounding the balance of the site are already within an urban environment. At the same time, it is situated in an area that is consistent with the General Plan LUPAG map. 18 f. "Scatterization" Impact As the site does conform to the standards described earlier, this standard really does not really apply. This applies to a situation where an amendment creates a potential "spot" zoning and thereby increasing the need to extend public services at considerable taxpayers' expense. Furthermore, its location is such that its development would not result in the expansion or extension of government services. g. Slope of Property Although there is a less than 10% grade difference Lbetween the mauka and makai portions of the site, the difference is not significant relative to its development. As such, development of this site would not be violative of the "more than 20% slope" standard. B. General Plan LUPAG Map The General Plan provides for the long-range comprehensive (, development of the island of Hawaii. It provides direction for balanced growth in the County. The LUPAG map designates the site Industrial, a designation that allows the requested ML -1a zoning. This was also noted by the Planning Director in its letter (Exhibit A). Accordingly, this request would be consistent with the LUPAG map. C. General Plan Policies The requested zoning would be consistent with the goals, policies, and standards of the Economic and Land Use Elements of the General Plan. Specifically, the more pertinent ones follow: Economic Element Goals • Provide residents with opportunities to improve their quality of life. IM Economic development and improvement shall be in balance with the physical and social environments of the island of Hawaii. • The County of Hawaii shall strive for diversity and IJ stability in its economic system. • The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. Policies The County shall provide an economic environment which allows new, expanded, or improved economic opportunities that are compatible with the County's natural and social environment. The County shall strive for an economic climate which provides its residents an opportunity for choice of occupation. • The County shall strive for diversification of its economy by strengthening existing industries and attracting new endeavors. • The County shall encourage the development of a visitor industry which is consistent with the social, physical, and economic goals of the residents of the County. r Land Use Element (Industrial) Goals I■ designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. (Land Use Element) designate and allocate industrial areas in appropriate L proportions and in keeping with the social, cultural, and physical environments of the County. (Industrial Sub- L element) f t_ 20 promote and encourage the rehabilitation of industrial areas which are serviced by basic community facilities and utilities. (Industrial Sub -element) Policies zone urban- and rural -type of uses in areas with ease of access to community services and employment centers and with adequate public utilities and facilities. (Land Use Element) o allocate appropriate requested zoning in accordance with the existing or projected needs of neighborhood, community, region and County. (Land Use Element) I_. encourage the development and maintenance of I communities meeting the needs of its residents in ll balance with the physical and social environments. (Land Use Element) L C achieve a broader diversification of local industries by providing opportunities for new industries and f strengthening existing industries. (industrial Sub -element) L. G Locate industrial areas convenient to transportation ( facilities and provide a variety of industrial zoned districts `- and lot sizes, depending on the needs of the industries and communities. (Industrial Sub -element) r_ ® Improve the aesthetic quality of industrial sites and protect amenities of adjacent areas by requiring [ landscaping, open spaces, buffer zones, and design guidelines. (Industrial Sub -element) Y Locate industrial areas adequately served by transportation, utilities, and other amenities. (Industrial i Sub -element) Standards (Industrial) Industrial development shall maintain or improve the quality of the present environment. Industrial activities may be located close to raw materials or key resources. 21 o Topography of industrial land shall be reasonably level. O Industrial development shall be conveniently located to its labor resource. Y Buffer zones shall be established between industrial and adjacent non -compatible uses of land. C The direction of wind patterns and the absence of tradewinds shall be considered in located industrial designations. Discussion As the Kea'au Village and its surrounding areas continue to grow, there will be a need for more light industrial and commercially -zoned lands. At the same time, there have been no areas set aside for light industrial uses for small businesses. This absence has fostered a number of non- compliant activities, as well as having those uses occur in Hilo. Having opportunities for being closer to Puna should help reduce traffic congestion not only for workers but patrons who frequent these businesses. This need is being documented by the site's designation as an Enterprise Zone. The subject site, in addition to attempting to meet this need, also fulfills other policies and standards articulated in the General Plan. The site is already serviced by adequate infrastructure. The County water line is already available. Fire protective services are available within one mile of the site. Wastewater system will be provided by the applicant in conjunction with the development of the project. All other utilities are available to the site. As such, this development should not require additional public services to be provided. The site does not have any on-site developmental constraints. The land is relatively level, and there are no flood (Zone X) or other hazardous condition that would render the site a developmental problem and pose a burden to public agencies. Further, given the non -noxious type of uses anticipated to be situated here, pollution concerns typically associated with heavy industry would be minimal, if at all. Being previously intensively used as a warehouse for the now defunct sugar company and a fruit packing and 22 processing plant, the prospects of the site serving as a habitat for rare or endangered plant or animal life appear remote. Most of the subject area is devoid of vegetation. Then, too, while there may be a potential for some endemic birds to visit this area, the development of this site would not remove a critical habitat. At the same time, there are alternative areas that would be more suitable for any habitats. Likewise, due to the developed physical nature of this site, it is very unlikely that there may be any archaeological features left on the site, aside from the warehouses. This was confirmed by the archaeological inventory survey. In the event there are some inadvertent archaeological finds, work will stop and the State DLNR and County Planning Department will be consulted before further activities occur within the affected area. The use is also compatible with the surrounding area. This area is an area of transition with a mixture of residential, l commercial, and agricultural activities. The proposed light industrial area should not have an impact to the residential area (8 '/2 mile camp), as that camp is located away from the �± proposed site, and traffic from the proposed light industrial area would not go through the residential subdivision. Landscaping will also be provided to help mitigate potential L visual impacts of the project. As such, the location of the requested area is proximate to the village, yet in an area (— where potential impacts can be reasonably mitigated. Finally, all structures built on the site will be required to comply with the standards outlined in the Zoning Code — such as parking, setback, height, etc. D. Puna Community Development Plan (CDP) Section 15.1 of the County General Plan called for the development and eventual County Council adoption of Community Development Plans. The General Plan states that the CDP "will translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General Plan also notes that should the CDP require a General Plan amendment, it could be considered concurrent with the adoption of the CDP. However, "if there is a direct conflict between the Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling." (emphasis added) 23 Pursuant to the above, the Puna CDP was developed and adopted by the County Council on August 27, 2008. The CDP established three (3) major themes: e Malama I Ka'Aina which "establishes how the contextual natural, historic and cultural features of Puna should be preserved." (emphasis added) Growth Management which "addresses how the future pattern of human settlement and land use should be shaped to respect that context and support the desired quality of life for Puna's residents." (emphasis added) o Transportation which "focuses on sustainable approaches to transportation to support the goals of the two above themes." Relative to the Malama I Ka'Aina theme, four (4) major elements were identified and assigned goals, objectives, and actions. These elements and their relationship to the proposed action follow: 1. Historic. Cultural and Scenic Resources By definition, 7 of the 8 the existing warehouses were determined to be historic. However, their value was purely for informational and research purposes. That was catalogued in the archaeological inventory survey. Notwithstanding the catalogued information, these structures will be preserved. In so doing, they would provide physical evidence of an important part of Puna's history relative to the sugar industry. As such, the project would be consistent with the goal of preserving structures that are significant to Puna's history and cultural traditions. 2. Native Forests and Geological Features Given the location of the property and the geological condition of the site, the goals and objectives of this element would not be applicable to the proposed project. 3. Aquifers, Coastal Waters and Stormwaters The project site is proximate to potable wells in this area. Accordingly, the level of wastewater system to be utilized will be an aerobic system, one that is more protective, than a septic �q 24 system and one that more than fully complies with the State Department of Health's standards to assure adequate protection of the wells in this area. All storm water generated by the project would be retained on site through a system of drywells. These drywells will require the approval of the State Department of Health and through the NPDES permitting system, the objective of not only storm water containment but protection of groundwater will be fulfilled. Given the above, combined with the fact that the property is over seven (7) miles from the ocean, the goals and objectives of this element would be fulfilled. 4. Shoreline Area As the site is not a shoreline or coastal property, this element is not applicable. r The other theme is Managing Growth. For this, six (6) elements l were identified. These elements and their relationship to the project follow. 1. Land Use Pattern The Implementation Section (Chapter 5) of the CDP suggests L. that regionally -oriented uses be situated north of the Belt Highway to provide convenient vehicular access. Nothing, however, is mentioned in the CDP — in spite of the existing MCX L. and ML zonings — relative to the function or land use role of this area. As such, this project is being evaluated against the articulated goals and objectives of the Managing Growth theme. In that regard, the proposed project is intended to be supportive of the land use needs of the Village; however, given its location, it would have some quasi -regional function. Having the project situated in this area provides the ability for the further retention of the "rural" and village flavor of Kea au, as it has been in the past where the sugar mill was located away from the village core and in this subject area. In spite of the site being away from the village core, there are other "urban" types of uses in this area. Hence, the project's location is one that would not necessarily fit the definition of adding to urban sprawl. Additionally, the project would provide economic opportunity for Puna's residents. Area for small light industrial businesses in a 25 convenient location would be provided where all basic infrastructures is available. This comes at a time where, in this general area, there is a relative absence of this type of zoning and project wherein a small business can readily move in and start up quickly. Hence, this site was accepted as an Enterprise Zone site. 2. Agriculture and Economic Development The subject site, while zoned Agriculture, has not been used agriculturally for nearly 100 years. Instead, it has been used for industrial use in conjunction with the sugar mill operations and later as a fruit processing and packing plant. As such, the proposed project should not have an adverse impact on the agriculture industry. It could actually be indirectly supportive of it through the provision of services to that industry. 3. Social Services and Housing As this is not a housing project, this section is not really applicable. Indirectly, however, by providing employment opportunities in an area that is proximate to Kea'au and the immediately surrounding area, the project would reduce commuting time and expenses. In that regard, it could afford employees and employers to devote more time to their families and the community. 4. Public Safety and Sanitation Services The subject site is located in an area where basic infrastructure is available. Public cost to extend these needed infrastructures would thus be minimal, if at all. 5. Parks and Recreation This section is not really applicable, as the project would have no direct impacts on parks. Nonetheless, there are existing park facilities in the village of Kea au. Furthermore, the site is not listed for any future trails or park related uses. 6. Energy Sustainability The applicant intends to utilize solar and photovoltaic system to help with some of its power needs. Other means to reduce dependency on the conventional fuel source is bein explored. Additionally, the structures would be renovated to take advantage of wind and sun patterns for both heating and cooling. The third theme is Transportation. This theme consists of five (5) elements, and their relationship to the project follows. 1. Traffic Demand Management The project's location would help reduce the flow of both workers as well as residents requiring certain services from ( traveling outside of the district. In that regard, it would definitely fulfill two of the major objectives of this theme. The applicant also intends to encourage its tenants to consider car-pooling to the extent feasible. The applicant will also encourage tele -communication through the possible development of a wireless system within the project. However, other "ISP" providers are available to this area. L. 2. Mass Transit Although this element is not really applicable, in the event that 1. bus stops are needed in this area, the applicant is willing to set aside an area within his project for this purpose. 3. Roadway Network Likewise, the objectives and policies of this element are not directly pertinent to the project. However, it should be noted that the project has two major access points to the Highway. L4. Highways The major access to the project from the extension of Milo L Street is fully channelized and signalized. Accordingly, the existing improvements comport to the applicable objective. The other objectives are not directly applicable to the project. 5. Non -Motorized Travel and Scenic Byways The subject site is not part of any proposed non -motorized travel area, such as a bikeway. There are also no known trails within the subject site. Accordingly, the project would not be incongruous with this element. 27 E. F. In summary, it is conceded that the subject site is not specifically identified for any particular land use on the Kea'au Regional Town Center map of the CDP. At the same time, the CDP does not contain any mandatory language (such as "shall") that prohibits the requested use in this area. You will note that the term "should" is used when the three themes are described. Given the presence of MCX and ML zonings and other urban - related activities in this area which have and will continue to play a vital role in the development of this area, it was unusual that there was very little, if at all, discussion covering this area. As such, the discussion on the project's relationship to the CDP was based on the themes and corresponding policies and objectives. And from that perspective, it is concluded that the requested reclassification and rezoning would be generally consistent with the applicable goals and objectives and would thus implement the concept of the CDP. Finally, it is important to note that the project is still consistent with the GP LUPAG map; and as noted above, where there are conflicts, the GP prevails or "is controlling". And in this case, the requested use is consistent with the General Plan. Zoning If the request were approved, the site would be developed into a light industrial park to accommodate a potential water and fruit bottling plant as well as providing spaces for other light industrial uses on either a lease or rental basis. As noted above, all structures and uses will be consistent with pertinent requirements of the county's development and construction codes. No variances from the Code are anticipated. Hawaii State Plan Chapter 226, Hawaii Revised Statutes, outlines the long-range goals and policies of the Hawaii State Plan. Said Plan is intended to serve as a guide for the growth and future long-range development of the State. Pursuant to said requirement, a discussion of the pertinent policies and goals and the project's relationship follows: Goals Y A strong, viable economy characterized by stability, diversity, 28 and growth that enables the fulfillment of the needs and expectations of Hawaii's present and future generations A desired physical environment characterized by beauty, cleanliness, quiet, stable and natural systems, and uniqueness that enhances the mental and physical well-being of the people Physical, social and economic well-being for individuals and families that nourishes a sense of community responsibility and caring of participation in family life. Discussion (( The proposed project would achieve these goals. This has already ll been acknowledged by the State's designation of this site as an Enterprise Zone. Additionally, when the developed, the project would provide both direct and indirect employment opportunities for l_. current and future residents of the island; contribute to the island's overall tax base and hence, increase both State and County { revenues; and complement and support other economic uses and L in turn, contribute to the stability, diversity, and growth of local and regional economies. �- This employment opportunity would come without adversely affecting the environment. There are no known or significant plant f or animal life as well as archaeological/cultural features that would 1-= be impacted L Impacts to the surrounding areas would also not be significantly adverse. All of the required infrastructures are in place, and if any upgrades are needed, they would be done by the applicant and not at the cost to the public. The provision of landscaped buffers within the project site would also help mitigate any adverse visual and noise impacts to neighboring residential or agriculturally -zoned properties. G. Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program The objectives of the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Program are outlined in Chapter 205a, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The principal goal is to assure the protection and maintenance of the State's coastal resources. Although the entire State falls within the CZM area, the permitting process is geared for those areas proximate to the coast and identified by the County as the Special Management Area. Nonetheless, a general review of a project's 29 I consistency to the CZM policies - regardless of its location - must still be made. In that regard, please note the following: The proposed project will not have any substantial adverse U environmental or ecological effect. (Please refer to discussions in Chapters V, VI, and VII). Any effect that may result will be minimized to the extent practicable and will be clearly outweighed by public interest. The proposed development would be consistent with the objectives of the CZM program. Specifically: • there would be no impact to the area's recreational resources. This is not a shoreline property; • the site does not appear to have any historical resources; • the project will not affect any scenic and open space resources; • the coastal ecosystem will not be impacted; • there will be more employment opportunities, and hence furthering the economic uses of the site; • the site is more than seven miles from the shoreline, and thus there would be no coastal hazard or beach erosion or marine resource impacts; and • public participation will be achieved through the hearings on this request. The proposed development is generally consistent with the L Puna Community Development Plan and definitely consistent with the County General Plan. It will also be developed r pursuant to other appropriate regulatory tools, such as the l Zoning Code. and applicable development regulations. 9M EXHIBIT A SPECIAL PERMIT NO. 707 0 LgvmIFIED BAIT, Air. Sidney Puke 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, NI 96720 Dear Mr. Puke: June 13, 198'i Special Permit Application Applicant: Amfac 'tropical Products Tt1K: 1-6-03:18 and 23 The Planning Crrrnission at its duly held public hearing an June 6, 1985, votes: to approve the above application, Special Pe unit `1o. 707, to allow the establishment of a fruit packing and processing plant and related improvements on 10.3 acres of lace: situated, within the State Land Use Agricultural :Di'strict at the former Puna Sugar. Co.'s Pill warehoune <rndshop maintenance site, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii. Trio Planning Comr,;lssion also voted to revoke Special Permit tdo. 572 wLlch affects the area under consideration. Approval of this request is �ase2. on the following: The granting of this request would promote the effectiveness anu objectives cf, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised St tures, as amendeti. The State Land Use Law and Regulations _ are n ended to preserve, protect, and encourage tFe developr.:int of lands in the State for those uses to which they are neet suited in the interest of the public health and welfare of t/e people of. the State of Hawaii. In the case of the Agriculvr" District, the intent_ is to preservc- lands of high agric.ult;ta.l potential for agricultural use. The Lard Study Bureau classifies this area as "Urban,' and the parcel is classified as 'Existing Urban Development' according to the ALISH map. This request is to allowthe establishment of a trait packing and processing plant using the existing buildings as well as the proposed new construction at Puna Sugar Co.'s corner eafipment repair complex. This complex has recently been used ay a guava SUN 1 3 198J C Hr. Sidney Puke .lune 1.3, 1`.189 Page 2 receiving and storage warehouse and for equipment storage. The � land has been in agriculturally related industrial use for Arany years. Within the State Land Use and County Agricultural zoned districts, processing of Agricultural products is a permitted II use provided the products are grown on the premises. I within case, the fruit will be grown elsewhere, primarily Puna district. The requested use will complement the Agricultural district classification. The establishment of this facility will further the objectives of the State Land Use Law by providing essential support facilities for papaya and fruit growing activity. Ili The desired use will not adversely affect the aurrouneing properties. This property hbs been in.use for many .years as an I' equipment repair complex for the now defunct sugar operation. The surrounding properties were utilized either for the sugar mill operation or sugar cane production. No new impacts will be introduced, and any negative impacts of noise or traffic are expected to be considerably less than those generated by the sugar mill activities previously occupying the site. The nearest residential use is approximately .3 mile to the southwest. Landscaping should be utilized to mitigate any L visual impacts from the private roadway. The desired use Will not unreasonably burden public agencies to provide roads and streets, sewers, water, drainage, school improvements, police, and fire protection. Water and power are available at the site. The property is accessed by private roads controlled by the owner of the property. The roads have been in use for some time serving the Puna Sugar mill and, more recently, the HELCO power plant and the applicant'sexisting fruit packing and processing plant. The proposed use will not require any additional public services. Unusual conditiond, trends, and needs have arisen since the district boundaries and regulations were established. Since the enactment of the State Land Use Law in 19610 the papaya and guava industries have grown tremendously while the sugar industry has declined. The Puna Sugar mill closed in 1984. As a result, the need for processing facilities for other products has replaced the need for the sugar processing plant. The applicant is currently operating on lease land and would like to move the operation to land under its control which became L available with the closing of the sugar mill. This move to its Mr. Sidney Puke June 13, 1989 Page 3 own land would increase the effectiveness of the applicant's operation in support of 0,iversified agricultural activity in the region. The land upon which the proposed use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted within the district. In addition to existing structures on the property, portions of the property have been paved as part of the sugar processing related activities. The Urban designations by the Land Study Hureau and the State Department of Agriculture support this claim. No land will he taken out of agricultural use for the proposed facility. The use will not substantially alter or change the essential character of t}:e land and the present use.' The character of the area is a Ynix of industrial -type uses with vacant sugar lands. The HKLCO power plant and agricultural processing activities such as papaya packing and processing, slaughterhouse, and kim chee factory have been established in this area of Keaau. The subject properties>were occupied by Industrial -type uses for some time as a maintenance yard for the sugar mill. The use of the existing structures and additional construction will not be obtrusive given the previous use and existing neighboring uses. The request is net contrary to the General Plan which ( designates the property for Industrial uses. The granting of the proposed use will further the Geceral Plan goal to 'F•rotect and encourage the inteneive utilization of the County's limited L prime agricultural lanes' b,Y concentrating agricultural processing facilities or accessible land not suited for agriculture. Since this request for Special Permit has been made to it 10.3 acres of land, it is recommended that tine properties he Incorporated into a single lot. This consolidation will minimize property line'setback nor. -conformity since a 100 -foot setback is required for structures used for proces_.ing, storage, packing, or shipping of agricultural products. Based on the above considerations, it is determ.ined that a fruit packing and processing plant is an unusual and reasonable use of land which would not be contrary to the objectives nought to he accomplished by tte Land Use Law Rules and Regulations. Mr. Sidney Puke June 13, 1989 Page 4 Approval of this request is subject to the following conditions: 1. The applicant, its successors, or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all stated conditions of approval. 2. Within ninety days from the effective date of this permit, the applicant shall either submit the required water commitment payment to the Department of Water Supply in accordance with its 'Water Commitment Policy` or notify the Planning Director in writing that a private water system will he utilized. 3. Final plan Approval shall be secured from.the Planning Department within one year from the effective date of this permit. To assure adequate time for plan approval review and in accordance with Chapter 25-244 (Zoning Code), plans shall be submitted a minimum of forty-five days prior to the date by which plan approval must be secured. Plans. shall identify atructure(s), access(es), and parking/loading areas. The accesses) and parking/loading areas shall be of sufficient width and size and of a surface treatment which meets with the approval of the Planning Department in consultation with the Department of Public works. Plans shall include the provision of landscaping along the roadway frontage on the north and west property lines. Any new construction shall comply with the minimum 190 -foot setback requirements from all property lines. 4. Construction of the proposed renovations and improvements shall commence within one year from the. date of receipt of Final Plan Approval and shall be completed within two years thereafter. 5. The applicant shall secure revocation of Special Permit No. 418 prior to Deceziber 31, 1994. 6. Comply with all other applicable laws, rules, regulations, and requirements of the Department of Health, Department of Public Works, and other relevant State and County agencies. 7. An annual progress report shall be submitted to the Planning Director prior to the anniversary date of the approval of the permit. The report shall include, but not he limited to, the status of the development and to what extent the conditions of approval are being complied with. mr. kidney Fuke Jury 13, 135 Fane 5 This condition ehall remain in effect until all of the conditions of acknowledges thatfurtherreports arenot required. apbeen proval Director acknowledg. F E. An extension of time for rantedfbymtheeof Planningitions Director within the permit may b• 9 g upon the following circumstances; a) the non—performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicant, successors, or assigns and that are not the result of their fault or negligence.; b) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code; c) granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the permit; and d) the time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). Further, should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the director may initiate procedures to nullify the permit. This approval doPs not, however, sanction the specific plans submitted watt the application as they may be subject to change given specific code and regulatory requirements of the affected agencies. Please feel free to contact the Planning Department if there are any questions on this matter. sir. rely 4 i Gary MiTuno Chairman, planning Commission xc: Mr: Dennis Maeda Department of Public Works Department of Water supply County Real Property Tax Division State Land Use Commission LUC 418 6 572 boo: Plan Approval Section EXHIBIT B PLANNING DIRECTOR LETTER SEPTEMBER S, 2007 (Ilnramtg gf �stfarstii PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi StmcL Suite 3 • Hila Hawaii 9677.0.4049 (808) 961-8288 • FAX (806) %1-8742 September 5, 2007 P.O. Boz 1359 Kesau, Hi 96749 Dear Mr. Ely: Subject: Response to Letter Requesting Information Regarding Zoning Tax .Mao Key 1-6-003.018 and 023 cluist,uphrr J. Yuen Director Brod Kuro"wn, ASLA LEED®AP Deputy Director This letter is sent to respond to your question for guidance regarding a proposed bottle plant facility ou the above referenced properties. We apologize for the delay in respondiugfo your inquiry., The properties are situated within the State land Use Agricultural District and the County's Agricultural (A -20a) zoned district. The General Plan designation for the properties is Industrial. This designation may allow uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and indt>ctrial-commercial nsea. This wonld he in-line with a request to Change the zoning of the properties to a Light Industrial (ML) and General Industrial (MG). T1i6TI-Anningg ;lit e'tot llas::d�teinllned'tliat�.tl]e:pr[Yper:p.lzecnon<ior:pe'�lrang..tne proposed bottle plant facility would be to submit applications for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban, and a Change of Zone Application from Agricultural (A -20a) to Industrial (ML or MG), depending on the impacts of the proposed facility, rather than a Special Permit. The proposed bottle plant facility would be defined as "manufacturing- processing and packaging" under the Zoning Code. It would depend on the extensiveness of the operation to determine whether the use would be considered `.`light" or "general." "Manufacturing, processing and packaging, light "is permitted in ML and MG zoned districts, whereas "Manufacturing, processing and packaging, general" would only bo allowed in a MG zoned district. Hawaii Counry is an Equal Opportunity Ptaviderand Employer Regarding subdividing the properties, the amount of lots would be determined by the minimum lot size determined by the new zoning. For example- ML -10 would allow minimum lot sizes of 10,000 square feet The following are the minimum lot sizes for industrial zoning: ML— 10,000 squarc fcct MG = 20,000 square feet of pertmtted uses for'caeh;of the above, zones. The website address is: http:Y/www.co.hawaii.hi-us/dimtory/dir_plan.htin Link to the Zoning Code for information regarding permitted uses within each zoning district There are several parcels that have been rezoned. to industrial or industrial -commercial mixed near your properties. These include the following paroels: 1. TMK:1-6-3:5: This was rezoned to Industrial -Commercial Mixed (MCX-20) and Family Agricultural (FA -3a) by James McCully (REZ 855 and REZ 886). 2. TMK:1-6-3:99: This was rezoned to Light Industrial (ML -20) and Agricultural. (A-Sa) by Puna Sugar Company (REZ 1029). L._ 3. TMK:1-6-3:93: This was rezoned to General Industrial (MG -10a) by Hawaiian. Electric Light Company (REZ 912). The files. for these actions are.identifaed by the above fisted RBZ numbers, which are r Iooatcd wa4Lin our office. U you have any questions, please feel free to contact Jeff Darrow at 961-8288, ext 259 Sincer cI TOPI�-YUEN Planning Director JVJD:smn P:\pub Lic\wpwin60\IefflLetters\P C\LEly-TMK-16003018-InquiryResponse. de c L*Av 1" ' Lo ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY Haun and Associates July 2008 ARCHAEOLOGICAL INVENTORY SURVEY TMK: (3) 1-6-3:18 AND 23, LAND OF KEA`AU PUNA DISTRICT, ISLAND OF HAWAII By: Alan E. Hann, Ph.D. And Dave Henry, B.S. Prepared for: Mr. Shikwan Sung 16-665 Milo Street Kea`au, Hawaii 96749 July 2008 Haun & Associates Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services HCR 1 Box 4730, Kea`au, Hawaii 96749 Phone: 982-7755 Fax: 982-6343 SUMMARY At the request of Mr. Shikwan Sung, Haun & Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of TMK: (3) 1-6-3:18 and 23, a c. 10.6 -acre parcel located in the Land of Kea`au, Puna District, Island of Hawaii. The objective of the survey was to satisfy historic preservation regulatory review inven- tory requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD), as contained within Hawaii Administrative Rules, Title 13, DLNR, Subtitle 13, State His- toric Preservation Rules. The archaeological survey of the project area resulted in the identification of one site comprised of seven historic buildings. The structures are wood and metal buildings likely built during the mid -20°i Cen- tury by the Puna Sugar Company and functioned as a maintenance facility for the trucks and vehicles asso- ciated with the plantation. The facility was abandoned in 1982 when Puna Sugar Company was closed by its owners, Amfac, Inc. Portions of the site are currently being renovated by the present landowners. The single site identified during the survey is assessed as significant under Criterion "d". The site has yielded information important for understanding the historic land use in the project area. The mapping, written descriptions and photography at this site have adequately documented it and no further work or preservation is recommended. 17 1 I� CONTENTS Scope of Work 1 Project Area Description - 1 Field Methods - 4 Archaeological and Historical Background 4 Historic Documentary Research 4 Previous Archaeological Work - 7 ( Project Expectations 8 Findings 10 Conclusion 25 Discussion 25 Significance Assessments 25 I_ Recommended Treatments 25 References 26 Figure 1. Portion of USGS Hilo Quadrangle showing Project Area 2 Figure 2. Tax Map Key 6-03 showing Project Area 3 Figure 3. Royal Patent 7223 - 5 Figure 4. Sugar Ventures after 1876 6 Figure 5. Map of Puna District Heiau - 8 Figure 6. Site Location Map 11 Figure 7. Site 26633, Feature A Plan Map - 12 Figure 8. Exterior of Feature A 13 - Figure 9. Interior of Feature A showing Recessed Pit - 13 Figure 10. Site 26633, Feature B Plan Map. 14 . Figure 11. Exterior of Feature B 15 Figure 12. Interior of Feature B 15 Figure 13. Site 26633, Feature C and D Plan Map 17 - Figure 14. Exterior of Feature C 16 Figure 15. Interior of Feature C showing Hoist Tracks - 18 Figure 16. Interior of Feature C showing Vertical Siding 19 Figure 17. Exterior of Feature D - 19 Figure 18. Site 26633, Feature E Plan Map 20 Figure 19. Exterior of Feature E - 21 Figure 20. Flat Roofed Shed Adjacent to Feature E • 21 Figure 21. Site 26633, Feature F and G Plan Map 23 Figure 22. Exterior of Features F and G - 24 Figure 23. Exterior of Feature F showing Raised Concrete Pads 24 1I1 INTRODUCTION At the request of Mr. Shikwan Sung, Haun & Associates conducted an archaeological inventory survey of TMK: (3) 1-6-3:18 and 23, a c. 10.6 -acre parcel located in the Land of Kea`au, Puna District, Island of Hawaii (Figures I and 2). The objective of the survey was to satisfy historic preservation regula- tory review inventory requirements of the Department of Land and Natural Resources -Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-HPD), as contained within Hawaii Administrative Rides, Title 13, DLNR, Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Rules (2003). The survey fieldwork was conducted by a crew of two archaeologists on June 12, 2008 under the direction of Dr. Alan Hann. Approximately two person days of labor were required to complete the field work portion of the project. Described in this final report are the project scope of work, field methods, background information, survey findings, and significance assessments of the sites with recommended fur- ther treatments. Scope of Work Based on DLNR-SHPD rules for inventory surveys, the following specific tasks were determined to constitute an appropriate scope of work for the project: 1. Conduct background review and research of existing archaeological and historical docu- mentary literature relating to the project area and its immediate vicinity --including ex- amination of Land Commission Awards, ahupua'a records, historic maps, archival mate- rials, archaeological reports, and other historical sources; 2. Conduct a high intensity, 100% pedestrian survey coverage of the project area; 3. Conduct detailed recording of all potentially significant sites including scaled plan draw- ings, written descriptions, and photographs, as appropriate; 4. Conduct subsurface testing (manual excavation) at selected sites as necessary to deter- mine site function; 5. Analyze background research and field data; and 6. Prepare and submit Final Report. Project Area Description The project area consists of a rectangular -shaped c. 10.6 parcel located at elevations ranging from c. 182 to 205 ft. The parcel is bordered by Milo Street to the north, by a dirt road to the west and by farm lands to the east and south. The western half of the parcel is occupied by existing buildings. Seven of the building are historic in origin (Site 26633, Features A -G) and one is a new building (see Figure 6).The eastern half of the parcel was completely grubbed prior to the survey. The terrain within the parcel slopes slightly to the northeast. According to the Sato et al, the soil in the project area is comprised of Olaa silty clay loam on 0-10% slopes (1973:42). This soil is characterized as well -drained silty clay loams that were formed in volcanic ash, located in upland areas ranging ht eleva- tion from 200 to 1,000 ft. This soil evidences a 16 in surface layer of a very dark brown extremely stony silt clay loam, over a subsoil (9 inches thick) of dark brown extremely silty clay learn, above a`a lava. This soil has a rapid permeability, a slow runoff and a slight erosional hazard and is classified as suitable for the cul- tivation of sugarcane. The underlying lava in this area derived from Mauna Loa volcano and was deposited 5,000-10,000 years ago (Wolfe and Morris 2001). The rainfall in the vicinity of the project area varies from 160 to 200 I' North — 0 tF CJ ed Q zr 'j 4j tt Q inches per year (Juvik and Juvik 1998:57) and the mean aminal temperature varies from 70 to 75 degrees (Armstrong 1983). Field Methods The project area was subjected a 100% surface examination with surveyors spaced at 10 in inter- vals. Ground surface visibility was excellent due to the recent grubbing that has occurred in the eastern portion of the parcel and on the development in the western portion. The survey transects were oriented in a northeast by southwest direction, parallel to the long axis of the parcel. The structures identified during the present project were subjected to detailed recording including the preparation of scaled plan [naps, the com- pletion of standardized site/feature forms, and photographic documentation. The specific locations of the individual structures were determined by a combination of aerial photographs and a scaled plot map depict- ing the buildings provided by the client. No cultural remains were recovered for analysis. ARCHAEOLOGICAL AND HISTORICAL BACKGROUND 1 . Historical Documentary Research The project area is located within the ahupua'a of Kea'au in the Puna District, a district nearly as large as the entire island of Oahu (Juvik and Juvik 1998:22). Puna was once comprised of six chiefdoms created by the son of'Umi-a-Liloa. According to Orr, the district, "lies between Hilo to the north and Ka'u to the south; from Kapoho the most easterly point to the uplands that extend to the great central heights of Mauna Loa to the coastal shores of Kea'au (2004:46). The Puna District was traditionally referenced as "Puna paia'ala i ka hala" or "Puna hedged with fragrant hala" (Handy and Handy 1978:200) and was considered an important place for the cultivation of awa (1978:192). According to Emerson (1915) as cited in Handy and Handy (1978): Manu'u-ke-eu was the name of a mythical hala tree that once grew in Puna. The seed was brought from Kahiki by Ka-moho-ali'i when he came to Hawaii with Pele. They ate (— the blossom with salt and sugar cane, and then Ka-moho-ali'i planted the seed. The tree thereafter was regarded as a kupua (nature spirit) (1978:199). A number of traditional sayings or proverbs (`61elo no'eau) make specific mentions of Kea'au. These `Olelo no'eau were compiled by Pukui between 1910 and 1960 (Pukui, 1983:vii), and are presented in Orr (2004: 37). A selection of these `Olelo no`ea are presented below. '61elo no'eau: He iki kala au no Kea'au, Vohe pohaku 'ala a naha 'ai. Translation: I am a small hala fruit of Kea'au, but there is no rock hard enough to smash me. Meaning: The boast of a Puna man --I am small, perhaps, but mighty (#624, p 71). 'Olelo no'eau: Ka ua kahiko hala o Kea'au. Translation: The rain that adorns the pandanus trees of Kea'au. Meaning: Refers to the pandanus grove of Kea'au, Puna, Hawaii (#1560, p 168). 'Olelo no'eau: Mai ke kai kuwa a nu ana i ka ulu hala a Keo'au a ka 'aina ka'ili la o lalo o ka Waiku'auhoe. Translation: From the noisy sea that moans to the kala groves of Kea'au, to the land that snatches away the sun, below Waik i'auhoe. Meaning: From Puna, Hawai i, where the sun was said to rise, to Lehua, beyond Waiku auhoe, where it vanishes out of sight (#2070, p 225). 'Olelo no'eau: Ka makani hall 'ala o Puna. Translation: The fragrance -bearing wind of Puna. Meaning: Puna, Hawai i, was famed for the fragrance of maile, lehua, and hala. It was said that when the wind blew from the land, fishermen at sea could smell the fragrance of these leaves an flowers (#1458, p 158). 'Olelo no'eau: Ka no mormiani lehua o Puna. Translation: The rain that brings the fragrance of the lehua of Puna. Meaning: Puna is known as the land of fragrance (#1587,,p 172). The missionary, William Ellis (1963) described a visit to the Puna District. He describes Kea`au (or Kaau) as "the last village in the division of Puna. It was extensive and populous, abounding with well cultivated plantations of taro, sweet potatoes, and sugar cane, and probably owes its fertility to a fine, rapid stream, which, descending from the mountains, runs through it into the sea" (1963: 60). During the Great Mahele, the ohupua'a of Kea`au was claimed by Charles Kanaina, on behalf of his son William C. Lunalilo. Lunalilo was also the grand nephew of Kamehameha I and he would eventu- ally become King, though only reigning for one year (Orr 2004:48). This claim was awarded as LCA 8559B and Royal Patent 7223 (Figure 3). /!EAU rlh, P b.tiA Figure 3. Royal Patent 7223 (Cahill 1996:166) A kuleana claim was made by Hewabewa for a 13.64 -acre parcel in Kea`au (LCA 8081, Royal Patent 4360). The claim indicated that the land was unfenced with no house and coffee was being culti- vated within it. (Hurst 1994). This parcel was reported sold to the Roman Catholic Church in 1865 (Masterson and Hammatt 1998). According to Orr (2004: 48), the parcel was situated in the ili of Halauloa and was bordered by: On the west by the konohiki On the north by Keawemakalio's land On the east by the konohiki and By Meaula's land on the south. 5 In the 1860's Kea`au Ahupua`a was mortgaged to Honolulu Banker Charles Bishop by the guardians of the Lunalilo estate (Hurst and Schilz 1994). In 1872, more than 60,000 acres of Kea`au were leased for ten years by O.B. Spencer. This lease was subsequently reassigned to Rufus Lyman in 1874. In 1882, the ahupua'a of Kea`au was sold by the estate of King Lunalilo to William H. Shipman, J. Eldarts and S. Damon. Two years layer, William Shipman had bought out his partners' and became the sole owner of the Lands of Kea`au. He con- structed a house at Haena Beach in 1904 and expanded his family's ranching operations on his newly acquired land (WHSL 2000). Though sugar plantations were established in the Hilo and Kohala Districts by the 1860s, it wasn't until 1899 that a plantation was established in Puna. This consisted of the Puna Sugar Company (Figure 4 - #50) founded by Benjamin Dillingham, Lorrin Thurston and James Castle (Dorrance 2000:105-107) A year later they founded the Olaa [Kea`au] Sugar Company (#49) on lands owned by the Shipman family. �1.fi 34 � 20. 2Y.2L, 30, 31. 32.33, 35 9. 1416,19 / 16. 19� '2;, 23, 26, 27 / 24-28 34 10 / 36,38.39 ,�� 39, 47. 40, 41 3 X44, 45, 46, Sl X42, 43 I-lilo 46. 52, 63 HANYArl .• _43.64 82.62 66 -50 S6, 52, 60 \56,63 ,64 54, 55.65 Figure 4. Sugar ventures after 1876: (Dorrance 2000:82) The following is an excerpt from Sugar Waters by Dorrance (2000:105-107): The rocky, acidic Puna District south of Hilo had a much smaller number of plantations. In the 1890s the land was peppered with small homesteads, some devoted to coffee grow- ing. After Hawaii was annexed to the United States [18981, Benjamin Dillingham saw a sugar -growing opportunity in Puna. Along with investors that included Lorrin Thurston and James Castle, he incorporated Olaa Sugar Company to exploit the land. At the time Dillingham was building the Hilo Railroad Company and considered the new plantation a source of revenue for the railroad. By 1905 Olaa Sugar Company had a modern mill, and 7, 676 acres under cultivation serviced by the only gauge plantation railway in Hawai' i. Production increased when Olaa Sugar Company began milling Puna Sugar Company's harvest in and around Kapoho. But Chia Sugar Company waxed and wailed during the first 20 years of its life, paying dividends only twice in all that time. The land was rocky, sticky, acidic, and difficult to clear and cultivate. Not every acre received adequate rain- fall, growth was stunted, and irrigation water was lacking. An infestation of leaf hoppers in 1916-1917 ruined 10,000 tons of sugar from the 1918 crop. In later years mechanical harvesting was limited because field equipment rusted and eroded too rapidly under the difficult conditions. LIn the 1930s, cultivated acreage stabilized at slightly over 15,000 acres. The fields ex- tended up to 23 miles from the mill. Harvests were delivered via the Glenwood branch of Hawaiian Consolidated Railway, which ran from Chia toward Kilauea Volcano, and stopped seven miles short of it at the village of Glenwood. Harvests from the Pahoa re- I_II gion were delivered by the Kapoho branch of tracks that extended 17 miles southwest of the mill. Flumes and the plantation's railroad took care of about half of each harvest, while the Hawaiian Consolidated Railway hauled the rest, and also transported product to the Hilo docks. u In 1935 the plantation housed 5,648 workers and dependents in 1,086 company -supplied houses distributed among over 15 camps or villages. In addition, some 230 homesteaders lived and grew cane on family plots. Maximum production of the combined Olaa and Puna/Kapoho enterprises was 52,011 tons of sugar in 1937. The tsunami of 1946 struck a serious blow when it caused the Hilo railroad to shut down. Then the 1955 volcanic eruption covered thousands of acres in the Kapoho Division and isolated it. Despite all, the plantation company, renamed Puna Sugar Company in 1960 at the urging of landowner Herbert Shipman (1892-1976), struggled on. By 1982, the Clan mill generated over 40 million kilowatt hours of electric power that was sold to Hawaii Electric Light Company. The end of sugar operations came when its owners, Amfac, Inc. closed the Puna Sugar Company in the same year. But the mill's generating capability was perpetuated and increased. Oil was burned in the furnaces in- stead of the former mixture of bagasse and oil, and fulfilled a dire need for electrical en- ergy. Shops in nearby Kea'au (Olaa) served the mill camps and homesteaders who supplied harvests to the Olaa mill. When it shut down in 1982, many small businesses were devas- tated. Highway 11 leading to Kilauea Volcano bypassed the town and further accentuated the demise of its prosperity. Maly (1999) cites additional changes that occurred in Kea'au in the 1890s: By the 1890s, most of the coastal portion of Kea'au had been abandoned. The few re- maining native families of coastal Kea'au worked for and moved into housing provided by W.H. Shipman, or moved further inland. In the 1890s, the Government was also open- _ ing up large tracts of Homestead lands throughout Puna, which were sold for residential and agricultural use. Because the rich agricultural parcels were generally situated three or more miles inland, above the 400 foot elevation Homestead lands could be better ac- cessed, and their produce better transported by a new and more direct inland route be- tween Puna and Hilo. As a result, the basic alignment of the Kea'au-Pahoa Highway (now Highway 130) was established and construction underway in 1895. r Beginning in the 1930's and continuing through the 1960's the Hawaiian sugar industry noted a l decline in business, due in large part to competing overseas markets (Kent 1983:107-108). More changes were soon to take place on the landscapes of Hawaii. Mechanization associated with the industry occurred between the 1950s to 1970s which resulted in the decline of plantation camp lifestyles (Vorfeld 2002:1). Increasingly unfavorable sugar markets and high costs led to the closure of Puna Sugar Company in 1982. By the 1990s, the majority of the sugar plantations in Hawaii closed their operations. Previous Archaeological Research Limited archaeological research has been conducted within the Land of Kea`au. The earAst work was undertaken in 1906 and 1907 by Stokes (1991) who surveyed and mapped the heiau of Hawaii Island. As indicated in Figure 5, he identified nine named and one unnamed heiau within the district of Puna, though none were situated within the Land of Kea`au. James (1995) confirmed theabsenceof known heiau within Kea`au. Figure 5. Map of Puna District Heiau (Stokes 1991:137) In 1945, Emory, along with employees of Herbert Shipman explored a number of lava tubes and kipuka located on Shipman lands (Emory 1945). Two of the longest tubes were called Oleole-ana and Keakiu and two special cave areas were designated the Poi Pounder Cave and the Fish Hook Cave (due to the presence of those artifacts within the interiors. The Oleole-ana tube extended all the way to the ocean and had been utilized as a refuge cave. The Keakiu tube contained human remains. Ewart and Luscomb (1974) undertook a reconnaissance survey of the proposed Kapoho-Keaukalra Highway that extended through a number of ahupua`a from Kea`au to Waiakahiula. A total of 118 sites were identified during this survey though only 30 sites were found in the Kea`au portion. These sites were comprised of coastal habitation complexes, livestock control walls and enclosures and a lava tube that con- tained human remains. Hammatt (1978) conducted a reconnaissance survey of the proposed Kings Landings subdivision in Kea`au and Rosendahl (1982) undertook a reconnaissance study of portions of the Shipman Industrial Park. No sites were identified in either of these studies. Hunt (1993) conducted an archaeological assessment of 600 acres Shipman Lands with Kea`au. This study was conducted by helicopter followed by extensive ground surface reconnaissance. This study identified a total of 50 sites which were interpreted as being associated with sugarcane clearing activity. Hurst and Schilz (1994) undertook a survey of the "kea`au Town Section" of the kea`au-Puna L Road and identified former sugarcane fields and plantation buildings, some of which were still k u5@. Masterson and Hammatt ('1998) conducted an inventory survey of a c. 2.4 -acre parcel in Kea`iiu towmadja ISI 1 cent to the police station. No archaeological sites were encountered though a modern camp attributed to Filipino workers was documented. McGerty and Spear (2000) conducted an archaeological inventory survey of the proposed 300 -acre J Kamehameha Schools Bishop Estates, East Hawaii Campus, located in inland Kea`au at the c. 600 ft eleva- tion. The parcel had been disturbed by modern sugarcane cultivation and the only archaeological remains identified during the survey consisted of seven stone mounds_ interpreted as historic clearing piles. In 2004, U Haun et al. (2004) conducted an assessment of the Kea`au-Pahoa Road, in conjunction with a shoulder conversion project. No sites were identified during this study. McEldowney (1979) used site inventory and historic documentary evidence to develop a land use (_ aid settlement pattern model for the Hilo area that is applicable to the present project. The model consists of five elevationally-defined zones: Coastal Settlement, Upland Agricultural, Lower Forest, Rainforest, and Sub -Alpine or Montane. The Coastal Settlement Zone extended approximately 0.5 miles inland from the shoreline between sea level and 50 ft elevation. The zone was the most densely populated with both perma- nent and temporary habitations, high status chiefly residences, and heiau. Settlements were concentrated at Hilo Bay and sheltered bays and coves. The Upland Agricultural Zone was situated between approximately 50 It and 1,500 ft elevation. I f Settlement in the zone consisted of scattered residences among economically beneficial trees and agricul- tural plots of dryland taro and bananas. Lava tubes were utilized for shelter. A pattern of shifting cultivation is believed to have converted the original forest cover to parkland of grass and scattered groves of trees. Wetland cultivation of taro occurred along streams. The Lower Forest Zone ranged from 1,500 ft to 2,500 It elevation. Timber and other forest re- I_I sources such as medicinal plants, olona, and birds were gathered from the zone. Site types consisted of temporary habitations, trials, shrines, and minor agricultural features in forest clearings and along streams. Sites in the Rainforest Zone (2,500-5,000 ft elevation) and Subalpine or Montane Zone (5,000-9,000 ft) were limited to trails and associated temporary habitations. These zones were used for intra -island travel and gathering of valued resources including hardwoods, birds, and stone for tool making. U PROJECT EXPECTATIONS The project area is situated in McEldowney's (1979) Upland Agricultural Zone where expected site types include agricultural plots, trails to the interior, and scattered dwellings. The study area is situated I in an area that has been extensively impacted by historic agricultural activity and it is unlikely that pre - contact habitation sites would have survived this disturbance. Walls designed to control cattle and trails or roads for horse and wagon traffic may potentially be present. It is likely that the remnants of sugarcane plantation infrastructure would be present within the project area. FINDINGS The survey of the project area resulted in the identification of one site consisting of seven historic structures that occupies the southwestern half of the project area (Site.26633). The distribution of the seven features is presented in Figure 6. The buildings are located in an area 145 in (475 ft 6 in) long (northwest by southeast) and 115 in (377 ft) wide and are connected by asphalt and dirt roads. Several of the buildings are currently under repair by the current landowner. The site is altered and in poor to fair condition. According to Mr. Kimo Lee, Director of Development for W.H. Shipman Ltd., the buildings within the project area were erected by the Puna Sugar Company functioning as an equipment and vehicle maintenance facility (pers. comm.) Unfortunately, many of the Shipman records regarding Puna Sugar have been purged from their archives. The condition of the structures suggests that they were likely constructed in the mid -1900s when mechanized vehicles became dominant in the sugar industry. Feature A is a rectangular structure with a projection along the southeastern side, located at the northern end of the site. It measures 24.6 m (81 ft) long (northeast by southwest) and from 15.0 to 19.2 in (49 to 63 ft) wide (Figure 7). The northeast and southwest sides of the building are open with wood framed walls covered in corrugated metal along the northwest and southeast sides (Figure 8). The roof also cov- ered in corrugated metal sheets and is supported by wooden trusses. The roof is gabled and a 1.21 m (4 ft) wide eave extends around the structure. The floor of the building is formed concrete and there are three recessed pits that extend across the length of the floor in a northeast by southwest direction. The pits are 21.7 in long (7 1 ft), 1.0 m wide (3 ft 4 in) and 1.06 m (3 ft 6 in) deep (Figure 9). The northern pit has a set of wooden steps leading down to it at the northeast end and a set of steps are leading down from each end of the southern pit. A series of room along the southeast side of Feature A include an office, storage rooms and a bathroom with a toilet and sink. Plastic windows are present on the southeast and southwest sides of the office and an exterior door is located along the southeast side of the storage area. The Feature A structure served as a vehicle maintenance building with associated storage and of- fice space. This is based on the presence of the recessed pits, which would allow maintenance personnel access to the underside of trucks and other equipment, and information from W.H. Shipman Ltd. staff. Feature B is a rectangular building located to the southwest of Feature A. This structure is 42.7 m (140 ft) in length (northeast by southwest) and 10 in (32 ft) wide. The interior of the building is divided into six compartments, consisting of two work bays and four storage areas (Figures 10). The work bays are fopen along the northwest and southeast sides and the storage areas are enclosed with wood framed walls I covered in corrugated metal roofing (Figure 11). The floor of the building is comprised of funned concrete. There are three pits in the northeastern - most work bay that have been filled in with concrete. A cabinet is located in the southwestern corner of this �- bay and a motorbome is currently being garaged within the bay. The storage room to the northeast of this bay has a ceiling, creating a secondary storage area between the ceiling and the interior side of the roof. A ladder is located against the wall, providing access to this area (Figure 12). The remaining storage areas extend from the slab to the underside of the roof. The roof throughout the building is covered in corrugated metal and is supported by wooden trusses. Florescent lights hang from the underside of the roof trusses. There is a 4.46 m wide (14 ft 8 in) -- wide eave located at the southwestern end of the building that covers a concrete slab outside the main struc- ture. The Feature B structure is also interpreted as a vehicle maintenance building based on the multiple open work bays and the filled in pits. 10 O North ` o c o c II LT. C a O North ` o c o c II LT. �r I I I I I 1 I III I 1 I I � I ' II 0 3 I 12 Y- Rt I q \ \ N r \ m \ \ a o a No tb I I I I I I I I I I I I I W O 14 �/ � his f y rcL�Yf� ��yl .4 ..._._._._ ._ _. Feature C is a large rectangular building located to the southeast of Feature B. The building meas - ores 73.8 in (242 ft) long (northwest by southeast) and 21.5 in (70 ft 6 in) wide (Figure /3). The floor throughout the structure is comprised of formed concrete and the roof is comprised of corrugated metal and a 1.37 in (4 It 6 in) wide eave extends around the perimeter of the building. The central portion of the building consist of an opened sided room with no walls along the north- east and southwest sides (Figures 14 and 15). This room is constructed of metal beams and girders. There are two large parallel hoist systems supported by a metal I-beam framework that extends along the long axis of this shed. One of the hoists is 5 -ton and one is 10 -ton (see Figure 15). A series of large lights are suspended from rods that hang from the underside of the roof. There is a recessed pit located in the south- western portion of this room, measuring 5.6 in (18 ft 4 in) long (northeast by southwest) and 1.1 in (3 It 6 in) wide and 1.0 in (3 It 3 in) deep. A set of wooden stairs leading down into the pit are located at the northeast end. The northwestern end of Feature C is supported by a framework of both metal and wood and the walls and roof are covered in corrugated metal roof. This portion of the building is compartmentalized into six rooms consisting of two bathrooms and four store rooms. One bathroom contains a sink and toilet and the other is equipped with two toilets, several urinals, a shower, a water heater and a hand washing station. The interior walls of most rooms are comprised of vertical shiplap siding (Figure 16). Freestanding and built-in shelves are also present in this area. A set of stairs leads up to a second floor room is located adja- cent to the larger restroom. A covered concrete porch abuts this end of Feature C at the northern end of the western side. LThe southeast end of the Feature C building is open along the northwest, southwest and southeast sides, with a wall covered in corrugated metal on the northeast side. A set of curved tracks are suspended from the roof that support a 2 -ton hoist. The Feature C building is interpreted as functioning as a mainte- nance building due to the presence of the recessed pits and the hoist systems. The northwestern end of the 1_. building likely served as a bath/shower area with associated dressing rooms. The Feature D building is located to the southeast of Feature C, connected by a concrete side- walk. This building is rectangular in shape and is 7.6 in (36 It 6 in) long (east-northeast by west-southwest) l_ and 6.1 m (20 ft) wide (see Figure 13). This building is in very poor condition and is overgrown with vines and branches (Figure 17). The sides and roof of the structure are comprised of milled lumber and roof and portions of the walls are covered in corrugated metal. The roof is slightly sloping shed roof which over- hangs the sides of the building 0.91 in (3 ft). The interior is divided into two compartments by a wood framed wall covered in corrugated metal. The remnants of large wooden boxes are present inside each compartment. These boxes are labeled in red with numbers and are stamped with "Amfac Tropical Prod- ucts" and "Del Monte". The Feature D structure appears to have been used as a storage building based on presence of the boxes. Feature E is a long rectangular building located adjacent to Features C and D to the northeast. This building measures 100.3 in (329 ft) long (northwest by southeast) by 11.9 in (39 ft) wide and is di- vided into three rooms (Figure 18). The framework of the structure is comprised of milled lumber, with the roof supported by wooden trusses and the floor is comprised of formed concrete. The roof throughout the structure has recently been replaced with corrugated metal roofing material (Figure 19). A 0.9 in (3 ft) wide eave extends around the perimeter of the building. The room at the northwestern end of the building is 11.9 to (39 ft) long (northeast by southwest) and 6.0 in (19 ft B') wide. The northeast and half of the north- west walls are covered in floor to ceiling corrugated metal, with the remaining sides consisting of 0.9 in (3 ft) tall walls. The second room adjoins the first to the southeast. It is 21.3 in (69 ft 8 in) long (northwest by southeast) and 11.9 in (39 ft) wide. The northeastern side of the room is open to the outside, leading to a large metal slab (24.5 in (80 ft 6 in long by 12.1 or (39 ft 6 in) wide) that is covered by a flat roofed shed supported by a metal I-beam framework (Figure 20). This shed is 8.2 to (27 ft) in height above the slab. r The southwest side of the room is comprised of 0.9 in (3 ft) tall corrugated metal walls with a 6.0 in (19 ft 6 16 i I Sliding Dom 4'6" ,vide Fane - - -. \\ Open side - Closet - ( l / \ Unnals / \ Wmer 1 \ / 2 dFlo'oi�-,,w hems ���% t�'LSlron'er 1 Siaos y 6ledrical Punel�\ y �// Hwd xvsL\ `- \\ station , v FeahmeC S iding Dom Tnilei C.,,cd Porch ✓ \, -`. 5 ion', Tracked `\ \ `\ Hoat Ton —Tr ucked- , 'w Stcps \ .\ Recessedpit v �v ` l 2Tan Hoist Trucks Concrete Driveway \ \ � i Ieanve D 0 12 24 36Ci � 0 4 8 12m / I Figure 13. Site 26633, Feature C and D Plan Map 17 n o � � � � ?I � Tei � a4x, r� M °I Figure 16. Interior of Feature C showing vertical siding, view to southeast Figure 17. Exterior of Feature D, view to south-southeast 19 3 A rail wall__ 0 12 24 36ft 0 4 8 12m I ,vans Open side Do., F �1 L \ \ Men Roof Shed \ th Open Sides \ Concrete \\ 7 AtaA ,vall Floor `\ . \ \\ j 3Atell wall \ \ Sliding Door \ \ \ Original Wooden `\ Rafters end Slab ` ` 3'wide Eave Figure 18. Site 26633, Feature E Plan Map 20 4,ID s inch) opening in the approximate center. A floor to ceiling wall is located at the southeastern end of the room with two glass sliding doors. The remainder of Feature E has been remodeled with the sides covered in new corrugated metal siding (see Figure 19). Sliding metal doors are present along the northeast and southwest sides. The two glass sliding doors along the northwest wall open to a newly partitioned room with sheetrock covered walls. The Feature E structure likely functioned as a maintenance building based on the open wall that leads to the large flat roofed shed. The remaining portions of the building were probably utilized for stor- age. Feature F is a rectangular -shaped building located adjacent to Feature E to the northeast. The building measures 42.6 m (139 ft 8 in) long (northwest by southeast) and 17.9 m (58 It 8 in) wide. This structure has been partially dismantled and has open sides supported by beams along the northeast, south- east and southwest sides (Figure 21). The northwest end of the building has a floor to ceiling wall covered in corrugated metal. The roof of the building is gabled and is also covered in corrugated metal supported by wooden trusses (Figure 22). The building is divided into two rooms by a wall of framed lumber. The northwestern room has a concrete floor and the southeastern room has an asphalt floor. A formed concrete pad is located along the northeastern side of the structure, measuring 17.4 to (57 ft) long (northwest by southeast) and 5.2 m (17 ft 2 in) wide. The northwestern room contains four raised concrete pads (Figure 23). Two of the pads are lo- cated at the northern end of the room and are 3.0 m (10 ft) long (northwest by southeast), 0.9 m (3 ft) wide and 0.6 m (2 ft ) in height. These pads are spaced 3.1 m (10 ft 3 in) apart. The two remaining pads are lo- cated at the southern end of this room. One pad measures 6.1 m (30 ft 3 in) long (northwest by southeast), 3.9 m (12 ft 8 in) wide and 0.15 at (6 in) in height. The second pad is located 1.5 m (4 ft 8 in) to the south. It is 4.9 m (16 ft) in length (northeast by southwest), 2.2 m (7 ft 3 in) wide and 0.15 m (6 in) in height. These raised pads may have functioned as raised foundations for interior rooms or to support machinery. This may suggest that Feature F also served as a maintenance building. Feature G is a rectangular building located next to Feature F, 3.9 m (13 ft ) to the southeast (see Figure 21). This building measures 34.1 m (I I1 ft 8 in) long (northwest by southeast) and 17.9 m (58 ft 8 in) wide. As with Feature F, this building has been partially dismantled and is open along the northwest, northeast and southwest sides (see Figure 22). A floor to ceiling wood framed wall covered in corrugated metal is located along the southeast side of the building. The roof is corrugated metal supported by wooden trusses and the floor is concrete. A concrete slab is located adjacent to the building at the southern end. It measures 17.9 m (58 ft 8in) long (northwest by southeast) and 8.6 m (28 ft 2 in) wide. The absence of in- ternal components of this building may suggest that it served as a storage room as opposed to a mainte- nance building. 22 Have _ _ _ _._._._ open,id Raised Concrem Pad \ Solid wall \ \ \ Conoco Slab \ X 3 H \vide E.—N v(` l'\ :\\ \ \ Raised Concrete Pad FenmieF \G/ \ N � \ Asphah fluor \ \ J IN � \ Connelefloor \' FeamreG IN \\\ \\ JJ /.' ' IN, Solid wall 0 12 24 36fi IN 0 4 R 12m ININ IN, \V - Conne¢floor Figure 21. Site 26633, Feature F and G Plan Map 23 I a' .. '�- � yl � �� I, I ._. _ �...__. �, ,.�� .,r _. �'v_,.. ,. .'-.�-..- r s x-. � �, a=M� � .=i �� �. CONCLUSION Discussion As expected, no pre -contact archaeological remains were identified within the project area because of the extensive ground altering disturbance associated with the cultivation of sugar cane that occurred in the area. The historic complex of buildings noted within the project area (Site 26633) represents the rem- nants of a vehicle maintenance facility constructed by Puna Sugar Company at some point during the 20`x' Century. The buildings were utilized to repair and maintain the trucks and other vehicles associated with the sugar company's operation. The facility was utilized until 1982 when Puna Sugar Company was closed by its owners, Amfac, Inc. Significance Assessments Pursuant to DLNR (1998) Chapter 275-6 (d), the initial significance assessments provided herein are not final until concurrence from the DLNR has been obtained. The site identified during the survey is assessed for significance based on the criteria outlined in the Rules Governing Procedures for Historic Preservation Review (DLNR 1998:Chap. 275). According to these rules, a site must possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association and shall meet one or more of the following criteria: 1. Criterion "a". Be associated with events that have made an important contribution to the broad patterns of our history; 2. Criterion "b". Be associated with the lives of persons important in our past; 3. Criterion "c". Embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of con- struction; represent the work of a master; or possess high artistic value; 4. Criterion "d". Have yielded, or is likely to yield, information important for research on prehistory or history; and 5. Criterion "e". Have an important traditional cultural value to the native Hawaiian people or to another ethnic group of the state due to associations with traditional cultural prac- tices once carried out, or still carried out, at the property or due to associations with tradi- tional beliefs, events or oral accounts --these associations being important to the group's history and cultural identity. Based on the above criteria, Site 26633 is assessed as solely significant under Criterion "d". The site has yielded information important for understanding the historic land use in the project area. Recommended Treatments The mapping, written descriptions and photography at Site 26633 adequately documents it and no further work or preservation is recommended. 25 REFERENCES Armstrong, R. (editor) 1983 Atlas ofHawai'i. Honolulu: University of Hawai'i Press (2 ,d Edition). Cahill, Emmett 1996 The Shipman of East Hawaii. University of Hawai'i Press, Honolulu. DLNR (Department of Land and Natural Resources) 2003 Hawai'i Administrative Rules, Title 13. Department of Land and Natural Re- sources, Subtitle 13, State Historic Preservation Division Rules. Dorrance, W. 2000 Sugar Islands: The 165 -Year Story of Sugar in HawaVi . Mutual Publishing, Hono- lulu. Ellis, W. 1963 Journal of William Ellis: narrative of a tour of Hawaii, or Owhyhee. Tuttle, Rut- land Emory, K. 1945 "Herbert C. Shipman Cave, Kea'au, Puna, Hawaii." On file in SHPD Library #H-2. Ewart, N. and Luscomb, M 1974 "Archaeological Reconnaissance of Proposed Kapoho-Keaukaha Highway, District of Puna, island of Hawaii." On file in SHPD Library H-822. Hammatt, H. .1978 "Archaeological reconnaissance of proposed Kings Landing subdivision, Kea'au, Puna, island of Hawai'i." No sites found. On file at UHM-Hamilton Library, Ha- waii -Pacific Collections. Handy, E. S. C., and E. G. Handy 1978 Native Planters in Old Hawaii: Their Life, Lore, and Environment. Bernice P. Bishop Museum Bulletin 233, Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Haun, A., D. Henry and M. Orr 2004 Archaeological Assessment, WOA Project 6615-01 Kea'au-Pahoa Road, Shoulder Lane Conversion, Land of Kea'au, Puna District, Island of Hawaii (TMK: 3-1-6- 01:15, 21; 1-6-04:26, 49). H&A Report 198-060804 prepared for Wilson Okamoto & Associates, Honolulu Hawaii. Hunt, T. 1993 "Archaeological Assessment of Shipman Lands in Kea'au, Puna, Island of Ha- wai'i." a- waii." On file at SHPD Library #H-1253. Hurst, G. and A. Schilz 1994 "Archaeological Survey of the Kea'au Palma Road, Kea'au Town Section, Project No. 130B-01-92, Puna, Hawaii (TMK 1-6-03). Ogden, Honolulu. For GK & Asso- ciates. James, V. 1995 Ancient Sites of Hawaii: Archaeological. Places of Interest on the Big Island. Mu- tual Publishing, Honolulu. 26 Juvik, S. and Juvik, J. 1998 Atlas of Hawaii (Third Edition). University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu. Kent, N. 1983 Hawaii: Islands Under the Influence. Monthly Review Press, New York. Maly, K. 1999 "The Historic Puna Trail -Old Government Road (Kea'au Section), Archival - Historical Documentary Research, Oral History and Consultation Study, and Lim- ited Site Preservation Plan: Ahupua'a of Kea'au, Puna District, Island of Hawaii." (TMK: 1-6-01) [On file at SHPD Library #H-1599]. Kwnu Pono Associates. For Na Ala Hele Program Manager -Hawaii Island. Masterson, 1. And H. Hammatt 1998 Archaeological Inventory Survey for the Proposed Kea'au Elderly Housing Project, Kea'au, Puna District, Hawaii Island (TMK: 1-6-143:por. 18,& 39). Cultural Surveys Hawaii report prepared for Hawaii Island Community Development Corporation. McEldowney, H. 1979 Archaeological and Historical Literature Search and Research Design: Lava Flow Control Study, Hilo, Hawaii. Prepared for the U.S. Army Engineer District, Hono- lulu. Department of Anthropology. Bishop Museum. McGerty, L. and R. Spear 2000 An Archaeological Inventory Survey the Proposed K.S.B.E West Hawaii Campus, Kea'au Ahupua`a, Puna District, Island of Hawaii TMK: 1-6-03:por 12. SCS Pro- ject 193-2 prepared for PBR Hawaii. Orr, M. 2004 Cultural Impact Study/Assessment, Kea'au By -Pass Road to Shower Drive Shoul- der Land Conversion Project, Kea'au Ahupua`a, District of Puna, Island of Hawaii., Hawaii. Prepared for Haun & Associates, Wilson Okamoto & Associates. Pukui, M. 1983 'Melo No'eau: Hawaiian Proverbs and Poetical Sayings Bernice P. Bishop Museum Special Publication No. 71. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu. Rosendahl, M. 1982 "Archaeological reconnaissance survey, proposed W.H. Shipman Industrial Park TMK: 3-1-6-03: por 12. No sites found. On file at UHM-Hamilton Library, Ha- waii -Pacific Collections. Sato, H.H., E.W. Ikeda, R. Paeth, R. Smythe, and M. Takehiro Jr. 1973 Soil Survey of the Island of Hawaii. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service and University of Hawaii Agricultural Experiment Station. Washington D.C. Government Printing Office. Stokes, J.F. G. 1991 Heiau of the Island of Hawai 'i: A Historic Survey of native Hawaiian Temple Sites. Bishop Museum Press, Honolulu WHSL - W. H. Shipman, Limited 2000 Shipman History. hiip://www.whshipman.coin/historv.l)tml 27 Wolfe, E., and J. Morris 2001 Geological Map of the Island of Hawaii. U.S. Department of the Interior. U.S Geo- logical Survey m EXHIBIT D ENTERPRISE ZONE LETTER DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS AND ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM August 22, 2008 DEPARTMENT OF BUSINESS, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT & TOURISM Enterprise Zones No. 1 Capitol District Building, 250 South Hotel Street, Roam 503, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Mailing Address: P.O. Box 2359, Honolulu, Hawaii 96804 Website: hUp://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/businesslprograms/ez August 22, 2008 Mr, Shikwan Sung Managing Partner Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC 16-665 Milo Street Keaau, Hawaii 96749 Dear Mr. Sung: LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR THEODORE E. LIU DIRECTOR MARK K. ANDERSON DEPUTY DIRECTOR Telephone. (808)586-2593 Fax: (808)586-2589 Congratulations! Your firm's application to enroll in Hawaii's Enterprise Zones Partnership Program has been approved. This means your firm has an establishment at 16-665 Milo Street, Keaau, Hawaii 96749 in the Hilo -Puna Enterprise Zone and, according to your application, it is engaged in one or more EZ - eligible business activities. Your EZ establishment is now eligible to qualify for EZ tax benefits for up to seven consecutive years (84 consecutive months). Your seven years of eligibility begins on September 1, 2008, with no (0) full- time employees in order to use the construction benefit, and will end on August 31, 2015. Upon completion of your construction and starting operations, your company must notify the Hawaii County Enterprise Zone Coordinator and have a minimum of one (1) full-time employee. If your EZ establishment does not meet the EZ hiring and other requirements in any given year, your firm will still be eligible to qualify for EZ hiring incentives in subsequent years as long as your firm has not exhausted its 84 months of eligibility. You will need to submit a short "End -of -the -Year" report form after the end of each full or partial tax year this establishment participates in the EZ program. In the report form you will need to provide information to show that your firm's EZ establishment has satisfied the hiring and gross receipts requirements for each tax year. This form should be submitted for approval before claiming the EZ state income tax credits and the General Excise Tax exemptions on taxes due from EZ -eligible activities at your EZ establishment. Note: The State Department of Taxation allows EZ enrolled firms to choose to stop paying state excise and income taxes during their seven years (84 consecutive months) of EZ enrollment with the understanding that: Enrolled firms which choose to stop paying state excise and/or estimated income taxes must continue to submit their periodic excise and income tax payment forms to the Hawaii State Department of Taxation; Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Page 2 • Enrolled firms which choose to stop paying state excise and/or income taxes may be subject to payment of unpaid state income and/or excise taxes (plus interest and possibly penalties) if the EZ hiring and/or gross revenue requirements are not met during each tax year during which an EZ enrolled firm does not make state income and/or excise tax payments; Enrolled firms that claim, or intend to claim, the EZ exemption from excise tax on EZ -eligible revenues should no longer show an itemized cost labeled as "general excise tax" on the receipt or invoice issued to customers who pay for EZ -eligible products and/or services. If your firm satisfies the EZ gross revenues and hiring requirements each tax year of enrollment, the State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) will issue a certificate to you indicating that your EZ establishment has satisfied the EZ gross revenue and hiring requirements for each tax year during your seven consecutive years (84 months) of enrollment. These certificates should be copied, and the copies should be attached to your state income and/or excise tax returns. (Note; This does not apply to the contractor's exemption from general excise tax that can be claimed by a licensed contractor on revenues from work done at the EZ site for an EZ -enrolled business) Please keep this letter on file. If you have any questions about this letter or the EZ program in general, please call the Enterprise Zones coordinator of the Hawaii Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism (DBEDT) at (808) 586-2593. ncerely, Dennis T. Ling Administrator Strategic Marketing & Support Division EXHIBIT E TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT M & E Pacific, Inc. September 2008 for Kea`au Warehouses Kea`au, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii Tax Map Key dumber (3)9-6-003: 098 & 023 rr SEPTEMBER 2008 1. Prepared for: Sidney Fuke Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 Hilo, Hawai`l 96720 Prepared by: M&E Pacific, Inc. ivIEfC.ALF LEDDY I.�.'='_C! 1 Davies Pacific Center, 841 Bishop Street Suite 1900, Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT KEA`AU WAREHOUSES Kea'au, Island of Hawai'i, Hawaii Traffic Impact Analysis Report TMK: (3)1-6-003: 018 & 023 September 2008 1M Y\ LICENSED ; PROFESSIONAL ENGINEER * NO. 3893—C Expiration Date: April 30, 2010 This work was prepared by me or under my direct supervision. Signature M & E Pacific, Inc. METCALF & EDD)' I:=,ECC 1, E 3: � - F -2 Gu Date M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE i 60045470.00300 September 2008 - Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT Table of Contents SECTION PAGE Engineer's Stamp and Signature...................................................................................i Tableof Contents ...................................... .... ........ ............ ............ ................................. ii Listof Figures............................................................................................................... III Listof Tables................................................................................................................. III fProject Description........................................................................................................1 l_. Existing Conditions.......................................................................................................2 ExistingRoadways................................................................................................2 TrafficVolumes.....................................................................................................3 Proposed Roadway Improvements..............................................................................6 �- Traffic Forecasts............................................................................................................6 fAmbient Traffic Forecast..................:....................................................................7 l . Project Generated Traffic....................................................................................10 Levelof Service Analysis............................................................................................11 Conclusions.................................................................. ( References ` Figures Tables Appendices Appendix A: Traffic Turning Movement Counts l Appendix B: Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Calculations Appendix C: Multi -Lane Highway Level of Service (LOS) Calculations M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE !I 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TZAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT List of Figures FIGURE NUMBER TITLE Figure 1 Location Map Figure 2 Existing (2008) Peak Hour Traffic Volumes A. June 2008 Counts without School Traffic B. 2008 Volumes with 350 Student School Traffic . Figure 3 Historical Trend in Daily Traffic Volumes Highway 11 (Volcano Road) at Highway 130 (Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road) Figure 4 Hourly Traffic Volumes on Highways 11 and 130 Figure 5 Components of Ambient Traffic Forecast A. 36.9% Ambient Traffic Growth B. School Traffic with 400 Student Enrollment C. Ulupono Town Center Commercial Component D. Ulupono Town Center Industrial Component E. Shipman Commercial Industrial Center Forecast F. Combined Ambient Traffic Forecast Figure 6 Project Generated Traffic Assignments Figure 7 Total with Project Traffic Forecasts List of Tables TABLE NUMBER TITLE Table 1 Trip Generation Analysis Table 2 Trip Distribution Analysis Table 3 Level of Service Analysis M & E PACIFIC. INC. PAGE iii 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TZAR Ir l KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT for the KEAAU WAREHOUSES Mr. Shikwan Sung proposes to rezone 10.6 acres from A -20a to ML -1 acre (industrial) in Keaau, Hawai'i. This report documents a study that was conducted to identify the traffic impacts of the proposed project and to recommend any mitigating measures. PROJECT DESCRIPTION rMr. Shikwan Sung proposes to rezone a 10.6 acres area from A -20a to ML -1 acre (industrial) in Keaau, Hawaii. The land area, identified as TMK (3)1-6-003: 018 and 023, is located in the vicinity of the former Puna Sugar Mill, as shown on Figure 1. The rezoning would allow the conversion of approximately 60,000 square feet of existing structures into warehousing use. The conversion process is expected to take about ten years to complete. Local access to the proposed project site is via Milo Street from Highway 130, the Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road. Milo Street also provides access for other existing and proposed land uses. Highway 130 then connects with Highway 11, Volcano Road, which provides access between Volcano and Hilo. The two intersections of these three roadways: Milo Street, Highway 130, and Highway 11, were analyzed in this study and are identified on Figure 1. Other existing land uses along Milo Street include the Christian Liberty School, a credit union, and a plant nursery. The Ulupono Town Center is a proposed land use. The Christian Liberty School currently has 350 students in grades Kindergarten to 12. The school begins classes at 8:00 AM and ends at 2:35 PM. Their special use permit allows up to 400 students. The Ulupono Town Center is an industrial/commercial subdivision located alongside Highway 130 that would be served by a 60 -foot wide roadway that intersects Milo Street. The project has twelve undeveloped lots totaling 9.55 acres that are zoned MCX (Industrial -commercial mixed use). Long's Drugs has purchased two of M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 1 60045470.00300 September 2D08 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT these lots to create a 2.4 acre parcel. The Ulupono Town Center website mentions a 17 -acre Phase 4 parcel proposed for rezoning. Since no rezoning application has been made, this Phase 4 parcel was not included in this analysis. The credit union and another undeveloped lot share the Ulupono Town Center roadway but are not part of it. EXISTING CONDITIONS A survey of existing roadway and traffic conditions was made in June 2008. Existing Roadways State Highway 130 (Keaau-Pahoa Road) is the major northwest -southeast arterial passing through Puna. It extends from Kea'au in the northwest to Pahoa in the southeast. The northwest portion of Highway 130 is the Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road that was completed in the late 1990's on an alignment north of Keaau town. The bypass road intersects the original Keaau-Pahoa Road alignment in the vicinity of "Roadway B" at the Kea'au High School. Highway 130 is a four -lane highway with separate left turn and acceleration and deceleration lanes at major intersections along this route. The major intersections at Milo Street, Kukula Street, and "Roadway B" are signalized. The posted speed limit on the highway is 45 miles per hour (mph). The highway reduces to a two-lane alignment southwest of the intersection with "Roadway B." Highway 130 generally runs on a north -south alignment from "Roadway B" to north of Milo Street, and then turns to an east -west alignment to intersect Highway 11 (Volcano Road). State Highway 11 (Volcano Road) is a four -lane State highway generally running north - south through the project area. This roadway is also known as the Hawai'i Belt Road and provides a southern route between Hilo and Kona. The posted speed limit is 45 mph. The intersection of Highways 11 and 130 is signalized and channelized. There are two left turn lanes from Highway 11 to Highway 130. The two right turn lanes from Highway 130 to Highway 11 are not controlled by stop/yield signs or traffic signals and merge directly with the two northbound through lanes, creating four northbound lanes on Highway 11 that eventually merge into two through lanes. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 2 - 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEA.AU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT Traffic Volumes Traffic turning movement counts were taken at the two study intersections on Tuesday, June 3, 2008, to determine existing traffic conditions. Traffic counts were taken during the morning peak period (6:00-8:30 AM) and the afternoon peak period (3:00-5:30 PM). Traffic turning movement counts require a traffic surveyor to observe traffic flow and record the movements of each vehicle crossing the intersection as through or turning movements by 15 minute intervals. The worksheets for these traffic counts are included in Appendix A. The current traffic volumes for the morning and afternoon peak hours are shown on the ( top figure of Figure 2, "A. June 2008 Counts without School Traffic," with volumes rounded to the nearest five vehicles per hour (vph). These counts would include traffic generated by the existing land uses on Milo Street; however, the Christian Liberty f School was not in session on the day the traffic count was taken. Therefore, the current L_ traffic that would be generated by the school was forecast using the traditional three- ( step process of trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment. The trip generation 1_. step forecasts the number of new trips that would be produced in each of the two study periods. The trip distribution step allocates these new trips by direction of travel. I. Finally, the trip assignment step assigns the trips to the specific turning movements at the study intersections. The trip generation analysis for the current enrollment of 350 students is summarized on (_ Table 1. The trip generation step forecasts the volume of vehicle trips that would be r generated by the private school during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation (Seventh Edition, 2003) report has trip generation equations and rates to calculate the number of morning and afternoon peak hour trips that would be generated by various land uses. The report ( shows trip generation rates for private schools with grades K-12 (Land Use 536) of 0.79 1. and 0.17 during the morning and afternoon peak hours of traffic, respectively. The current school enrollment of 350 students is calculated to generate 277 morning and 60 afternoon peak hour trips. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 3 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR I. KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT The Trip Generation report also provides 'the percentage of inbound and outbound trips for each land use in each peak hour. The number of generated trips was divided into inbound and outbound trips based on the information from the report, as shown on Table 1. The private school currently generates 108 outbound and 169 inbound trips in the morning peak hour, and 26 inbound and 34 outbound trips in the afternoon peak hour. The project -generated trips were then distributed by direction of travel to and from the project site. The distribution of trips was based from the distribution factors in the 1995 Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the school, which school officials indicated were still applicable. Separate factors were used for the inbound and outbound directions of travel and were reversed for the morning and afternoon peak hours of travel. The trip distribution analysis is shown on Table 2. The volumes may not add up to the total number of generated trips due to rounding. These trips were then assigned to the study network and added to the counted volumes shown at the top of Figure 2 (Figure 2-A). The results are shown on the bottom figure of Figure 2 (Figure 2-13), "B. 2008 Volumes with 350 Student School Traffic," with volumes rounded to the nearest five vph. The school officials indicated that a large proportion of parents drop their children at school and continue on their commute to work in the morning, and pick up their children on their afternoon commuter trip. This would indicate that a large proportion of trips are pass -by and diverted trips. Pass -by trips are defined as trips attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent roadway and have direct access to the destination. Therefore, these trips do not add to the through volumes on the roadway but add to the M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 4 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TZAR Percentage of Travel DestinationOutbound Origin/t15 Peak PM Peak Inbound Outbound Hilo 70 70 15 Volcano20 Pahoa 25 25 65 The trip distribution analysis is shown on Table 2. The volumes may not add up to the total number of generated trips due to rounding. These trips were then assigned to the study network and added to the counted volumes shown at the top of Figure 2 (Figure 2-A). The results are shown on the bottom figure of Figure 2 (Figure 2-13), "B. 2008 Volumes with 350 Student School Traffic," with volumes rounded to the nearest five vph. The school officials indicated that a large proportion of parents drop their children at school and continue on their commute to work in the morning, and pick up their children on their afternoon commuter trip. This would indicate that a large proportion of trips are pass -by and diverted trips. Pass -by trips are defined as trips attracted from traffic passing the site on an adjacent roadway and have direct access to the destination. Therefore, these trips do not add to the through volumes on the roadway but add to the M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 4 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TZAR KEPAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT turning movements and are subtracted from the through movements where they turn off to access the destination. Diverted trips are attracted from the roadways in the vicinity of but not adjacent to the destination. They require a diversion from that roadway and add traffic to streets adjacent to the site. Half of the school trips from Pahoa were assumed to be pass -by trips from Highway 130, and half the school trips from Volcano were assumed to be diverted from Highway 11. A similar adjustment was made for the afternoon peak hour. The results of these adjustments are reflected in Figure 2.B. The current traffic operations at the two study intersections are discussed in the Level of Service Analysis section. . The State of Hawai'i Department of Transportation (State DOT) used to take traffic counts every two years at selected roadway sections on Hawai'i. One of these count I stations was at the intersection of Highway 11 (Volcano Road) and Highway 130 f (Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road), one of the study intersections. Three daily traffic l . volumes were available for the four year period from 2000 to 2004, when the last count was taken. The data which is graphically shown on Figure 3 shows the historical trend -• of daily two-way traffic for the three legs of the intersection for the four year period. Traffic counts were taken for two consecutive weeks in June 2000 with the counts taken �- in the second week consistently lower than the first week's counts. Both data points are shown on Figure 3 and described in the following discussion. Daily two-way traffic (- volumes on the north leg of Highway 11 increased 6% or 18% between 2000 and 2004 while volumes on the south leg decreased 7% to 24%. The Highway 130 leg showed the highest difference between the two 2000 counts with the second week's count 45% lower than the previous week. This leg showed a 19% decrease or 46% increase from 2000 to 2004, depending on which June 2000 count is used as the basis. The State DOT took more recent traffic counts in 2006 at different locations from the above count stations. The station on Highway 11 (Volcano Road) is between the Old Keaau-Pahoa Road and Old Volcano Road intersections in Keaau town, south of the study intersection. The station on Highway 130 is in the vicinity of the high school. Figure 4 shows the pattern of hourly traffic volumes on these two highways. Northbound traffic to Hilo peaks on Highway 11 in the morning peak. During the, M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 5 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau warehouses TZAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT afternoon peak, the northbound traffic volumes are equal to the southbound volumes. The westbound traffic to Hilo on Highway 130 peaks in the morning while the eastbound traffic to Pahca peaks in the afternoon at a lower level. PROPOSED ROADWAY IMPROVEMENTS The State of Hawaii has several proposed projects on the Keaau-Pahoa Road listed in the FY 2008-2011 Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, (revised April 14, 2008), including: • Kea'au-Pahoa Road Improvements, Keaau to Pahoa, with design programmed in FY 2010 and Phase 1 construction programmed in FY 2013. • Kea'au-Pahoa Road, shoulder lane conversion, Keaau Bypass Road to Shower Drive, with right-of-way acquisition programmed in FY 2008 and construction programmed in FY 2009. • Kea'au-Pahoa Road, Intersection Improvements at Paradise Drive, with design programmed in FY 2009 and construction in FY 2010. • Kea'au-Pahoa Road, Intersection Improvements at Kahakai Boulevard, with design programmed in FY 2009 and construction in FY 2010. All of these projects would occur east of the intersection of the Kea'au-Pahoa Bypass Road and the old Kea'au-Pahoa Road and would not affect traffic operations on the bypass roadway. They would not have any impact on the two study intersections. TRAFFIC FORECASTS The proposed project is expected to be fully occupied in about ten years. During this period, ambient traffic on the area roadways can be expected to increase due to regional growth and new projects in the area. The traffic that would be generated from the proposed project was added to the ambient traffic forecast to obtain the total with project traffic forecast. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 6 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR iI T KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT Ambient Traffic Forecast Ambient traffic on the two study roadways can be expected to increase due to regional growth and new projects in the area. Rapid regional growth is occurring from infilling of the development areas served by Highway 130, despite the decrease in volume shown on Figure 3. Two proposed projects along Milo Street include the Christian Liberty School expansion and the Ulupono Town Center. The Shipman Gateway Center is another major project slated to open on Highway 11 west of the Highway 11/Highway 130 intersection. The current long range highway plan for the County of Hawai'i does not include traffic forecasts. In lieu of official traffic forecasts, the peak hour traffic volumes on Highways 11 and 130 were assumed to increase in proportion to the population growth. The current population forecast for Puna from the County of Hawai'i General Plan were interpolated for 2008 and 2018 and ten-year growth rates calculated as shown below: Year ar Rate 2005 "135.9%. 2008` 2010 2015 49,801 37.0% 2018' 54,024 36.9% 2010 58,246 36.8% 'Interpolated The Puna district is forecast to experience a rapid 36.9% growth rate for the ten-year period ending 2018. The peak hour traffic volumes of Figure 2-A were increased by 36.9% and the results are shown on Figure 5-A, "A. 36.9% Ambient Traffic Growth," with traffic volumes rounded to the nearest five vph. The Christian Liberty School currently has 350 students in grades Kindergarten to 12. Their special use permit allows expansion up to 400 students. The three step process of trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment was used to forecast the number of trips which would be generated by the increased enrollment. The trip generation M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 7 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT analysis is shown or, Table 1, the trip distribution analysis on Table 2, and the trip assignment results are shown on Figure 5-13, "B. School Traffic with 400 Student Enrollment'. As with the traffic forecast for current conditions, half of the school trips from Pahoa were assumed to be pass -by trips from Highway 130, and half the school trips from Volcano were assumed to be diverted from Highway 11. The traffic assignment volumes for this component are not rounded. The Ulupono Town Center is a MCX-zoned (Industrial -commercial mixed use) subdivision that includes twelve undeveloped lots totaling 9.55 acres. An updated TIAR for the Ulupono Town Center was not required since the original 1998 TIAR for the 15.0 -acre site was deemed applicable. As the original site was larger than the current site, the following assumptions were used to develop new traffic forecasts for the Ulupono Town Center: 1. There would be an average of 12,000 square feet (sf) gross leasable building area per acre, consistent with the 1998 study. 2. One third of the acreage would be in commercial uses, and the remaining two-thirds would be in industrial use, consistent with the 1998 study. This resulted in 38,000 square feet of commercial space and 77,000 square feet of industrial space. 3. Shopping Center (Land Use 820) trip generation rates were applied to the commercial space while industrial park (Land Use 130) trip generation rates were applied to the industrial use. This is consistent with. the 1998 study. The trips generated by each of the two land uses were then combined to obtain the forecast trips for the Ulupono Town Center. The trip generation analysis is summarized on Table 1. it is possible that the trips generated by the commercial uses could be lower than that for a shopping center. Many MCX-permitted commercial uses (such as car sales or nightclubs) have lower trip generation rates than a shopping center. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 8 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT 4. Separate trip distribution factors were used for the commercial and industrial uses. For each land use, separate factors were used for the inbound and outbound directions of travel and were reversed for the morning and afternoon peak hours. The trip distribution analysis is summarized on Table 2. 5. Half of the afternoon peak hour commercial trips going to Pahoa and Volcano were assumed to be pass -by and diverted trips, respectively. The results of the trip assignment analysis are shown on Figure 5-C, "C. Ulupono Town Center Commercial Component," and "D. Ulupono Town Center Industrial Component." The Shipman Gateway Center, a commercial center, is being proposed on the western edge of the intersection of Highway 11 and Highway 130. This project is in the approval process and its traffic mitigating measures have not been approved by the State DOT. Since the site is already approved for a commercial/light industrial development, it was included in this analysis as an approved proposed lane use. The traffic forecast from 1. the 'Traffic Impact Analysis Report W.H. Shipman Keaau Master Plan Increment 1 of Area Y (1999) was utilized for this study and is shown on Figure 5-E, "E. Shipman Commercial/Industrial Center Forecast'. The report recommended the following traffic mitigation measures at the intersection of Highway 11 and Highway 130 which were included in this study: 1. An exclusive right turn lane on southbound approach of Volcano Road. 2. An exclusive left turn lane on northbound approach of Volcano Road. 3. A through lane on the westbound approach of Highway 130. 4. An exclusive left turn lane, through lane and exclusive right turn lane on the approach from the commercial center. The above five ambient traffic components (Figures 5-A through 5-E) were combined to develop the ambient traffic forecast shown on Figure 5-F, "F. Combined Ambient Traffic Forecast', with volumes rounded to the nearest five vph. It can be argued that the traffic forecasts for the two mixed-use centers are part of the 36.9% increase forecast M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 9 60045470.0030D September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAA.0 WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT described first, since commercial/industrial projects Would have to be built to accommodate the expected population growth. However, this study added traffic from the two land uses as additions to the general population growth. The traffic operations for the ambient forecast conditions at the two study intersections are discussed in the Level of Service Analysis section. Proiect Generated Traffic The traditional three-step process of trip generation, trip distribution and trip assignment was used to forecast future traffic that would be generated by the proposed project. The trip generation and distribution analyses for the year 2018 are summarized on Tables 1 and 2, respectively. The trip generation step forecasts the volume of vehicle trips that would be generated by the proposed project during the morning and afternoon peak periods. The Trip Generation report has trip generation rates and the proportion of inbound/outbound trips for warehouses (LU 150) based on square footage to calculate the number of morning and afternoon peak hour trips as follows: Direction of Trips Rate Entering Leaving AM Peak Hour 0.45 82% 18% PM Peak Hour 0.47 25% 75% The proposed warehouses are forecast to generate 27 and 28 vph in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. The traffic assignment of.trips in each peak hour is shown on Figure 6. These warehouse -generated traffic volumes were added to the ambient traffic forecast volumes from Figure 5-F to obtain the total with project traffic forecasts shown on Figure 7, with volumes rounded to the nearest five vph. The traffic operations for the total with project traffic forecast conditions at the two study intersections are discussed in the Level of Service Analysis section. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 10 80045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS The concept of level of service is used to quantify the quality of traffic flow on roadway facilities. The Transportation Research Board (TRB) has developed procedures to calculate level of service value(s) by measuring traffic volumes against the capacities of different types of roadway facilities. Their Highway Capacity Manual 2000 (HCM2000) describes the various procedures developed for freeways, highways, signalized and unsignalized intersections, etc. Both study intersections are currently signalized. The methodology for analyzing l_ signalized intersections calculates the levels of service for individual movements, approaches and the intersection as a whole based on the average stopped delay per vehicle. The results range from level of service A (best with average delays less than ten seconds) to F (worst with average delays longer than 80 seconds), described as follows: iI LEVEL OF SERVICE CONTROL DELAY PER VEHICLE SecondsfVehicle A < 10.0 B 10.1 to 20.0 C 20.1 to 35.0 D 35.1 to 55:0 E 55.1 to 80.0 F > 80.1 The County of Hawai'i considers levels of service A to D as acceptable for signalized intersections, with levels of service E and F indicating the need for mitigating measures. Table 3 summarizes the level of service analyses conducted for the existing (2008) and forecast year (2018) when the proposed warehouses are expected to be fully occupied. The existing year analysis includes traffic conditions without and with the current school traffic from Figures 2-A and 2-13, respectively. The forecast year analysis includes ambient and total with project traffic forecasts from Figures 5-F and 7, respectively. The level of service (LOS), delay (DEL), and volume/capacity ratio (V/C) results are M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 11 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT shown for each scenario. The worksheets for the level of service calculations are provided in Appendix B. The results for the intersection as a whole and each approach are shown for both intersections. For the Highway 130/Milo Street intersection, the left turn lane on the Milo Street approach and the left turn lane and through movements on the Highway 130 southbound approach are also shown. For the Highway 11/Highway 130 intersection, the left turn lane and through movements on the Highway 11 southbound approach are also shown. The Highway 130/Milo Street intersection is currently operating at level of service A in both of the peak hours with school traffic, although the Highway 130 southbound left turn lane is operating at a minimally acceptable level of service D in the morning peak. The intersection is forecast to operate at level of service C for the 2018 ambient morning peak hour and at level of service A for the afternoon peak hour. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project is not expected to change these results. This result indicates that the proposed project would not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection. The Highway 11/Highway 130 intersection is currently operating at acceptable levels of service B and C in the morning and afternoon peak hours, respectively. However, the northbound approach of Highway 11 is operating at minimally acceptable level of service D in the morning peak hour. The intersection is forecast to operate at an acceptable level of service C during the ambient forecast morning peak hour although several approaches and movements would be at minimally acceptable/unacceptable levels. The northbound approach of Highway, 11 would continue to operate at minimally acceptable level of service D. The eastbound approach from the Shipman Gateway Center would be at level of service F and the left turn lane of the southbound approach would be at level of service E. The Highway 11/Highway 130 intersection is forecast to operate at an unacceptable level of service E in the 2018 afternoon peak hour, with all but the Highway 130 M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 12 60045470.00300 September 2006 Keaau warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT westbound approach operating at unacceptable levels of service. Three movements would be at level of service F including the eastbound approach from the Shipman Gateway Center, the northbound approach of Highway 11, and the left turn lane of the southbound approach of Highway 11. Additional lanes would be required on three of the four intersection approaches/lanes to mitigate the problem created by ambient traffic growth. The existing roadway design is _ not adequate for the ambient traffic volumes forecast in this study. Highway 11 would require six lanes. The current long range land transportation plan published in 1998 (( recommended the widening of Highway 11 from a four -lane divided highway to a six - lane divided highway from Kea'au to Makalika Street in Hilo. This improvement would mitigate most of the above noted problems; however, the State DOT has no current L plans for such a project. The high left turn volumes forecast from Highway 11 to f Highway 130 in the afternoon peak hour imply the need for an interchange ramp; a L. double left turn lane at this location would not be sufficient. The State DOT is working ( with the Shipman Gateway Center developers to mitigate their traffic concerns. l_ The northbound approach of Highway 11 has four lanes north of the Highway 130 ` intersection with two lanes from the northbound through movement and two lanes from the right turn movement from Highway 130. These four lanes eventually narrow to two lanes toward Hilo. A preliminary level of service analysis was conducted for the two lanes (one way) highway section with the current and ambient forecast morning peak hour traffic volumes, which are higher than the afternoon peak hour volumes. The highway is currently operating at level of service D but is forecast to operate at level of service F in 2018 without any highway improvements. Widening the highway to six lanes (three lanes in one direction) would result in level of service D operations. The additional traffic generated by the proposed project would be very small and is not expected to change these results in both peak hours, indicating that the proposed project would not have an adverse traffic impact at this intersection. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 13 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TIAR KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT J CONCLUSIONS The proposed warehouse project is forecast to generate a small number of trips (less than 30 per hour) during the morning and afternoon peak hours. The small volume of trips is not expected to change traffic operations at the Highway 130/Milo Street and Highway 11/Highway 130 intersections in the year 2018. This indicates that the proposed project would not have an adverse traffic impact at these intersections. The large increase in ambient traffic is due to regional growth is expected to have an adverse impact on traffic operations at the Highway 11/Highway 130 intersection by I J 2018. Major highway and intersection improvements would be required to mitigate the foreseen traffic problems. The same increase in traffic is not forecast to have as large an adverse impact at the Highway 130/Milo Street intersection which is forecast to l' operate at acceptable levels of service without additional improvements. M & E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE 14 � 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keen Warehouses TIAR J71 A eferen ces KEAAU WAREHOUSES TRAFFIC IMPACT ANALYSIS REPORT References 1. Catalina Engineering, Inc. Highway Capacity Analysis Program, Version 1, 2000. 2. County of Hawai'i. County of Hawaii General Plan, Table 2.2, Amended February 2005. 3. Frederic R. Harris, Inc. Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan. 1998. 4. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Report, Seventh Edition, 2003. 5. Institute of Transportation Engineers. Trip Generation Handbook, Second Edition, 2004. 6. M&E Pacific, Inc. Addendum, Traffic Impact Analysis Report, Keaau Industrial Subdivision, 1998. 7. Parsons Brinckerhoff Quade and Douglas, Inc. Traffic Impact Assessment Report, Christian Liberty School, Keaau, Island of Hawaii, Hawaii, 1995. 8. The Traffic Management Consultant. Traffic Impact Analysis Report for the Proposed W.H. Shipman Keaau Master Plan Increment 1 of Area D, 1999. 9. Transportation Research Board, National Research Council. Highway Capacity Manual. Washington, D.C.; Transportation Research Board, 2000 Edition. 10. Ulu pono Town Center Website, http://www.uluponocenter.com M S E PACIFIC, INC. PAGE Ref -1 60045470.00300 September 2008 Keaau Warehouses TZAR r i res 4 N T Shipman Commercial Business Center N T U /^'t STUDY tom_/ INTERSECTIONS LOCATION MAP NOT TO SCAB STATE OF HAWAII I—{ N p4X�wo�oX� I J Gni_ y�Vl n uru SJ `L�/ ° c °� rvnoouwc 4 � l xewui �_" PROJECT LOCATION jj l I -1 PACIFIC O C E AA A N PoM ISLAND OF HAWAII VICINITY MAP NOT TO SCALE 4 'una or Mill npany and olf PROJECT % �J LOCATION f M&E Pacific, Inc. METCALF&EDDYIAECOM DAVIES PACIFIC GTR, STE 1900 641 BISHOP ST, HONOLULU, HAWAII 96013 Figure 1 Location Map Traffic Impact Analysis Report Sung Keaau Warehouses TIAR - September 2008 -�N TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 420 f 375 1345 ti r 30 7 0 N � 4— To PAHOA " 325 f 25 1555 r Highway 130 30 7 0 0 N N Milo Street Project Site AM PEAK HOUR 4 ---o TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 1 1155 f 1155 655 1-n r' 40 7 un LO co n 4— TO PAHOA 1150 r 30 510 " r Highway 130 40 7 Lo 0 ce) m Milo Street Project Site PM PEAK HOUR A. JUNE 2008 COUNTS WITHOUT SCHOOL TRAFFIC N ti TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 420 r 400 1345 - " r 30 7 "' N N TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 1155 Z 1175 655 r 40 7 0 coo � n 4 4 - TO PAHOA 325 TO PAHOA '- 1150 r 85 r 50 1555 r Highway 130 510 r Highway 130 140 7 n 00 45 7 V O r Ln c Milo Street Milo Street Project Site Project Site AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR B. 2008 VOLUMES WITH 350 STUDENT SCHOOL TRAFFIC FIGURE 2 EXISTING (2008) PEAK HOUR TRAFFIC VOLUMES Source: State of Hawaii Department of i ransportanon, oieuuu Nu. 2— 45,000 W 40,000 35,000 J 0 30,000 U 25,000 LL Q 20,000 15,000 =O 10,000 = 5,000 N N 0 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2000 2002 2004 YEAR —k —Hwy 11 North Leg (1) * Hwy 11 North Leg (2) —0—Hwy 11 South Leg (1) — Hwy 11 South Leg (2) —)K KP Bypass (1) —@� KP Bypass (2) FIGURE 3 HISTORICAL TREND IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 11 (VOLCANO ROAD) AT HIGHWAY 130 (KEAAU-PAHOA BYPASS ROAD) hway 11 -Volcano Road Highway 130 - Keaau- Pahoa Bypass Road h Leg South Leg ADT(2) ADT(1) I ADT(2) ADT(1) I ADT(2) e200235,1 32,545 22,308 19,915 16,954 118,153 24,381 18,066 19,692 113,429 Source: State of Hawaii Department of i ransportanon, oieuuu Nu. 2— 45,000 W 40,000 35,000 J 0 30,000 U 25,000 LL Q 20,000 15,000 =O 10,000 = 5,000 N N 0 DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES 2000 2002 2004 YEAR —k —Hwy 11 North Leg (1) * Hwy 11 North Leg (2) —0—Hwy 11 South Leg (1) — Hwy 11 South Leg (2) —)K KP Bypass (1) —@� KP Bypass (2) FIGURE 3 HISTORICAL TREND IN DAILY TRAFFIC VOLUMES HIGHWAY 11 (VOLCANO ROAD) AT HIGHWAY 130 (KEAAU-PAHOA BYPASS ROAD) ' I I O 0 7 00 O N CO (D CO I� V CD N I� N LO tO 7 r H d T A F = r E t O O 0 Q) 0 Ln N 0 CO O M m N O 7 OO. L!) d' W d' rn a) (O r O r M (D O) Co I U w V � 00P T cc T p r ON F C N "V U O Ern LO V C' a7 co V CD rn V 'URI u7 (!J r (D O 0 1� Ln 7 co 00. a > o It r m 3 T cc O. t d0 Z z =l 3 0 = m 0 0N N d Y M Ln M 0 M O O to (D co m V M 0) Co M N O M N (o CO N Co n O L) CO (n u') O V M Un N a00 a O I �6 zz N to OO` m ¢ d ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ bE Il= d 7 a _ � p. o O O O O O O O O �yb 0/ o O O O. O6' _ U GG RI I b Oog Ilb F 00. T i C Cl O m R N S I Ti S3wmOA ou=ivia A -i nOH C) M r Q r r Q 0 It Z wp Q LJJ LL J O U_ :L U. J 7T i I O 0 7 N O N CO (D CO I� V CD N I� N LO tO 7 O M H d T A F = r E t O o C m 0 Q) 0 Ln N 0 CO O M m N O 7 N d' L!) d' W d' rn a) (O r O r M (D O) Co co [O in U w V � cc T p r ON F C N i; I� co O Ern LO V C' a7 co V CD rn V 'URI u7 (!J r (D O 0 1� Ln 7 co m m 0) M O Nm It r N O co T cc O. 3 0 = 3 t cm 0 0N N d Y M Ln M 0 M O O to (D co m Q) co M 0) Co M N O M N (o CO N Co n O L) CO (n u') O V M Un N ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ a _ _ � O O O O O O O O O O O O O O C) M r Q r r Q 0 It Z wp Q LJJ LL J O U_ :L U. J 7T i .4 - TO VOLCANO Highway 11 1 580 r 515 40 r 45 1 0 \ N �i TO HILO TO PAHOA 445 r 25 2130 — ti r Highway 130 30 1 0 0 N N Milo Street Project Site AM PEAK HOUR f- --0- TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 1580 r 1585 895 1-7 r- 55 55 1 �0 LO J. � TO PAHOA 1575 r 30 695 ti r Highway 130 40 1 LO 0 M M Milo Street Project Site PM PEAK HOUR A. 36.9% AMBIENT TRAFFIC GROWTH \ N ti TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 r 29 -20 ., r 39 1 d N f - TO PAHOA r 68 62 r Highway 130 125 1 N M � Milo Street Project Site AM PEAK HOUR TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 -4 F 10 h r 00 ED 1 7 4 - TO PAHOA -10 r 21 r Highway 130 7 1 n N � Milo Street Project Site PM PEAK HOUR B. SCHOOL TRAFFIC WITH 400 STUDENT ENROLLMENT FIGURE 5 COMPONENTS OF AMBIENT TRAFFIC FORECAST N F --- 0. TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 T 4 ti r 5 7 F TO PAHOA r g r Highway 130 16 7 Milo Street Project Site AM PEAK HOUR TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 -8 T 24 , r 3 7 r 4— TO PAHOA '-" -24 r 51 17 7 CC) CID V N N Milo Street Project Site PM PEAK HOUR 130 C. ULUPONO TOWN CENTER COMMERCIAL COMPONENT N ti TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 r 27 r 1 7 4 - TO PAHOA r 28 -, 2671r Highway 130 26 7 u7 I� TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 F 8 h r � N 4 - TO PAHOA Iti r Highway 130 5 Z N N Milo Street Milo Street Project Site Project Site AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR D. ULUPONO TOWN CENTER INDUSTRIAL COMPONENT FIGURE 5 COMPONENTS OF AMBIENT TRAFFIC FORECAST Shipman N 4 Center —fes TO VOLCANO TO HILO N L 84 115 ? T rn 00 4— TO TO PAHOA '— 12 89 Highway 130 Shipman F Center --H;� TO VOLCANO TO HILO ti u oo L 263 78 J 1 cc U-) TO PAHOA 135 130 Milo Street Milo Street Project Site Project Site AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR Source: TIAR for the Proposed W.H. Shipman Keaau Master Plan Increment 1 of Area D prepared by The Traffic Management Consultant (September 1999) E. SHIPMAN COMMERCIAL/INDUSTRIAL CENTER FORECAST Shipman N y s-- Center —► TO VOLCANO TO HILO O O in L 85 580 1 t 575 115 S 1 r 1820 u, O 90 7 ° o N 4 70 PAHOA 455 r 130 2155 r Highway 130 195 7 O o Milo Street Project Site AM PEAK HOUR Shipman -4— Center --- 111. TO VOLCANO TO HILO Lo O t 265 co 1570 1 t 1625 80 S T r 895 60 7 r m {- TO PAHOA 1675 r 110 755 r Hic 65 Z Lo o Milo Street Project Site PM PEAK HOUR F. COMBINED AMBIENT TRAFFIC FORECAST 130 FIGURE 5 COMPONENTS OF AMBIENT TRAFFIC FORECAST \ N TO VOLCANO TO HILO TO VOLCANO TO HILO Highway 11 Highway 11 f 11 f 4 7 7 c� r TO PAHOA TO PAHOA '— f 11 f 4 r Highway 130 1-, r Highway 130 11 7 37 o N co Milo Street Milo Street Project Site Project Site AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR FIGURE 6 PROJECT GENERATED TRAFFIC ASSIGNMENTS Shipman N y Shipman 4 Center ► F Center —s TO VOLCANO TO HILO TO VOLCANO TO HILO 0 0 Lo L 85 o f 265 r 580 1570 1 f 585 Highway 11 1 f 1630 115 -1 , T r 80 J , T r 1820o 895 0 90 -1 ° 0 60 7 N .4— TO PAHOA 455 TO PAHOA 1675 f 140 f 115 2155 r Highway 130 755 -a r Highway 130 205 '1 70 7 Lo o CD Milo Street Milo Street Project Site Project Site AM PEAK HOUR PM PEAK HOUR FIGURE 7 TOTAL WITH PROJECT TRAFFIC FORECASTS Tae r W J m N N O. .y M of co M O O M (V V �o M N r r N O CU V M M m V <T N N O �` E F r r r N r In r N N N M N M O r (() cA r N Z O d 0 0 0 M o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 o M M M o o 0 r M r M r M N OJ N W M M O N M y (O M co M (D M o] r N r LO tfJ V lLJ 7 L(7 N a c o> `m m m m `m m `m m CO m a `m m m a a m m m a a > > > > m > > > > > > > > U i C mm C m G m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m C m m .- t— r.. W o m J W J m m W ,J W J a W J o W J m m W J W ,J a m W ,J W � a W J m W J p O O co M co M co r M O O N O co 'T O O N L N m N M N C E f 7 Z 0 O M I- M ti co V O O LOcam- V LO O h O V C O O O r O y O O O M O N O N x x_ C O O ~ U) n J J J ¢ Q Q Q CD C C C C > C7 C7 C7 (D -mo -mo (J'J U' CJ.� (J7 -mm -mm E O Oo] O O O W r O lfJ O M t� O LO O M 1� co C..) co V r M V r Y Y x X O N N N la N y N N n m N 2 r U QY Y o' U Q Y Y 0 Ua a oo o _- 3 a o o _- 305 d v v y FO- E v yw FO- E p w ¢ (n U) w o f o a (q U) o f o Q U Q V LLIa) 'o m m ami o. °� m m m n w a a` >? w d a` W w w TABLE 2 TRIP DISTRIBUTION ANALYSIS HILO VOLCANO PAHOA No. of No. of No. of Direction No. of of Travel Trips % Trips % Trips % Trips FWEEKDAY AK HOUR (K-12)350 Std. Enter 169 15% 25 20% 34 65% 110 (Current Enrollment) Leave 108 70% 76 5% 5 25% 27 Private School (K-12) 400 Std. Enter 193 15% 29 20% 39 65% 125 (2018 Forecast) Leave 123 70% 86 5% 6 25% 31 Ulupono Town Center Enter 24 15% 4 20% 5 65% 16 (Mixed Use Commercial) Leave 15 70% 11 5% 1 25% 4 Ulupono Town Center Enter 53 50% 27 1% 1 49%. 26 (Mixed Use Industrial) Leave 12 60% 7 1% 0 39% 5 Ulupono Town Center Enter 77 30 5 42 (Mixed Use Combined) Leave 27 18 1 8 Warehouse Enter 22 50% 11 1% 0 49% 11 Leave 5 60% 3 1% 0 39% 2 WEEKDAY PM PEAK HOUR Private School (K-12) 350 Std. Enter 26 70% 18 5% 1 25% 7 (Current Enrollment) Leave 34 15% 5 20% 7 65% 22 Private School (K-12) 400 Std. Enter 29 70% 20 5% 1 25% 7 (2018 Forecast) Leave 39 15% 6 20% 8 65% 25 Ulupono Town Center Enter 68 70% 48 5% 3 25% 17 (Mixed Use Commercial) Leave 74 15% 11 20% 15 65% 48 Ulupono Town Center Enter 14 60% 8 1% 0 39% 5 (Mixed Use Industrial) Leave 52 50% 26 1% 1 49% 25 Ulupono Town Center Enter 82 56 4 22 (Mixed Use Combined) Leave 126 37 15 74 Warehouse Enter 7 60% 4 1% 0 39% 3 Leave 21 50% 11 1% 0 49% 10 TABLE 3 LEVEL OF SERVICE ANALYSIS INTERSECTION 2008 EXISTINGI 2018 WIO SCHOOL WI SCHOOL AMBIENT TOTAL PEAK HOUR! APPROACH LOS DEL VIC LOS DEL VIC LOS DEL VIC LOS DEL VIC MOVEMENT HIGHWAY 130 (KEAAU-PAHOA BYPASS ROAD) / MILO STREET AM PEAK HOUR Intersection A 4.9 0.60 A 7.1 0.69 C 32.9 0.91 C 33.2 0.92 Milo Street WE Approach C 25.9 C 27.0 D 48.9 D 49.7 Left Turn Lane C 25.9 0.09 C 26.3 0.19 D 43.1 0.33 D 43.2 0.34 Highway 130 NB Approach A 4.3 A 4.1 D 36.7 D 36.7 Highway 130 SB Approach A 5.3 B 13.2 B 13.6 B 15.2 Left Turn Lane C 30.5 0.21 D 50.6 0.73 D 51.1 0.65 D 54.7 0.71 Through Lane A 3.4 0.14 A 3.4 0.14 A 2.8 0.18 A 2.8 0.18 PM PEAK HOUR Intersection A 4.8 0.40 A 5.4 0.41 A 8.8 0.63 A 9.3 0.64 Milo Street WB Approach C 26.1 C 26.3 C 31.0 C 32.3 Left Turn Lane C 26.1 0.15 C 26.5 0.24 C 32.5 0.59 C 34.2 0.63 Highway 130 NB Approach A 0.8 A 0.8 A 1.5 A 1.5 Highway 130 SB Approach A 5.6 A 6.1 A 9.5 A 9.8 Left Turn Lane C 30.6 0.26 C 32.1 0.43 D 43.6 0.71 D 45.9 0.73 Through Lane A 5.0 0.50 A 5.0 0.50 A 7.3 0.73 A 7.3 0.73 HIGHWAY 11 (VOLCANO RD) I HIGHWAY 130 (KEAAU-PAHOA BYPASS ROAD) AM PEAK HOUR Intersection B 17.4 B 17.2 C 31.3 C 31.5 Shipman Center EB Approach F 96.7 F 96.7 Highway 130 WB Approach A 1.0 A 1.3 A 7.9 A 8.0 Highway 11 NB Approach D 35.2 D 35.2 D 47.4 D 47.4 Highway 11 SB Approach B 16.7 B 17.0 D 40.2 D 41.0 Left Turn Lane C 24.3 0.34 C 24.5 0.36 E 73.7 0.82 E 74.9 0.84 Through Lane A 9.9 0.22 A 9.9 0.22 B 10.2 0.26 B 10.2 0.26 PM PEAK HOUR Intersection C 20.4 0.62 C 20.9 0.63 E 69.5 0.96 E 69.7 0.96 Shipman Center EB Approach F toss F 109.5 Highway 130 WB Approach A 4.6 A 5.2 B 13.8 B 13.7 Highway 11 NB Approach C 25.7 C 25.7 F 86.4 F 86.4 Highway 11 SB Approach C 23.0 C 23.6 E 74.6 E 75.2 Left Turn Lane C 32.8 0.86 C 33.8 0.87 F 124.4 1.11 F 125.4 1.11 Through Lane B 13.2 0.59 B 13.2 0.59 C 24.1 0.70 C 24.1 0.70 veix A ra.fieTurning l4 ovententCou€ats TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT KEAAU WAREHOUSE LOCATION: Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road/Milo Street DATE: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 TO PAHOA To HILO TIME: 6:00a -8:30a / 3:00p -5:30p KEAAU•PAHOA BYPASS ROAD WEATHER: 1 � 6 RECORDER: 2 7 t 5 3 4 MILO STREET TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL 6:00-6:15a 202 9 3 3 9 43 269 6:15-6:30a 264 7 1 5 4 36 317 6:30-6:45a 385 7 4 6 6 43 451 6:45-7:00a 334 11 6 3 7 67 428 7:00-7:15a 410 5 5 3 7 89 519 7:15-7:30a 426 5 6 9 6 125 577 7:30-7:45a 307 7 3 6 6 86 415 7:45-8:00a 299 13 2 5 11 94 424 8:00-8:15a 249 7 7 12 13 69 357 8:15-8:30a 204 9 4 2 4 52 275 6:00-8:30a 3080 80 41 54 73 704 4032 6:30-7:30a 1555 28 21 21 26 324 1975 PHFj 0.918 0.668 TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL 3:00-3:15p 157 8 9 7 13 198 392 3:15-3:30p 138 8 5 16 10 207 384 3:30-3:45p 148 5 16 19 9 251 448 3:45-4:00p 137 20 10 10 6 248 431 4:00-4:15p 132 7 8 8 11 327 493 4:15-4:30p 93 6 6 8 7 236 356 4:30-4:45p 146 5 11 6 8 340 516 4:45-5:00p 105 9 11 8 10 288 431 5:00-5:15p 99 1 11 8 10 268 397 5:15-5:30p 109 0 5 2 8 257 381 3:00-5:30p 1264 69 92 92 92 2620 4229 3:45-4:45p 508 38 35 32 32 1151 1796 PHF 0.904 0.85 TRAFFIC TURNING MOVEMENT COUNT KEAAU WAREHOUSE LOCATION: Hawaii Belt Road (aka Volcano Highway) / 4 TO VOLCANO TO HILO HAWAII BELT ROAD (aka VOLCANO HIGHWAY) 1 6 2 7 r 5 h r' -� 3 4 KEAAU-PAHOA BYPASS ROAD TIME Keaau-Pahoa Bypass Road DATE: Tuesday, June 3, 2008 TIME: 6:00a-8:30@ / 3:00p -5:30p WEATHER: RECORDER: 1 4 TO VOLCANO TO HILO HAWAII BELT ROAD (aka VOLCANO HIGHWAY) 1 6 2 7 r 5 h r' -� 3 4 KEAAU-PAHOA BYPASS ROAD TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER PERIOD 1 2 3 4' 5 6 TOTAL 6:00-6:15a 146 7 2 187 47 61 6:15-6:30a 217 4 8 248 44 63 584 5 6:30-6:45a 285 6 4 352 45 75 767 6:45-7:00a 352 10 5 361 86 106 920 7:00-7:15a 317 9 4 352 81 86 B49 7:15-7:30a 365 7 6 363 115 111 967 7:30-7:45a 311 6 6 364 95 119 901 7:45-8:00a 263 6 9 283 110 113 784 8:00-8:15a 217 8 10 207 83 102 627 8:15-8:30a 217 3 2 232 83 1113 655 6:00-8:30a 2690 66 56 2949 789 954 7504 6:45-7:45a 1345 32 21 1440 377 422 3637 PHF 0.925 0.987 0.884 6:30-7:30a 1319 32 19 1428 327 37B 3503 TIME MOVEMENT NUMBER PERIOD 1 2 3 4 5 6 TOTAL 3:00-3:15p 182 13 3 151 209 202 760 3:15-3:30p 176 11 18 152 211 232 800 3:30-3:45p 171 6 25 156 222 254 834 3:45-4:00p 193 6 14 160 252 245 870 4:00-4:15p 149 6 8 127 270 253 813 4:15-4:30p 135 10 6 113 265 289 818 4:30-4:45p 176 17 5 174 370 369 1111 4:45-5:00p 111 5 10 96 232 210 664 5:00-5:15p 107 13 13 117 301 342 893 5:15-5:30p 135 13 12 106 236 259 761 300-5:30p 1535 100 114 1352 2568 2655 8324 3:45-4:45p 653 39 33 574 1157 1156 3612 PHF 0.896 0.848 0.782 4:30-5:30p 529 48 40 493 1139 1180 3429 Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Calculations IC 'Ih cllehllrl�I=I -I�ri e Z loll Il�illlillllll,Illil-I < rye} � !-IFI I z e I I S 11-Ici-�=1�1=��Im�=iel�h�- < �alnirvlrvinl w y n �� �I� �I d I - xle�nl�l rll Z -rl I�-I I�InI� eleln` < CO `y O O - v rlry O. �I�10 0 _ � `� = i Flry $InI HIdC,m"J'I To I�I< NI clrvlry �lrvlr o e N _ _ ololc,�nlrvlry n cl—Iminl.,:,l, �I�h'�e �IUIU y c a m m a e - d I 3 1 1 1 Icry ry rvm J -lel rvle nl la rvl nlry _ � a _ I U I ela 9 1 I I O g �_ ry �lelelP �' clU w w- I �IFerv� '� III I II - < c L w o � a ry P III ale - I I 2 C] I ^� III 4 U ISI I 'I S I III I I I II I' `_I I ale ilUlc 3Su i- I oq 6w U- 20 � 1 I e Z < rye} � e d � Jnl Z �I nlll_ rlry O. �I�10 0 o U n _ � a U ela ry rvin cl_lry ry �lelelP alelo clU w w- _ W z '� 3 F c ry P rvn ale 2 C] I ^� III 4 U ISI I 'I S I III I I I II I' `_I I ale ilUlc 3Su i- -�I I: Hill! lol I $Isl"E e� Isl�.lB =I SII I I I -I-- IE I I I sl�l 11 e� E 8 WIN6� I T I% I oq 6w U- 20 � 1 I Ic c I I� _I _� I l II I I Ir 7 rvlslrvinl= I � !RI I� I-I=� _ IIII-1 e rvIN I NIn INI � J= Z I� J I m �I� ll PPI aIN p U nIry W ,.� J m Pllnnl"fl s p �-I �Plmj=I^l= �IrvNININao_ s l� FM IIIIIIII a " YN J z __ I P I INr^ 3=- INI o=IPI O N S N A J 3I E m aI m~ V I I I I I W I I I I I I I I I I F F� N I I W c Ei Z W S I d I INlmol I I I I I I I I I I I � < I tlpl =I �L=lull pI I3g $ c s- Ell n 9Ct eq a__� a s LO ma $I i� Y -e e IG Wc K T, F. c VI i_pi31„ Ei _ c J a a _cam V m y.==`l of qs` cl eel L^'c I huY I 1 N _ _ a N 1- rvlslrvinl= � n oolr < _ e rvIN � J= Z J -I m �I� m PPI aIN p U nIry W ,.� m s �-I �IrvNININao_ s 3=- _ S 3I c nnlnl I I I I I I I Z W I d I INlmol I I I I I I I I I I I � < I tlpl =I �L=lull pI I3g $ c s- Ell n 9Ct eq a__� a s LO ma $I i� Y -e e IG Wc K T, F. c VI i_pi31„ Ei _ c J a a _cam V m y.==`l of qs` cl eel L^'c I huY I 1 I I, � Q _ _ F o rvlr cmlrvl vri ^lolo lml6 p U mo rvin,n c _ _!'. _ _ry rvlhlolvlvlry o oINU V N FC � N s. `¢mlo-Irn n rvn�n Z p i e rvlry rvm rv� ?� Nlele nU Z .�I_ml Z J a c _ - f` I C F• r I i c I I I V I O L F I W31 zn r l'vc 2� c �I ISI _m u 2cc�n to I I I I I I I, `I` � w z e rIzI, ~-I•rv, m -I6, rI-� of or ` < s h < _� ='I=I I_qI FIcl"II I . '� I= isl=l I-icl=I<I N = _ J IzI = V I II, IaI IPI^Irvlry I I hI 3 nIOIry IU 'J N I O W m Ali Ire 'I I P JE m I I^ c III ! IIIIII I I _ "IIIIIIII Z I -I I_ �`I �' I IrvI�I` =�^ I�I IUI Iq rvlrvlrvl^I_-I I w �I Jry II <�ZI = I J I ISI :pro o ml � ry =IIIIIII ,'i I I I ,� I III I IIII I_ IIII !III I PI oIi �< < la III II C IIIIIIIIII ISI I 1 oIE e o' _ I $I ��=1 � X EI iV I I I ri i yIFI I !> --j I a I LI V•�:.. cc _SII 2 I n F clams wI I c J' 3 �m u ISI 1 11u��2 I - c _' `I` � �rvm z ~-I•rv, m -I6, rI-� of or ` < s h < _� = N = _ _ ; IaI IPI^Irvlry loo 3 nIOIry IU 'J N I O W m Ali Ire 'I I P JE m I I^ c III ! IIIIII I I _ "IIIIIIII I I_ V I w �I Jry II <�ZI = I J I ISI :pro ml ,'i I I I I I i I IIII I_ I I ISI a oIi �< < Il�sl C ISI I 1 oIE o' IOI I $I ��=1 � X EI iV I I I I- i yIFI I !> I a I LI V•�:.. cc _SII 2 I n F clams wI I c J' 3 �m u ISI 1 11u��2 I - c JII e � lel I Z q o � � ry GlR min r �lal of elalG a s h e �lry o �l^elml' Nlele Nu o alry ry � _ el_ ^lam _lo e � hle o _lo 0 i � rvry rc o o u � e m � e i _ - �lrvlelm Pl�lal�l�hlel�lq - elm Plry rvlry o l l l l N � E e3 E.. r z €I I Clrvl,_n rlrvlV -1 olealy lG 6 lcly c �lry rvlrvm q - llllll Nm -v P� m o J 3 Bill l� yAskEi u 2 6I Q _ Zl J._r mn rv�`�l ele olegl lPrvlry rvlm - ^ "� _ Q Z I d ill IIIIIIIII p, � <�o i�W�lillllll I I II Imo_ ..�� =ISI JIn-I IIIIIIIIII!II VIII 1 , ILII g3 cI I li I-. Iona u E3'25u -1 yn I -o a cl ^II SI I.I _ gry O v'£cI Y5'I �'� �i �I4l=.I s I aII �l I ISI"' c1� `1� �1 ,w13 _ o Z C m m ^lc nrvl Vc'= o O Crvnln o.l y YIN rvm e o_ _ H H ry ,'^„_,qle_ nolo 0 c e SIN Z .�ry rv` m m rl_Vn �l� �u v u a.J�v .V nm W No 0 X � Q cm c�rvrvry Z C e. m$ �lry mo G u ❑= z � ___� ,�._ ale =m � e a rvlrvlry m - - < - _ jy f� i ''n 3 Ysl o w c C `= o u 3 F _ lcrvrvrvlm h -lar o Q- Wil^ n, olmtl 2 ^ C a �~ � SIC L C.� - rve ` W F L-• ole rvp o- � � o oli �ul� ry lrve+n Nlo � I '- �n1 o rvI� P.I tV rvl^ir� I'vi rK_ •YI��I �I �I xI S G¢c 2c�'� uci3z J c, n I Il L I CI chl- olNl nl_ p _ m q E C � m olc Z � I aZ o nrvN _ L -0N mn� rlm Vlm cd¢IeU F O X m. C- rn m� n _ � C ❑ 2 m Io c l N � � 3 Q 0 = o o- - z F m aInN rv� rvI� r rlalr h' = oI� c- 3 L P 6 C ry N ryNlm � OlmlolmlG < N N p � Cry ocI NN N Z N c Z ImnININ Ial oo Nle 6 N �I a N rvIrvIm �I ICI ' F, eIP � C InI mI._Ia NIS' of r oc n b c� o an NInIm Z Z 6 8 'p ry alN rvlrvn. � _ CN.l��nw� .9 F -I-IaIiI vI-"It�o�nlu _ O BIW J Z ,-IrvI_I a I rI aINNIN^r a N, ` oN oma =L cl^ICF < i .. F a,c 32�o J GI I E e i otlry n alc .� I � 61 IT I I YI I el O ci n I Il L I I I i l I I I I F N _ NI nINIg ^_ ry " �Iz _ a Nl _ NNINm o o �^ s N �ININNIm fln J N.-, Z ISI i�l -� ry SII -1 �Ic olm vlrv!ry �� U O � pIcNN!N m Z C-vlr r o!nla ry c!c!rv!O U Y .]-'^m^Pl�hlo��oet�m o clp ❑r - Z � oIV AI C�C�� � y A o o E s mlo al NN rvl.� Z CN N Nry Im!N mlo om6 4 N_ c,NN rvm ¢ J!V Z �I� 'HIS „ aC iN J pl-lcl= clop a --IIcINININIm IcINININIm��z rvc =- EB�i-1=1=1? Z 6 Ja m IPI —IF c rlP,ml ISI I I !! I I! !� o� �� 1111111 �=!Ililll! !III I �-ilI U€ E a N `= - [�`y,�6 a1 Iyl - C'1 ^, I[ I F N _ NI nINIg ^_ ry of to _ a Nl _ NNINm o o �^ fln c!N!N N.-, Z � I'J ry Lt N �Ic olm vlrv!ry �� U O � pIcNN!N m Z C-vlr r o!nla ry c!c!rv!O U Y o clp _ - � y A o o E s mlo al NN rvl.� Z CN N Nry Im!N mlo om6 4 N_ J _ IcINININIm��z I I,I-,olmll�l�01-1�1�1�1n!CI� Z 6 Ja m IPI —IF c rlP,ml ISI I I !! I I! !� o� �� 1111111 �=!Ililll! !III I �-ilI jl `= - [�`y,�6 a1 Iyl I e'l ^, I[ I sl iII%i� �I k7l 21 O � ^ FI rvIO N mo Vln N aI ONIV r aN rvlNn � 2 � o s LL rvu. NINN Z mlry „'IoIO �'It� n � € v � a ✓F F -I �- m lary N CINI PIry Nlv ol.cle o ol�< pm p� N Flo Z llv Z (PINI rvINIm 6 C C J VIry _ = d rvlrvml ~I Ivlmlry � W.Ic E w F-� _ PNNINIn o ,, cl¢� o-PIcI„I� y�j O 2I it Z ,- Iry om �lol PI No m�L _ b SirvlrvlN nl SIL ic F; E'�`xl ill icp�n c.. I % I �Io P51 I ul�u °I 11 Ii Moll �l Ill dyl�l 4l I gl Appendix C Muld-Land Highway Level of Set -vice (LOS) Calculations n 0 i - I IIA �1�II I I_ I I I I �i s 3 �' I3I3 ❑ � I � i � _ 21 2I�_- o EIsNX�ui� W a u c I 1-51 L uo— sl y 5' 0210. zl 29:. - x =q I �tl��m € cmc E: ioi tea. is ' i e'6 "!I I�<<ol�o`ILL��sd e'aag�'i_ v'i:i�mlo'i�� n 0 E E- EF' S e X E L y 5' - o� Em o� O W i c'E E �' O❑> mve ° E °ON ' c a � _ o � � ❑ t 0 ¢ c - E E E Uf 7__ I IT u d❑ _ - n` T Q E o -- I 2 W e o❑ g �� I° SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 •Hilo, Hawaii 96720 - ,! ,: r:.P ,,. _ ;:,7 �:�7 •Planning •Variance •Zoning Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996. •t.. i' • Subdivision • Land Use Permits E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net • Environmental Reports November 14"2009 i F'o Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Applications for State Land Use (SLU 08-000021) and County Rezoning (REZ 08-000085) — Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Keaau, HI, TMK: 1-6-003:18 & 23 Please find enclosed a copy of a November 13, 2008 letter to Mr. Shikwan Sung, the principal of Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC from his attorney, Mr. Wayne Nasser of Ashford and Wriston. This letter addresses the matter of the subject properties' right of access over the various easements leading to the subject properties. Mr. Nasser opines that "even though the Land Court title records are not in perfect order", the subject properties have legal access over the "Milo Street Extension" to the Keaau By -Pass Road. We trust that this is satisfactory for your purposes. If not or if there are further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, `,1 _ V V� �V� v SIDNEY . FUKE Planning Consultant Enclosure Copy - Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC w/o enclosure SCANNF , NOV Planning Dept. Exhibit 2- Ashford &Wrisfon A LIMITED LIABILITY LAIN PARTNERSHIP LLP WAYNE NASSER A Law Corporation Direct: (808) 539-0458 wnasser@awlaw.com November 13, 2008 Mr. Shikwan Sung 10988 Kadota Avenue Pomona, CA 91766 Re: Sung: Access to Lots 42 and 43 Ld. Ct. Arm. No 1053: TMK Nos. (3) 1-6-003-23 and 18 Dear Mr. Sung: You requested my opinion concerning the rights of access pertaining to Lots 42 and 43, Land Court Application No. 1053 (TMK Nos. (3) 1-6-003:23 and 18). For the following reasons, it is my opinion that these lots have legal access to the Keaau By -Pass Road, even though the Land Court title records are not in perfect order. Lots 42 and 43 were formed by the subdivision of Lot 31 in 1941. In 1938, W. H. Shipman, Limited (the current owner of the roadways) conveyed by Deed these and other lots to Olaa Sugar Company, later known as Puna Sugar Company. The 1938 Deed (copy enclosed) conveys title to Lots 24, 25, 27, 29, 31 and 33 as shown on Map 6, Land Court Application 1053 (copy enclosed). Near the bottom of page 1, the Deed states: "Grantor does hereby further grant and convey unto the said Grantee an easement of way, in over and upon the roads which adjoin the said lots hereby conveyed, said roads being shown upon the said Subdivision map as Lots 26, 30, 32 and 34 and also an easement of way over and upon a portion of the Road known as "Keaau Road"....[beginning] at the Makai edge of the new Volcano Highway and to extend to the Makai boundary of said Lot 33." The clearly expressed intention of the parties to the 1938 Deed was that access rights were to be granted over all adjoining roads from the public road to the affected Lots. The primary access is over the roadway commonly known as Milo Street. 1 understand that the primary access has been used for over 60 years and has never blocked. As the title devolved over the years, the access easement rights were not consistently shown on the TCTs covering Mr. Sung's property and W. H. Shipman's 571109 v1 HONOLULU, HAWAII Street Address: Tel: (808) 539-0400 Mailing Address: AM Place, Suite 1400 Fax: (808) 533-4945 Post Office Box 131 1099 Alakea Street Email: atty®awlaw.com Honolulu, HI 96810 Honolulu, HI 96813 www.ashfordwnston.com Mr. Shikwan Sung Page 2 November 13, 2008 property. In addition, the easement roads are intersected by other Land Court road lots and there appears to be no paper access rights granted over one or more of these intersecting lots. It is obvious that these were oversights, as the intention expressed in the 1938 Deed was to give access to the affected lots. Because W.H. Shipman originally gave the access rights and still holds title to or rights in the affected roadways lots, the access rights can be enforced and the technical problems in the Land Court titles should be resolved. Moreover, even without a written grant of access, I believe that these roadways are available for use by the owners of Lot 42 and 43 as they were shown on the subdivision map (Land Court Map 6) as roads, or portions of roads, and have been used as such for many years. See, Hemni Apartments. Inc. v. Sawyer, 3 Haw. App 555, 655 P. 2d 881 (1982); Paterson v. Rush, 34 Haw. 881 (1938); and City & County v. Plews, 55 Haw. 199, 516 P. 2d 1259 (1973). In all of these cases (and other cases cited within them) the titles were deficient. Unlike the instant case, in many of the cited cases, there was no grant at all. Nonetheless, the courts readily found access rights in favor of the affected lot owners. The rule in Hawaii appears to be, whether in Land Court or Bureau system, lots laid out on maps with private roadways running to and around them are entitled to use those roadways. WN:Ihs Enclosures cc: Mr. Sid Fuke Paul J. Sulla, Jr., Esq. 571109v1 I R -t A -4_v MUPi1AS, I`Ual.:D, an Hawaiian coroorxticu, those '' principal place of business 14 at Us. 13 `ealluku Drive, Silo,- Hawaii, and the poet Offioa. Address of which is Post offias icor 807. ! 1W Savali, hereinafter called the 0RAMR, for end in considers- .._ tion of the Bus of T,ZBTT TMU8ARD 31M h=R= FIFTY -83 i3; (80,857) • DOLLARS to it in band paid by OLAI OMAR OO -ANT, LI1I-M. also an Hawaiian corporetlon, whose principal office end Poet Office Address Is Olaa, District Ci Pana, County and Territory Of Aattii, herein- after celled the 9RA9:i'3, reeelpt of rcioh oma is hereby aolmowledrod, does, heraby, but subject to the conditions hereinafter stated, Brant, ber!p•.in, 9011, assign and convey to the paid Greaten. its successors end easiMs forever, the following denoribed lend, towiti Late 24, 85, 270 29. 31 and 33, being vrtlom of the land described in Lend court Application No. 1053, as emended, the said lots hereby grrated m ink show and delineated on the Oooeolldetion _ ;:jjMJ& and Bubdivislon L'ap filed is the Land Court of the Territory of f 'Hawaii of April 11, )938.(rap a) with geld Land Court Appllc^tion E :10. 1053, as aeaued, said lots containing a total area of 104.285 acres, the sees Diking portions of the praulees for which Oertiflonte . of Title 30. 18,311 was duly issued to the acid 3rastor. 1 And for the consideration aforesaid the Heid Orentor don - hereby furtaer (,•rant and convey unto the said Orontes an eaeeAent of way in, over and u•on the roads which edjoln the said Into hereby Conveyed, said roses being shown none the sold subdivision Hnp an Lots 26, 30. "Mend 34, and, also, OR eeaement of way in, over and upon iva ! a aorticn of the road !mown as "Keasu ?.Dada end so Cesl dated and named on 14p I fl2ed with cold Application, the portion of the said Eesen Road over Walsh this easeamat shall run too begin at the l:atei edge of the use Volcano HI&Woy and to extend to Via ffi.Yal bowlery of said Lot 33) and the said easements shell be held end enjoyed by the said 0rantse In perpetuity. Tale Conveyances is made and accepted subject to the follovinr express conditions, nanslyt i I.The Bald Grastae shall twntl4ne to aey to the irrztOr E the rent reserved in that O8rt4in Lomas doted July 1, 1838, L executed by the said Grantor to the said Grantee and on file in the Of_ice of the Assistant Registrar as Docomsnt No. W.dee and a referred to in 4014 COrtlficate of Title 7o. 18,311, shall not. . by >z reason of this conveyance, be lessened or reduced in any particular whatsoever and that the said Grantee sbal_' continue to psy to the '4 said Grantor the sold rent reserved in sold Lease duriur the full tern thereof; B. That all of the telephone end electric light sad ower ry lines which.r have been placed in, over or tor. the said conveyed f k lands shell reagin h the position where they are at the present i .: Use and *hall be allowed to cross @aid conveyed land as the ease 1 are now located unless changed by the Utilities operating the sap ' with the consent of the said Ortatee.• - 3. That the sale- Orantee shall not suffor or permit say person, Yira or corporation, other than the said Orontes, to establish or us'G rtake the establishment noon the Gold conveyed premises, or any pint thereof, of gay store or stores which will, or eight, in any manner, compete with the eommerolal 7ursults-of the tenants of , the Grantor sic hold any pert of the Grontor's land in xsaau Village. and that the et -id Oven%" will neither let or Jones any . Part of the sold conveyed leads oe sell the whole or any pest tbars- of except tpon the express condition to be inserted in the in- . strument of conveyance or lease that the Orratee or Lessee therein named sill not use or psrdt the mss of the premises thereby can- - veyed or loosed in violation of this condition; mean any violation of this candid w by said oreatee, its ouoosesors or *001908, said , Greutor Shall have the right to re-enter upon that portion of %he 8. s � � .� m ; \ zy� � " \ -- � SldneyFUke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 -`4"l •planning •Variance •Zoning Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 fen = "Sa a •_ j i •Subdivision •Land Use Permits E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net -- -` • Environmental Reports November 18, 2008 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Applications for State Land Use (SLU 08-000021) and County Rezoning (REZ 08-000085) — Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Keaau, M. TMK: 1-6-003: 18 & 23 This is to follow up on my discussion with Ms. Maija Cottle of your staff regarding access relative to the subject matter. Please be informed that legal access over the existing railroad right-of-way (hereinafter "railroad easement") that extends in a northerly direction from the subject site is still being researched by the applicant's attorney. As you are aware, this improved easement is commonly used by other properties in this area, and it is the applicant's belief that the subject site would equally be in a position to utilize this easement, if needed. Nevertheless, for the purpose of this application, we would like to clarify that the planned access to the subject site will be from the easterly extension of Milo Street. Accordingly, the traffic study included in this application reflected the project's impacts at this and the Belt HighwayBy-Pass intersections. It did not address the potential impact at the intersection of the By -Pass and the northerly end of this railroad easement. In the event access can be demonstrated over the railroad easement, it will still fiinetion as a secondary one because it is unsignalized, unlike the Milo Street intersection. Should you have further questions on this matter, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, S LVZLIKE Planning Consultant Copy - Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC SCSIs NED NOV 10 ?00 i. B, -- - - 599 f 1009 NOT] 3 Am A 99 ��;r�lr�iir i : 1.-i�°;r5 rrnFlv�r OOUP.,TY OF HAVI/All DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS COUNTY OF HAWAII HILO, HAWAII DATE: October 30. 2008 TO: Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director FROM: 'V Department of Public Works SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APP. CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 08-000.085) Applicant: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LEG C Request: A -20a to ML -1a Tax Map Keys: 1-6-03: 018 and 023 (SLU 08-000021) We have reviewed the subject application forwarded by your memo dated October 9, 2008 and offer the following comments for your consideration. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and not directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared and the recommended drainage system shall be constructed meeting the approval of the Department of Public Works. The subject parcels are in an area that is not mapped by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is designated as Zone X - an area determined to be outside the 500 -year floodplain. Based on the proposed zoning, we recommend the applicant provide improvements to the properties' frontage along Milo Street and Railroad Avenue consisting of pavement widening with concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks, and any required utility relocation, meeting the requirements of the Americans with Disabilities Act. A minimum 20 -ft corner radius (property line) should be provided at the intersection of Milo Street and Railroad Avenue incorporating any proposed future road widening setbacks. Questions may be referred to Kelly Gomes at ext. 8327. Planning Dept. Exhibit—_ SCA1�iNt-D y >Y:____--- - B Nlflt7 13 3n 07 yC;: C'=F'ARTNIENT DEPARTMENT OF WATER Sfib� I ,t.YOf4'� OF HAWAII 345 KEKUANAO`A STREET, SUITE 20 HILO, HAWAII 96720 TELEPHONE (808) 961-8050 • FAX(808)961-8657 November 6, 2008 TO: Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Planning Department FROM: Milton D. Pavao, Manager SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT (SLU 08-000021) REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 08-000085) REQUEST: A -20A TO ML -1A APPLICANT: HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO., LLC TAX MAP KEY 1-6-003:018 AND 023 We have reviewed the subject applications and have the following comments and conditions. Water is available from an existing 8 -inch waterline within Milo Street fronting the subject parcels and from an existing 12 -inch waterline within Milo Street approximately 1,500 feet from the property. There is no 10 -inch waterline to the property, as noted in the application. The subject parcel is currently served by a 2 -inch meter (Account No. 020-52000), which has eight (8) units of water allocated. Each unit of water is equal to a maximum daily usage of 600 gallons. The Department has no objection to the proposed applications, subject to the following conditions: 1. Prior to effecting a water commitment for the proposed project, the Department requests estimated maximum daily water usage calculations, prepared by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii, for review and approval. The applicant shall differentiate the amount of water needed from the Department's system and the amount of water to be utilized through the propose onsite water well. The water usage calculations should include the estimated peak flow in gallons per minute (GPM) and the total maximum daily water use in gallons per day. Based on the water usage calculations provided, if the existing 2 -inch meter cannot accommodate the estimated demand, a larger or additional meter will need to be installed and remittance of the prevailing facilities charge, which is subject to change, will be required. If the existing 2 -inch meter can accommodate the estimated demand, then the applicant may continue to utilize the existing meter. 2. The Department's Water System Standards require that a minimum flow of 2,000 GPM be available at the site for fire protection, based on the proposed land use. Therefore, the applicant will be required en approximately 1,500 feet of 6 -inch waterline from the end of the existing 12 -inch waterline on M I Vegq ng Dept. to the property, with a looped connection to the existing 8 -inch waterline fronting the property. Reh i b It installation of fire hydrants may also be required. 3. There is an existing reduced pressure type backflow prevention assembly installed after the existinggge ; / / CNNND ... UUater brims rroc�rea�... "��"��Wt��l�ypj��jt� � The Department of Water Supply is an Equal Opportunity provider and employer. To file a complaint of discrimination, write: USDA, Direct f l off :918 lV -9410. Or call (202) 720-5964 (vo�r, Rights, Room 326-W, Whitten Building, 14th and Independence Avenue, SW, Washington DC 20250 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Page 2 November 6, 2008 therefore, the applicant has already fulfilled this requirement. However, should a larger or additional meter be required, a reduced pressure type backflow prevention, assembly must be installed within five (5) feet of the meter on private property and must be inspected by the Department before water service can be activated. 4. Subject to other agencies' requirements to construct improvements within the road right-of-way fronting the property affected by the proposed development, the applicant shall be responsible for the relocation and adjustment of the Department's affected water system facilities, should they be necessary. 5. The applicant shall comply with all applicable regulations and requirements of the State of Hawaii, Department of Land and Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management, as well as the State of Hawaii, Department of Health pertaining to the use and operation of potable water wells. Should there be any questions, please contact Mr. Finn McCall of our Water Resources and Planning Branch at 961-8070, extension 255. I FM:dfg copy — Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Mr. Sidney Fuke ), P.E. Harry Ki€ i County of Hawaii POLICE DEPARTMENT 349 Kapiolam Street Hilo, Hawaii 96730-3998 (808)935-3311 Fax (808)961-8865 October 22, 2008 TO CHR TOP E J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM E EK D. PACHECO, ASSISTANT POLICE CHIEF AREA I OPERATIONS Lawrence K. Mahuua Police Chief SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 08-000021); REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 08-000085) REQUEST: A-20 TO ML -1A APPLICANT: HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO., LLC TAX MAP KEY: 1-6-3:18 AND 23 Harry S. Kuhojiri Depen Police Chie)' Staff, upon reviewing the provided documents associated with this rezoning application and visiting the proposed site, does not anticipate any traffic and/or public safety concerns at this time. Thank you for allowing us an opportunity to comment. SG:IIi Planning Dept. Exhibit 5 4T4V6, 1 4 "HawaVi County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer" •- - *..�.—.-.> �psr or yq v Harry ,,AMJ�a nbCT 31. R19 ? 0 07 i ii rt?r,RNEM `%.Fo a: ��Utv' I r Ur- HAWAII Countp of'awat`1 HAWAII FIRE DEPARTMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Suite 103 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808)981-8394 • Far(808)981-2037 October 20, 2008 Darryl J. Oliveira Fre a,;ef Glen P.I. Honda Deputy Fire Clu f TO: CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN, PLANNING DIRECTOR FROM: DARRYL OLIVEIRA, FIRE CHIEF SUBJECT: STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION-(SLU 08- 000021) REQUEST: AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ, 08-000085) REQUEST: A-20ato ML -la APPLICANT: HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO.. LLC TAX MAP KEY: 1-6-3:18 and 23 In regards to the above-mentioned State Land Use Boundary application & Change of Zone application, the following shall be in accordance: Fire apparatus access roads shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.207: "Fire Apparatus Access Roads "See. 10.207. (a) General. Fire apparatus access roads shall be provided and maintained in accordance with the provisions of this section. "(b) Where Required. Fire apparatus access roads shall be required for every building hereafter constructed when any portion of an exterior wall of the first ;tory is located more than 150 feet from fire department vehicle access as measured by an unobstructed route around the exterior of the building. "EXCEPTIONS: 1. When buildings are completely protected with an approved automatic fire sprinkler system, the provisions of this section may he inodified. "2. When access roadways cannot be installed due to topography, waterways, nonnegotiable grades or. other similar conditions, the chief may require additional fire protection as specified in Section 10.301 (b). Planning Dept. Exhibit_ Christopher J. Yuen October 20, 2008 Page 2 "3. When there are not more than two Group R, Division 3 or Group M Occupancies, the requirements of this section may be modified, provided; in the opinion of the chief, fire- fighting or rescue operations would not be impaired. "More than one fire apparatus road may be required when it is determined by the chief that access by a single road may be impaired by vehicle congestion, condition of terrain, climatic conditions or other factors that could limit access. "For high -piled combustible storage, see Section 81.109. "(c) Width. The unobstructed width of a fire apparatus access road shall meet the requirements of the appropriate county jurisdiction. "(d) Vertical Clearance. Fire apparatus access roads shall have an unobstructed vertical clearance of not less than 13 feet 6 inches. "EXCEPTION: Upon approval vertical clearance may be reduced, provided such reduction does not impair access by fire apparatus and approved signs are installed and maintained indicating the established vertical clearance. "(e) Permissible Modifications. Vertical clearances or widths required by this section may be increased when, in the opinion of the chief, vertical clearances or widths are not adequate to provide fire apparatus access. "(f) Surface. Fire apparatus access roads shall be designed and maintained to support the imposed loads of fire apparatus and shall be provided with a surface so as to provide all-weather driving capabilities." (20 tons) "(g) Turning Radius. The turning radius of a fire apparatus access road shall be as approved by the chief" (45 feet) "(h) Turnarounds. All dead-end fire apparatus access roads in excess of 150 feet in length shall be provided with approved provisions for the turning around of fire apparatus. "(i) Bridges. When a bridge is required to be used as access under this section, it shall be constructed and maintained in accordance with the applicable sections of the Building Code and using designed live loading sufficient to carry the imposed loads of fire apparatus. (j) Grade. The gradient for a fire apparatus access road shall not exceed the maximum approved by the chief" (15%) Christopher J. Yuen October 20, 2008 Page 3 "(k) Obstruction. The required width of any fire apparatus access road shall not be obstructed in any manner, including parking of vehicles. Minimum required widths and clearances established under this section shall be maintained at all times. "(1) Signs. When required by the fire chief, approved signs or other approved notices shall be provided and maintained for fire apparatus access roads to identify such roads 'and prohibit the obstruction thereof or both." Water supply shall be in accordance with UFC Section 10.301(c): "(c) Water Supply. An approved water supply capable of supplying required fire flow for fire protection shall be provided to all premises upon which buildings or portions of buildings are hereafter constructed, in accordance with the respective county water requirements. There shall be provided, when required by the chief, on-site fire hydrants and mains capable of supplying the required fire flow. "Water supply may consist of reservoirs, pressure tanks, elevated tanks, water mains or other fixed systems capable of providing the required fire flow. "The location, number and type of fire hydrants connected to a water supply capable of delivering the required fire flow shall be protected as set forth by the respective county water requirements. All hydrants shall be accessible to the fire department apparatus by roadways meeting the requirements of Section 10.207. JCP:lpc RM r 1 i4G ifCC e= i Harry Kim Mayor LCUP (QCT 15 Pr) 2: c15 MEMORANDUM Courtty ofPaivall Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Director Nelson Ho Depury Director DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (808) 961-8083 Fax (808) 961-8086 httR:Hco.hawaii.hi.us/directory/dir envmnghtm Date : October 13, 2008 To : CHRISTOPHER YUEN, Planning Director From: BOBBY JEAN LEITHEAD TODD, Director 4�/ Subject: State Land Use Boundary Amendment App (SLU 08-000021) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone App (REZ 08-000085) Request: 1-20a to ML -la Applicant: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC TMK: 1-6-3:18 and 23 We have reviewed the subject application and offer the following recommendations: DEPARTMENT COMMENTS: WASTEWATER COMMENTS: N/A ( ) No comments ( ) Require connection of existing and/or proposed structures to the public sewer in accordance with Section 21-5 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Require Council Resolution to approve sewer extension in accordance with Section 21-26.1 of the Hawaii County Code. Complete D.E.M. Sewer Extension Application. ( ) Require extension of the sewer system to service the proposed subdivision in accordance with Section 23-85 of the Hawaii County Code. ( ) Other: :e' TECHNICAL SERVICES COMMENTS: Nt1 G(n'W7' 5rl tvim- i2wr,tmen i`'o,v fiytCSJ, SOLID WASTE COMMENTS: ( ) No comments (�) Commercial operations, State and Federal agencies, religious entities and non-profit Planning Dept. organizations may not use transfer stations for disposal. 9 P (x,) Aggregates and any other construction/demolition waste should be responsibly reused to Exhibit its fullest extent. (X) Ample and equal room should be provided for rubbish and recycling. ( jZ) Green waste may be transported to the green waste sites located at the Kailua and Hilo transfer stations, or other suitable diversion programs. (�) Construction and demolition waste is prohibited at all County Transfer Stations. (�O Submit Solid Waste Management Plan in accordance with attached guidelines. ,��-�.. ®r ( ) Existing Solid Waste Management Plan is to be followed. Provide update to the departme t 5 url� N tMD ( ) Other: O(.; I 1 b no cc: SWD,-7Wi91 11203 By: 046609 County of Hawai'i is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Harry Kim Mayor Bobby Jean Leitbead-Todd Director Nelson Ho Deputy Director VWunfg of�htfirat`t DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL MANAGEMENT 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo, Hawari 96720-4252 (808) 961-8083 • Fax (808) 961-8086 September 14, 2007 SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT PLAN Guidelines INTENT AND PURPOSE This is to establish guidelines for reviewing solid waste management plans, for which special conditions are placed on developments. The solid waste management plan will be used to: (1) encourage recycling and recycling programs, (2) predict the waste generated by the proposed development to -anticipate the loading on County transfer stations, landfills and recycling facilities; and (3) predict the additional traffic being generated because of waste and recycling transfers. REPORT The consultant's report will contain the following: Description of the project and the potential waste it may be generating: i.e. analysis of anticipated waste volume and composition. This includes waste generated during the construction and operational phases. Greenwastes will be included in this report for both construction grubbing and future operational landscape maintenance. Description and location of the possible sites for waste disposal or recycling. We will not allow the use of the County transfer stations for any commercial development; commercial development as defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management Solid Waste Division. 3. Since the Department of Environmental Management promotes recycling, indicate onsite source separation facilities by waste stream; i.e. source separation bins of glass, metal, plastic, cardboard, aluminum, etc. Provide ample and equal space for rubbish and recycling. 4. Identification of the proposed disposal site and transportation methods for the various components of the waste disposal and recycling system, including the number of truck traffic and the route that truck will be using to transport the waste and recycled materials. Solid Waste Management Plan Guidelines Page 2 of 2 5. The report will include any impacts to County waste and recycling facilities, and the appropriate mitigation measures. All recommendations and mitigation measures will be addressed. 6. Description of the waste reduction component that analyzes techniques to be employed to achieve a reduction goal. 7. Analysis will be based on the highest potential use or zoning of the development. REQUIREMENTS AND CONDITIONS 1. A solid waste management plan will be done for all commercial developments, as defined under the policies of the Department of Environmental Management, Solid Waste Division. 2. We will require the developer to provide or resolve all recommendations and mitigation measures as outlined in the report; besides any conditions placed on the applicant by the Department of Environmental Management. 3. A licensed environmental or civil engineer will draft and certify the solid waste management plan. If you have need additional information, please contact Michael Dworsky, P.E., Solid Waste Division Chief at 808-961-8515. CONCUR: Bobby Jean Leithead-Todd DIRECTOR 10/13/03 Revised 09/14/07 Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. LINDA LINGLE GOVERNOR 2008 OCT 28 q(0 1n 2T PLANNING DEPARTMENT GvUNTY OF HAWAII STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH P.O. BOX 916 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0916 MEMORANDUM DATE: October 27, 2008 TO: Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii FROM: Newton Inouye r�_ Acting District Environmental Health Program Chief CHIYOME L. FUKINO, M.D. Director of Health SUBJECT: State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 08-000021) Request: Agricultural to Urban Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000085) Request: A -20a to ML -la Applicant: Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Tax Map Key: 1-6-3:18 and 23 Construction activities must comply with the provisions of Hawaii Administrative Rules, Chapter 11-46, "Community Noise Control." 1. The contractor must obtain a noise permit if the noise levels from the construction activities are expected to exceed the allowable levels of the rules. 2. Construction equipment and on-site vehicles requiring an exhaust of gas or air must be equipped with mufflers. 3. The contractor must comply with the requirements pertaining to construction activities as specified in the rules and the conditions issued with the permit. Should there be any questions on this matter, please contact the Department of Health at 933- 0917. !SCANNED Planning Dept. j QT9a4 Exhibit S By: Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 of 2 October 27, 2008 The Department of Health does not have any objections to the proposed change in land uses. However, existing or planned land use activities adjacent to the proposed residential area should be compatible with a residential neighborhood. Lands formerly used for sugarcane production are now being developed into communities where residential homes, schools and commercial businesses are being constructed. Chemicals associated with the sugarcane industry persist in soil today and may be a threat to public health and the environment. Elevated arsenic levels were discovered in soil at former sugarcane production areas on the islands. The HEER Office has identified former sugarcane production areas for assessment throughout the state and plans to work with property owners to conduct environmental assessments to identify and address elevated soil arsenic levels prior to finalizing development plans for the properties. We recommend that you review all of the Standard Comments on our website: http://hawaii.gov/healtIVenvironmental/env-planninw1anduse/landuse html. Any comments specifically applicable to this project should be adhered to. The food manufacturing operations should follow the rules and regulations cited in HRS 328 Food, Drugs & Cosmetics; HRS 328D Bottled Water; HAR Ch. 11-12 Food Establishment Sanitation; and HAR Ch. 11-29 Food and Food Products. If there are any questions or concerns, call (808) 933-0917. WORD:SLU 08-00002I.at LINDA LNCLE GOVERNOR OFHAWAII 1008 OCT ^^ PLANNNG COUNTY October 26, 2008 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION DIVISION 601 KAMOKILA BOULEVARD, ROOM 555 KAPOLEI, HAWAII 96707 Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4224 Dear Mr. Yuen: LAURA H. THIELEN CHAIX rmo$ EOMD OF LM`D NJp NAT IIPPL RESOURCES CZESION ON WATERRESOVRCE MANAGEMENT RUSSELL Y. TSUJI F.TDEPUIY KEN C. KAWAHARA DFPU(Y pplFttpR -WATER AQUATIC RE0. ROATWGAIACCEANNECR UDN RUREAUOFCONVEYANCF$ COF BSIONONWATERRE$O EM AG ENT CONSERVATION qNp COASTAL LAND$ CONSERVATIONA RESOURCES ENFORCEMENT wcwEERwG FORESTRYA WN1 1R MWCPR MVAn0N KAROOIAW66LAND pESERVECOMApS510N ND STATE PARRS LOG NO: 2008.4626 DOC NO: 081 OMD32 Archaeology SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 Historic Preservation Review — Request for Comment on a Change of Zone Application (REZ 08-000085) and State Land Use Boundary Amendment Application (SLU 08-000021) Kea'au Ahupua'a, Puna District, Island of Hawaii TMK: (3) 1-6-003:018 & 023 Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the aforementioned project, which we received on October 21, 2008. The owner is proposing to open up part of their land for tenant use, including modifications to the eight existing warehouse structures. Please be advised that the archaeological inventory report has not yet been approved by SHPD. At issue are the seven warehouse structures that were constructed by the Puna Sugar Company, which would require photographic documentation and inventory prior to any demolition of those structures (Log No. 2008.2914, Doc No. 0809AL59). All architectural issues or questions should be referred to our Architecture Branch on Oahu: (808) 692-8015. Wlu`I-we have not yet reviewed or accepted the final archaeological inventory survey for these parcels, we anticipate there will be no effect on historic properties other than the potential future architectural concerns for the seven buildings. We therefore believe that the aforementioned applications submitted to you by Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC regarding a change of zone request will have no effect on historic properties at this time; however, we do reserve the right to review future building demolition requests until that time when the appropriate documentation of them has been completed. Planning Dept. Exhibit_ SCANNED), 4,08 o --- 1 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 If you have questions about this letter please contact Morgan Davis at (808) 933-7650. Aloha, Nancy McMahon, Deputy SHPO/State Archaeologist and Historic Preservation Manager State Historic Preservation Division Cc: Alan Hann, Ph.D. Haun & Associates HCR 1 Box 4730 Kea'au, Hawaii 96749 Bruce C. McClure, Director County of Hawaii Department of Public Works 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 7 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 LMA LMGLa Gown W mwm September 25, 2008 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 uoRA aY�.ffii m@emo@+ bnw) @uw Nmx,V m.LL�olnmf RUR�.L Y. ]SLGI FR[,®vrc �cRAwARARA pYAmfBL@6f,. HfNiII4AW Y3.,tItBOY9{Q1 91�AY@m1iY0YNiW mN@Rw O1wNQ�M@KW.,@l@�'1' memv,@m,ummuueuws w'mssr/JIDauaiue amounmum�vamo®ox smue.,eo Haun & Associates LOG NO: 2008.2914 Archaeological, Cultural, and Historical Resource Management Services DOC NO: 0809AIs59 HCR 1 Box 4730 Architecture Kea'au; Hawai'i 96,749 Dear Dr. Haun: SUBJECT: Chapter 6E-42 (HRS) Review Archaeological Inventory Survey Land of Kea°an (Puna Sugar Company Vehicle Maintenance Facilities) Thank you for your'submlttal.of the Archaeological htventory Survey for the Land of Kea'au.dated July 20k The report focuses.piimarily on seven architectural resources comprising the vehicle maintenance facilities associated with the Puna Sugar Company and constructed at some point in the mid -twentieth century. these 'structures ace identified as eligible for inclusion in the National Register of Historic Places under criterion,D; which the SHPD wishes to amend to include potential eligibility under criterion A, due to association with;the development "of the Puna Sugar Company and Hawaiian sugar industry. While the structures, which'are in poor, to fair condition, -may not be considered as individually eligible resources, they may contribute to a larger puna Sugar Company historic district. As such, our office suggests amendment of the statement (p. 25): "Based on the above criteria, Site 26633 is assessed as solely significant under Criterion `d.' The site has yielded information important for understanding the historic land use in the pro' ectarea " The scope of future;work intended at the site is unclear as to whether demolition of these stntctures is indicated:' Should demolition.be considered. the Architecture Branch would also sueeest photo ,, http'www:nps.gov/nr%policyexpansion.litm. To aecoinmodate this recommendation; the SHPD further suggests'anlendmenrof the statement (p. 25): "Recommended Treatments: The mapping; written descnption's and photography, at Site 26633 adequately documents it and no further work or preservatior is recommended "-Tliank'you for the opportunity to comment Should you have any architectural questions or concerns, please'do not hesitate to contact Dr. Astrid Liverman in oily Oahu officeat (808) 'Smcerely Y; �Asuid,M. B LiWrman, D. Architecture Branch Chief . AM$L: . c: Morgan Davis, Hawaii Assistant Archaeologist LINDA LINGLE ��??)) g� I—K Ma RNOROFHAWAH F'4.i1t�4�II�3 Ea OPATF'S -lc €,0,) i; V HAINA15 2fi-'OCT 21 PH 3- 113 STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DMSION County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 17, 2008 LAUM FL THIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF MRAM1DNAT LRESOURCES FOSSON WATER RESOURCE MA NAF8� Attention: Mr. Norman Hayashi Gentlemen: Subject: Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 08-000030) Use Permit Application (USE 08-000014) n �� State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 08-000021)— Thank 8-000021) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Department of Land and Natural Resources' (DLNR) has no other comments to offer on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 587-0433. Thank you. Sincerely, Morris M. Atta Administrator Planning Dept. Exhibit to a CANNEr) J ��%,P STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES LAND DMSION County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96809 October 17, 2008 LAUM FL THIELEN CHAIRPERSON BOARD OF MRAM1DNAT LRESOURCES FOSSON WATER RESOURCE MA NAF8� Attention: Mr. Norman Hayashi Gentlemen: Subject: Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 08-000030) Use Permit Application (USE 08-000014) n �� State Land Use Boundary Amendment (SLU 08-000021)— Thank 8-000021) Thank you for the opportunity to review and comment on the subject matter. The Department of Land and Natural Resources' (DLNR) has no other comments to offer on the subject matter. Should you have any questions, please feel free to call our office at 587-0433. Thank you. Sincerely, Morris M. Atta Administrator Planning Dept. Exhibit to a CANNEr) Ra" P ,trvr .P`• SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 - Hilo, Hawaii 96720 7008 ht`ei c ry 1 i leophone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 CP3U E-mail: sidfuke@hawaiiantel.net t'iA11Y\ifi+I _Fi'..4iTMENT November 5, 2008 'OIJNTY Oi= HAWAII Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Planning • Variance • Zoning Subdivision • Land Use Permits Environmental Reports Subject: Applications for State Land Use (SLU 08-000021) and County Rezoning (REZ 08-000085) — Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Keaau, HI. TMK: 1-6-003:18 & 23 Thank you for providing me with a copy of agency comments to date. In response to these comments, we note the following: a. The County Police Department did not express any "traffic and/or public safety concerns'; b. The State Department of Land Natural Resources - Historic Preservation Division accepted the archaeologist's assessment and concluded the request will have "no effect on historic properties at this time." It added, however, that because of the date of the existing warehouses, it would require photographic documentation and inventory prior to their demolition. Please note that the applicant plans to renovate and utilize these structures for the project. c. Relative to the County Department of Environmental Management's comments, please note that for the most part, the site has already been cleared. There are about 2 acres of overgrown plant. These will be cleared and plowed into the ground. Whatever solid waste that cannot be disposed off on site would be disposed at the authorized County landfill by commercial haulers or the applicant. If necessary, as is common for projects of this nature requiring a rezoning, a Solid Waste Management Plan can be prepared and submitted for the DEM's approval prior to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit. d. The State Department of Health provided comments from the District Environmental Health Program Chief and the Safe Drinking Water Branch, East Hawai'i. The applicant appreciates the guidance and comments of the DOH. The site was used to support the maintenance of the sugar mill's operations. As such, sugar cane cultivation was absent. Planning Dept. Exhibit1 1 ._ SCANNE I Mr. Christopher Yuc-•n, Director November Page 2 The applicant is also aware that the site falls within 1,000 feet of County operated potable wells and its corresponding restrictions relative to* wastewater requirements. The applicant is mindful of this and the need to protect the aquifer. As such, the wastewater system will be an aerobic treatment system or an equivalent system meeting with the State Department of Health's requirements. In the event underground injection well(s) are needed to accommodate potential drainage issues, the appropriate UIC permit will be secured during the subsequent permitting phase of this project. Furthermore, the applicant will instruct its contractor to comply with the noise and air emission standards of the Department of Health during the construction phase of this project. e. Relative to the Fire Department's comments, please be informed that the requirements for fire flow protection and access to the structures will be complied with. During the building permit review process, the Fire Department is one of a number of agencies that must review and approved the plans. In that regard, all of its requirements will be fulfilled at that time. f. As noted by the Department of Public Works (DPW"), all development -generated water will be disposed off on site through a system of drywells. These plans will be prepared and submitted to the DPW for its review and approval during the building permit process. Likewise, prior to construction of the project, if needed a grading and/or grubbing permit will be secured from the DPW at which time plans will be reviewed to assure conformity with the appropriate regulations. The applicant will also improve the road leading to the project's proposed entrance from the extension of Milo Street. Since, no access is planned from Railroad Avenue, the applicant does not believe its improvement should be mandated. Furthermore, as this is an industrial and not a residential area where foot traffic fronting the site is absent, if at all, relief from the recommended curb, gutter, and sidewalk is requested. We trust that the above adequately responded to the comments. If not or if there are further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincere ` W{`w S NEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy - Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC ,� si7cv. rr��r SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 E-mail: sidfuke cr hawaiiantel.net November 13, 2008 Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: L�UU1 i� • Planning • Variance • Zoning �{ ' e�fyq• �uOdiv"�i n • Land Use Permits tl•!• rl ntal Reports r',A E71f�,���1V1 �•ourd r,� u;= Hawa�� Subject: Applications for State Land Use (SLU 08-000021) and County Rezoning (REZ 08-000085) — Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Keaau, Hl, TMK: 1-6-003: 18 & 23 This in response to the Department of Water Supply's memo of November 6, 2008 to your office regarding the subject matter. We apologize and stand corrected on the representation made in the application on the size of the line fronting the site. The line is an 8 -inch and not 10 -inch line. Notwithstanding that discrepancy, the Department noted that the 8 -inch line is sufficient for the proposed project. Should there be a need for additional water units beyond the existing eight (8), the applicant will apply for the necessary commitments. Relative to fire flow protection, the Department noted that some improvements to the transmission line will have to be made. The applicant will abide by this requirement. Appropriate construction plans will be prepared and if relocation of existing facilities is necessary, they will be reflected in the construction plans and so implemented by the applicant. The applicant understands that to utilize the water well presently under construction on the property for public consumption, appropriate permits from the State Commission on Water Resource Management and State Department of Health are needed. In that event, these permits will be secured at the appropriate time. We trust that the above adequately responded to the comments. If not or if there are further questions or comments, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely,^ SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant SCANNE Copy - Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC ® 4q * ts i E5'•_ . Y : I , RHIRainforestWaterSLU.mje- 1126/08 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER COMPANY, LLC STATE LAND USE BOUNDARY AMENDMENT APPLICATION (SLU 08-000021) Upon careful review of the request, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this position based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. The favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The approval of the reclassification from the State Land Use Agricultural to the Urban District for approximately 10.373 acres will not be in violation of Section 205-2, Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, nor will it be inconsistent with the Land Use Commission Rules, the County General Plan and the Hawaii State Plan. Under the Land Use Commission Rules, one of the standards for considering an area for urban reclassification states that "In determining urban growth for the next ten years, or in amending the boundary, land contiguous with existing urban areas shall be given more consideration than non-contiguous land, and particularly when indicated for future urban use on state or county general plans." Although the properties are not contiguous to Urban designated lands, the area lies 500 feet south and east of the HELCO Keaau power plant site and the Ulu Pono Town Center, which are on lands designated Urban by the State Land Use Commission. Additionally, the subject properties have historically been used for industrial purposes by the Puna Sugar Company. The reclassification action also conforms to the goals, policies and standards of, among others, the Land Use and Economic Elements of the General Plan. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals, policies, standards and courses of action. It is also a graphic depiction of the physical relationship between the various land uses and -I- establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The subject properties are in an area designated Industrial on the LUPAG Map. The Industrial designation includes uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities and light industrial uses. Since 1971, the area of the old Puna Sugar Mill has been designated as Industrial in the LUPAG. During the 1989 General Plan Comprehensive Review, the Industrial designation was expanded by re - designating lands in the vicinity from Intensive Agricultural and Orchards to Industrial. This area was considered for industrial expansion as a variety of industrial uses were established in the vicinity through the Special Permit process. The County had determined that the industrial designation would promote and encourage additional utilization of the area. The applicant is also concurrently requesting a Change of Zone from an Agricultural (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial (ML -1 a) zoned district for 10.373 acres. The reclassification action would be consistent with the goals, objectives and policies of the Hawaii State Plan and Puna Community Development Plan by providing future employment opportunities and improved living standards and stimulating the development and expansion of economic activities. The Urban classification conforms to the standard that the development is within reasonable proximity to centers of trading and employment and to basic services such as schools, police and fire protection, transportation systems and water. The properties are located less than one mile from the village retail and employment center of Keaau. Schools and medical, police and fire services are also located within Keaau. According to the Department of Water Supply, water is available to the site from an 8 -inch waterline within Milo Street. Access to the subject properties is from the Milo Street extension, which is a private roadway owned by W. H. Shipman. According to a 1938 deed the applicant has legal right of access over this roadway, which has a minimum pavement width of 24 feet within a 40 -foot wide road lot.. The applicant will provide improvements to the properties' frontage along the end of the Milo street extension. The applicant will install aerobic individual wastewater treatment system(s) -2- meeting with the approval of the Department of Health to maintain the quality of water from the County -owned potable water wells in the area. Urban Districts shall include lands characterized by "city -like" concentrations of people, structures, streets, urban level of services and other related land uses. Several commercial and industrial uses have been established over the years on surrounding properties and the subject properties.through special permits. Recently large areas of land north of the Milo Street extension and east of the Keaau- Pahoa Bypass have been reclassified from the Agricultural to Urban state land use district, and have been rezoned from agricultural to industrial or mixed commercial - industrial. As industrial and industrial -commercial uses already exist in the immediate area, the urbanization of the project site will not contribute towards scattered urban development. There are no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be properly rectified or which would render the land unusable. The U.S. Federal Emergency Management Agency designates the properties as Zone "X", areas outside of the 500 -year flood plain. The properties are located over three miles from the shoreline, at an elevation of about 300 feet above sea level and are fairly level with less than a 5% slope. All project generated runoff will be disposed of on-site, so as not to impact surrounding properties. Thus, the reclassification meets with the standard which states that the lands included within the urban district "....shall be those with satisfactory topography and drainage and reasonably free from the danger of floods, tsunami and unstable soil conditions and other adverse environmental effects." While the properties are within the State Land Use Agricultural and County's Agricultural (A -20a) zoned district, it is not currently being used for active agricultural purposes. The subject properties are not currently in agricultural use, nor have they been for over 80 years. Seven of the eight warehouses on site were used for storing and maintaining equipment and trucks associated with the former Puna Sugar Company mill operations, which was considered an industrial use of the land. In the 1990's, an additional warehouse was constructed and the site was used as a fruit processing facility. The State of Hawaii ALISH Map classifies the subject property as Prime Agricultural -3- Lands and Unclassified. The Land Use Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating for the soils in the area is "C" or "Fair" and Unclassified. While the potential for agricultural uses may exist, the soil conditions within the site and surrounding area would preclude such agricultural activities from being conducted. Immediate surrounding properties are in the State Land Use Agricultural district and are zoned A -20a and A -5a. The Hawaii Right to Farm Act, HRS chapter 165, was enacted to protect farming operations on land in the State Land Use Agricultural District when adjacent land is reclassified out of the Agricultural District. A condition of approval will require the applicant notify prospective purchasers, tenants or lessees of the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. Therefore, the reclassification of this 10.373 -acre area from the Agricultural to the Urban designation will not be detrimental to the reduction of this area from the agricultural land inventory in the County of Hawaii. Furthermore, an Urban classification would complement the existing and future land use pattern of the surrounding area in view of the urban uses already in existence in close proximity to the subject properties. Based on the above, the approval of the State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District complements the State Land Use District Regulations and County General Plan and is supportive of the Hawaii State Plan. The accompanying draft bill to amend the State Land Use Boundaries Map is provided for your favorable consideration. In addition, conditions of approval are recommended as follows: A. The applicant shall notify prospective purchasers, tenants, or lessees of the subject properties that farming operations and practices on adjacent or contiguous land in the State Land Use Agricultural District are protected under Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 165, the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. This notice shall be included in any disclosure required for the sale or transfer of the subject properties. B. Any action that would interfere with or restrain farming operations on adjacent or contiguous properties shall be prohibited; provided the farming operations are conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural and management practices on adjacent or contiguous lands in the agricultural district. COUNTY OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. PLANNING DEPARTMENT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KEAAU, PUNA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY: 1-6-003:018 AND 023. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. The State Land Use Boundaries Maps for the County of Hawaii are amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, shall be Urban: Beginning at the north corner of this parcel of land, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "OLAA" being 11,208.80 feet North and 9,990.50 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 1. 3470 44' 530.52 feet along the remainder of Lot 41, Land Court Application 1053, Map 7; 2. 580 10' 876.41 feet along Lot 41, Land Court Application 1053, Map 7; 3. Thence along Exception 6, Land Court Application 1053, Map I along a curve to the left having a radius of 901.95 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 1650 33' 15" 364.91 feet; 4. 1530 53' 154.98 feet along Exception 6, Land Court Application 1053, Map 1; 5. 2220 33' 74.01 feet along Lot 32 (Roadway) Land Court Application, Map 6; 6. 2390 40' 858.63 feet along Lot 32 (Roadway) Land Court Application, Map 6 to the point of beginning and containing an area of 10.373 acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made a part hereof. SECTION 2. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 3. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Hilo, Hawaii Date of Introduction: Date of 1 st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII -2- ® i Agricultural Agricultural 11,208.80 N 9,990.50 E OL AA AGRICULTURAL TO URBAN Agricultural r i 10.373ACRES r w� �pPO P t u a Agricultural / r Urban ��/ Agricultural ON DA Agric Itural Agricultural / Urban Agricultural Urban KEAAU 13ypASSRDAgricultural Agricultural Urban 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 \\ Agri al Feet AMENDMENT TO THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS AMENDING THE STATE LAND USE BOUNDARIES MAPS FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII, BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM THE AGRICULTURAL TO THE URBAN DISTRICT AT KEAAU, PUNA, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF HAWAII, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TMK:1-6-03.18 & 23 EXHIBIT "A" DATE: November 12, 2008 (Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Mao 08-172) RHIRainrorest Watel'RET mjc-12/1/08 COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT RECOMMENDATION HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER COMPANY, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 08-0000851 Upon careful review of the request against the guidelines for granting a change of zone, the Planning Director is recommending that a favorable recommendation of the Change of Zone request be forwarded to the County Council. Since this recommendation is made without the benefit of public testimony, the Planning Director reserves the right to modify and/or alter this recommendation based upon additional information presented at the public hearing. This favorable recommendation is based on the following findings: The applicant requests a change of zone from an Agricultural - 20 acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial - 1 acre (ML -la) zoned district for 10.373 acres of land to establish industrial space for lease or rent, and a water and tropical fruit beverage bottling facility within eight (8) existing warehouses totaling 56,658 square feet in floor area. The warehouses, which are not currently in use, will be renovated. Additionally, the applicant is in the process of drilling a well on the site to provide potable water to the proposed water and tropical fruit beverage bottling operation. No retail sales or visitor facilities are planned. The applicant has submitted a concurrent request for a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from an Agricultural to an Urban district. In order to consider an area for any type of zoning designation, the applicable goals, policies and standards of the General Plan must be adequately addressed. It is only through such a comprehensive policy analysis approach that evaluations and decisions can be made to better time and stage developments to achieve growth determined by the General Plan and related planning documents. The implications of these evaluations and decisions must also be considered as they may have an impact on similar areas in the County. The Change of Zone request from A -20a to ML -la conforms to the goals, policies and standards of the General Plan and Puna Community Development Plan. The General Plan is intended to be used as a policy guide for the coordinated growth and development of all sectors of the County. It sets forth goals, policies, standards and courses of action to accommodate growth without congestion, to designate and preserve the lands needed for residential use, commercial and visitor services, industry, agriculture and open space, and to coordinate these uses with the County's service and circulation systems. The overall goals, policies and standards are set forth to physically plan the lands in the County in the best interest of the island's residents. The Puna Community Development Plan translates the broad General Plan statements to specific actions for the Puna district. The Puna district in general lacks industrial areas suitable for small-scale industry. Nearby Shipman Industrial Park contains large lots that cater more to large-scale industrial uses. The General Plan promotes and encourages the rehabilitation of industrial areas that are serviced by basic community facilities and utilities. The proposed project provides an opportunity to rehabilitate abandoned warehouses that have historically been used for industrial uses such as truck and equipment storage and agricultural processing. An action of the Puna Community Development Plan would be achieved by the proposed project in that it would provide jobs to Puna residents and would support the goals of the Enterprise Zone program. The proposed change of zone conforms to the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. The Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map component of the General Plan is a representation of the document's goals and policies to guide the coordinated growth and development of the County. It reflects a graphic depiction of the physical relationship among the various land uses. The LUPAG Map establishes the basic urban and non -urban form for areas within the County. The properties are designated Industrial, which includes uses such as manufacturing and processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial -commercial uses. The ALISH Map identifies the properties as Prime Important Agricultural Land and Unclassified, and the Land Study Bureau's Productivity rating for the site is "C" or "Fair" and Unclassified. The project site consists of two parcels, containing eight abandoned warehouses that have historically been used for industrial purposes. The properties have not been in agricultural use for at least 80 years. Immediate surrounding properties are in the State Land Use Agricultural district and are zoned A -20a and A-5 a. -2- The Hawaii Right to Farm Act, HRS chapter 165, was enacted to protect farming operations on land in the State Land Use Agricultural District when adjacent land is reclassified out of the Agricultural District. A condition of approval will require the applicant notify prospective purchasers, tenants or lessees of the Hawaii Right to Farm Act. Therefore, the requested Limited Industrial zoning is consistent with the LUPAG Map. All utilities and services are available to the site. County water is available to the site from an existing 8 -inch waterline within Milo Street fronting the subject properties as well as an existing 12 -inch waterline within Milo Street approximately 1,500 feet from the properties. The properties are served by a 2 -inch water meter which has eight (8) units of water allocated equal to 4,800 gallons per day (600 gallons per day per unit). A condition of approval will require the applicant to submit daily water usage calculations to the Department of Water Supply to determine if the existing 2 -inch water meter can accommodate the estimated demand, and to install a larger or additional water meter if required. Conditions of approval will also require the applicant to extend 1,500 feet of 6 -inch waterline along Milo Street to the subject properties to provide adequate water flow for fire protection, install fire hydrants if needed, and install a backflow prevention assembly if required. Due to the proximity of potable water wells in the area, the applicant will install aerobic wastewater system(s) meeting with the approval of the Department of Health to maintain the quality of the basal groundwater in the area. Solid waste will be disposed of at appropriate sites designated by the Department of Environmental Management. Electricity and telephone services are available to the site. All essential utilities are available to the project site. Police and fire services are available a mile from the site, in Keaau. Medical services are available at Hilo Medical Center. Access to the project site is from the Keaau-Pahoa Bypass via the Milo Street extension and Railroad Avenue, which are road lots owned by W. H. Shipman Ltd. The minimum pavement width for these roadways is 24 feet within the 40 -foot wide road lots. A 1938 deed provided by the applicant indicates that the subject properties have a legal right of access over the Milo -3- Road extension road lots, but does not establish right of access for the Railroad Avenue road lot. Therefore, a condition of approval will be included stating that access from the subject properties over Railroad Avenue shall be restricted until the applicant provides documentation establishing right of access that meets with the approval of the Planning Director. The Department of Public Works (DPW) recommended that the applicant provide improvements to the entire frontage of the subject properties along the end of the Milo Street extension and Railroad Avenue consisting of, but not limited to, pavement widening to include concrete curbs, gutters and sidewalks. In a letter dated November 5, 2008, the applicant requested relief from this condition because the applicant does not intend to use Railroad Avenue as an access to the site and because the surrounding area is industrial in nature rather than residential so there will be little or no foot traffic along the properties' frontage. A condition of approval will be added requiring the applicant to construct roadway improvements along the properties' frontage at the end of the Milo Street extension similar to the required roadway improvements for the Puna Sugar Mill rezone (Ordinance 04-02). Additionally, condition of approval will be added that no home improvement centers are allowed, because that would create a high traffic use not consistent with the plans presented in the application. The property has no severe geological or topographical problems which cannot be rectified or which would render the land unusable. The project site is located within Zone "X", areas determined to be outside the 500 -year floodplain. All development generated storm run-off shall be disposed of on-site and not allowed onto adjacent properties or roadways. The request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statues, relating to Coastal Zone Management. The subject properties are located more than three miles from the shoreline and will not be impacted by coastal hazards or affect beach erosion, coastal ecosystems and marine resources. Additionally, they are not located in the Special Management Area. There is no record of a designated public access to the shoreline or mountain areas that traverses the properties. According to the applicant, no valued cultural or natural resources exist on the properties and there is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiian rights being practiced on the site. Historic resources or, the site include seven abandoned warehouses that were built in the mid - 52 1900's and used in conjunction with the operations of the Puna Sugar Company mill. A condition of approval will require the applicant to comply with the DLNR-SHPD recommendation to submit photo -documentation of the structures prior to alteration or demolition. Thus, the proposed request is not contrary to Chapter 205A, Hawaii Revised Statutes. The request will not have a significant adverse impact to traditional and customary Hawaiian Rights. In view of the Hawaii State Supreme Court's "PASH" and "Ka Pa'akai O Ka Aina " decisions, the issue relative to native Hawaiian gathering and fishing rights must be addressed in terms of the cultural, historical, and natural resources and the associated traditional and customary practices of the site: Investigation of valued resources: An archaeological inventory survey prepared by Haun & Associates in July 2008 identified seven abandoned warehouses associated with the former Puna Sugar Company mill on the properties. No floral or faunal studies were completed for the properties as they have historically been in industrial use and have recently been graded and grubbed. The valuable cultural historical and natural resources found in the rezoning area: The properties are improved with eight abandoned warehouses. Seven of the eight structures were likely constructed in the mid -1900's and used by the Puna Sugar Company as storage, repair and maintenance areas for the trucks and equipment used for sugar operations. These structures have been determined by the DLNR-SHPD to be historically significant as evidence of the sugar industry in Puna. Therefore, by letter dated September 25, 2008 the DLNR-SHPD recommended that photo -documentation of the structures be completed prior to alteration or demolition. In the 1990's an additional warehouse was built and all eight structures were used for a fruit processing and packing plant. The applicants state that there is no habitat that would appear valuable for native terrestrial or aquatic species. The applicant is not aware of any valuable cultural or natural resources on the properties. Possible adverse effect or impairment of valued resources: The property does not abut the shoreline; therefore Hawaiian fishing rights is not an issue. No ground alteration -5- is proposed and the properties have been recently graded and grubbed; therefore it is very unlikely that any native plants used for cultural gathering purposes would be affected. Feasible actions to protect native Hawaiian rights: Conditions of approval will be included to require the applicants to notify the DLNR-SHPD should any unidentified sites or remains be encountered, and proceed only upon an archaeological clearance from the DLNR-SHPD, and to submit photo -documentation of the seven historically significant warehouses to DLNR-SHPD prior to alteration or demolition. There is no evidence of any traditional and customary Native Hawaiians rights being practiced on the site, nor existence of any known valued cultural or native resources in the area. Thus, it is believed that the project would have no adverse impact relative to the cultural and historical resources of the area. Based on the above findings, approval of this change of zone request from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial -1 acre (ML -la) zoned district would result in an appropriate land use pattern that is consistent with the General Plan, and will further benefit the general public. The accompanying draft bill to amend Section 25-8-22 (Puna District Zone Map), Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is provided for your favorable consideration. Please note the proposed conditions of approval attached to the draft bill. M CH IRainforestwaterREZ.mj e-12/ 1/08 HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER COMPANY, LLC CHANGE OF ZONE APPLICATION (REZ 08-000085) CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL A. The applicant, its successors or assigns shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. B. The applicant shall secure and finalize building permits for all renovated and new structures prior to issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. C. Prior to the issuance of a water commitment by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall submit the anticipated maximum daily water usage calculations as recommended by a professional engineer licensed in the State of Hawaii, and a water commitment deposit in accordance with the "Water Commitment Guidelines Policy" to the Department of Water Supply within 180 days from the effective date of this ordinance. The applicant shall differentiate between the amount of water needed from the Department's system and the amount of water to be utilized through the proposed on-site water well. Based upon the calculations, if required, the applicant shall install a larger or additional meter, remit the prevailing facilities charge to the Department of Water Supply, and install a reduced pressure backflow prevention assembly. D. To provide a minimum flow of 2,000 gallons per minute for fire protection, if required by the Department of Water Supply, the applicant shall extend approximately 1,500 feet of 6 -inch waterline from the end of the existing 12 -inch waterline on Milo Street to the subject properties, with a looped connection to the existing 8 -inch waterline fronting the subject properties. The installation of fire hydrants may also be required. E. Should the applicant be required to construct improvements within the road right- of-way fronting the subject properties, the applicant shall be responsible for relocating and adjusting the Department of Water Supply's affected water system facilities. The applicant shall secure Final Subdivision Approval to consolidate TMK 1-6- 003:018 and TMK 1-6-003:023 within two (2) years from the effective date of this ordinance. G. Final Plan Approval for the proposed development shall be obtained within five (5) years from the effective date of this ordinance in accordance with Section 25- 2-70, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code. Plans shall identify all existing and/or proposed structures, paved driveway access and parking stalls associated with the proposed development. Landscaping shall also be indicated on the plans for the purpose of mitigating any adverse noise or visual impacts to adjacent properties in accordance with the requirements of Planning Department's Rule No. 17 (Landscaping Requirements), Chapter 25 (Zoning Code), Hawaii County Code for ML zoning. H. No Home Improvement Centers shall be constructed on the property. I. Should the applicant develop a land use that will generate significantly more trips than was described in the Traffic Impact Analysis Report (TIAR), a revised TIAR shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall implement, at no cost to the County, any transportation improvements deemed necessary by the Department of Public Works. J. The applicant shall comply with the standards outlined in Standard Details for Public Works Construction R-34 (revised) by providing improvements consisting of shoulders and continued berm treatment to the properties' Milo Street roadway frontage. Should the Milo Street extension be dedicated to the County in the future, the applicant shall improve the roadway frontage to full dedicable standards. K. Access from the subject properties over Railroad Avenue shall be restricted until the applicant provides evidence of access rights meeting with the approval of the Planning Director. L. The applicant shall provide a minimum 20 -foot corner radius (property line) at the intersection of Milo Street and Railroad Avenue incorporating any future road widening setbacks. M. All development -generated runoff shall be disposed of on site and shall not be directed toward any adjacent properties. A drainage study shall be prepared by a -2- licensed civil engineer and submitted to the Department of Public Works prior to Final Plan Approval. Any drainage improvements, if required, shall be constructed meeting with the approval of the Department of Public Works prior to the issuance of a Certificate of Occupancy. N. A Solid Waste Management Plan shall be submitted to the Department of Environmental Management for review and approval prior to the issuance of Final Plan Approval. O. The applicant shall install aerobic septic wastewater system(s) or equivalent wastewater system meeting with the requirements of the State Department of Health. P. Prior to alteration or demolition of the seven structures identified in the Archaeological Inventory Survey dated July 2008 by Haun & Associates, the applicant shall provide to Department of Land and Natural Resources — State Historic Preservation Division (DLNR-SHPD) photo -documentation of the structures. Q. Should any remains of historic sites, such as rock walls, terraces, platforms, marine shell concentrations or human burials be encountered, work in the immediate area shall cease and the DLNR-SHPD shall be immediately notified. Subsequent work shall proceed upon an archaeological clearance from DLNR- HPD when it finds that sufficient mitigation measures have been taken. R. The applicant shall notify prospective purchasers, tenants, or lessees of the subject properties that farming operations and practices on adjacent or contiguous land in the State Land Use Agricultural District are protected under Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 165, the Hawaii Right to Fane Act. This notice shall be included in any disclosure required for the sale or transfer of the subject properties. S. Any action that would interfere with or restrain farming operations on adjacent or contiguous properties shall be prohibited; provided the farming operations are conducted in a manner consistent with generally accepted agricultural and management practices on adjacent or contiguous lands in the agricultural district. T. Should the Council adopt a Unified Impact Fees Ordinance setting forth criteria -3- for imposition of exactions or the assessment of impact fees, conditions included herein shall be credited towards the requirements of the Unified Impact Fees Ordinance. U. The applicant shall comply with all applicable County, State and Federal laws, rules, regulations and requirements. V. An initial extension of time for the performance of conditions within the ordinance may be granted by the Planning Director upon the following circumstances: The non-performance is the result of conditions that could not have been foreseen or are beyond the control of the applicants, successors or assigns, and that are not the result of their fault or negligence. 2. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the General Plan or Zoning Code. 3. Granting of the time extension would not be contrary to the original reasons for the granting of the change of zone. 4. The time extension granted shall be for a period not to exceed the period originally granted for performance (i.e., a condition to be performed within one year may be extended for up to one additional year). 5. If the applicant should require an additional extension of time, the Planning Department shall submit the applicant's request to the Planning Commission and the County Council for appropriate action. Should any of the conditions not be met or substantially complied with in a timely fashion, the Planning Director may initiate rezoning of the area to its original or more appropriate designation. M COUNTY OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. PLANNING DEPARTMENT AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-22 (PUNA DISTRICT ZONE MAP), ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL — 20 ACRES (A -20a) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL 1 ACRE (ML -1 a) AT KEAAU, PUNA, HAWAII, COVERED BY TAX MAP KEY 1-6-003:018 AND 023. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Section 25-8-22, Article 8, Chapter 25 (Zoning Code) of the Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), is amended to change the district classification of property described hereinafter as follows: The district classification of the following area situated at Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, shall be Light Industrial — 1 acre (ML-Ia): Beginning at the north comer of this parcel of land, the coordinates of said point of beginning referred to Government Survey Triangulation Station "OLAA" being 11,208.80 feet North and 9,990.50 feet East and running by azimuths measured clockwise from True South: 3470 44' 530.52 feet along the remainder of Lot 41, Land Court Application 1053, Map 7; 2. 580 10' 876.41 feet along Lot 41, Land Court Application 1053, Map 7; 3. Thence along Exception 6, Land Court Application 1053, Map 1 along a curve to the left having a radius of 901.95 feet, the chord azimuth and distance being: 1650 33' 15" 364.91 feet; -I- 4. 1530 53' 154.98 feet along Exception 6, Land Court Application 1053, Map 1; 5. 2220 33' 74.01 feet along Lot 32 (Roadway) Land Court Application, Map 6; 6. 2390 40' 858.63 feet along Lot 32 (Roadway) Land Court Application, Map 6 to the point of beginning and containing an area of 10.373 acres. All as shown on the map attached hereto, marked Exhibit "A" and by reference made part hereof. SECTION 2. In accordance with Section 25-2-44, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), the County Council finds the following conditions are: (1) Necessary to prevent circumstances which may be adverse to the public health, safety and welfare; or (2) Reasonably conceived to fulfill needs directly emanating from the land use proposed with respect to: (A) Protection of the public from the potentially deleterious effects of the proposed use, or (B) Fulfillment of the need for public service demands created by the proposed use. SEE ATTACHED CONDITIONS SECTION 3. hi the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. -2- SECTION 4. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Hawai `i Date of Introduction: Date of 1st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL MEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII -3- EXHIBIT "A" (Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Map 1253) A -20a A -20a 11,208.80 N 9,990.50 E A-20aAGRICULTURAL - 20 ACRES (A -20a) TO LIMITED INDUSTRIAL - 1 ACRE (ML -1a) 10.373 ACRES A -20a 1` i A -20o OPO ��/ 0 MG -10a A -5a 1/ -20a ML -20 ML -20 D_ A -5a ¢ FA -3a / Y A -20o A -20a j MCX-20 KEAAU BYPASS RD. A -20o A -20a RS -15 0 500 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 Feet A -20a AMENDMENT TO THE ZONING CODE AMENDING SECTION 25-8-22 (PUNA DISTRICT ZONE MAP) ARTICLE 8, CHAPTER 25 (ZONING CODE) OF THE HAWAII COUNTY CODE 1983 (2005 EDITION), BY CHANGING THE DISTRICT CLASSIFICATION FROM AGRICULTURAL - 20ACRES (A -20a) TO LIGHT INDUSTRIAL- 1 ACRE (ML -1a) AT KEAAU, PUNA, HAWAII MAP PREPARED BY: COUNTY OF HAWAII, PLANNING DEPARTMENT TMK:1-6-03:16 & 23 DATE: November 12, 2008 EXHIBIT "A" (Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co., LLC Map 1253) PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`l HEARING TRANSCRIPT JANUARY 15, 2009 Axegularly advertised hearing on the application of HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO. LLC (SLU 08-000021/REZ 08-000085) was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Daryn S. Arai, Acting Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow. Staff Planner _ Andrew lwashita And approximately 14 people from the public in attendance SLU 08-000021 AND The Commission took this item up at 9:10 a.m. with REZ 08-000085 approximately 14 people from the public in attendance. HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO. LLC KEAAU, PUNA APPLICANT: HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO. LLC (SLU 08-000021/REZ 08-000085) a. State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District for 10.373 acres of land. b. Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20 -acre (A -20a) to a Limited Industrial l -acre (ML -la) district for 10.373 acres. The property is located on the southeast corner of the E. Milo Street — Railroad Avenue junction, in the vicinity of the current HELCO Keaau power plant site, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-3: 18 and 23. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 1, the applicant is Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co. LLC. This is a State Land Use 08-000021 and REZ 08-000085. With that I guess I'll turn it over to Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief on this first application. This is a continued hearing, continued by our Chairman, to allow time for the applicant and Shipman to be able to resolve some issues regarding access to the proposed subject property. At this time the applicant and representatives from Shipman are present. With that, are there any questions? WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions? I think we're all kind of fairly familiar with this. You know, I do have like three people here that have signed up to testify; and I know Mr. Fake that you have some summaries to produce. Would you like to go first with the summary of the negotiations. And for formality could I swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? FUKE: I do. WATANABE: And, of course, name and address. FUKE: Sure. Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Sidney Fuke. I'm a planning consultant assisting Hawaiian Rainforest with this rezoning application. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212, Hilo, Hawaii. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, regrettably after probably about four to five weeks of active negotiation with representatives of W. H. Shipman, you know, the understanding basically kind of fell apart. So, you know, regrettably we could not reach any sort of an agreement. And the applicant has thus requested that it, you know, that it be given the opportunity to proceed with the current applications before you. Having said that, I'd like to just generally kind of like reiterate some of the points behind this particular rezoning application. The applicant bought the property in 2007. His initial plan was to, and still continues to be, to not only renovate the existing abandoned warehouses in that area but to rent or lease out those buildings for some sort of light industrial uses. In addition to that he also wants to, he has a permit for a waterwell and wants to do a bottling and beverage facility on this site. He had, prior to his purchasing the property back in 2007, one of his associates sought and received an opinion and a letter from the Planning Director at that point in time attesting that procedurally the way to go through the entitlement process would be not the special permit but to go through the rezoning; and this is predicated upon the site's designation as Industrial. And so, you know, with that letter, in reliance of that letter, then the acquisition was made. He had also early part of last year applied for and then subsequently was qualified by the State and the County as an enterprise program; and this enterprise program, you know, enables the applicant to get certain tax relief in exchange for generating, assurance of generating "x" number of jobs. And I think that the Commissioners are well aware of the current state of the economy; and this being on this enterprise program, which was also endorsed by the County, you know, I think speaks volume relative to the importance of the program, I mean, the development of this nature. Basically all of the required infrastructure, whether it's like wasterwater system, you know, the access, the archaeological issues were addressed in the application that I provided you earlier. So in the interest of not being redundant I'll just kind of like pass on that. The residual issue, of course, you know, just dealt with the question about the legality of the access. And, you know, to that, you know, I'll have to defer to the applicant's attorney, Paul Sulla, you know, who at some point in time would like to address that in a little bit more detail. I would like to, however, apologize to the Commission for having to bring this access question, you know, before this 2 Commission because it's my belief that the proper body to make a determination on this access is really like not the Planning Commission or the County Council, it's really, if there is some question regarding the legality of the access, then the appropriate body really should be the courts. Finally, that's about it, I think. So I'll just kind of open ourselves up for any questions. And then -. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: At our last meeting when this was addressed, one of the attorneys for your client essentially stated that there was access given some time in the 1930s and then it should be a slam dunk, that there were a few little technical things going on and the title company should clear it up. Where are we with that? FUKE: Very good question, Commissioner Woodward. I'd like to defer that to Mr. Paul Sulla who's right in the back. WATANABE: Well, Mr. Sulla you did sign up as someone that would testify. So maybe you could provide that now. So let me swear you in. Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? SULLA: 1 do. WATANABE: And would you speak into the mike please; and name and address first, and then if you could respond to Mr. Woodward's question. SULLA: My name is Paul Sulla; and 1 have my practice on 2061 Kalanianaole Road here in Hilo. I'm an attorney for the applicant, the Hawaiian Rainforest Water Company. WATANABE: Would you like to.respond to Mr. Woodward's question regarding where are we with the determination of access? SULLA: Okay, certainly. First off, just the nature of the concern is that I understand in access and easements situations there are really three kinds of roads, really. There's a private -private road, there's a private -public road, and then there are public roads. And this category of this road is really in the private -public road, because everybody in the public has had access through that and can drive through there. There's no restrictions on it; and that has been going on since.the development of the land. So we're dealing with a technical issue here having to do with the private landowner that still holds title to the road and, you know, is working on maintenance issues and all that. Those have not been the problem. And so what has been the problem was that the easement that was granted to this parcel, to both parcels, failed to be carried forward in deeds, subsequently in the chain of title through poor draftsmanship and, also, surprisingly by error in the Land Court allowing a parcel to be reconveyed without carrying forward the easement. Now this is what the Land Court is for, is to protect that sort of stuff. So the Land Court will ultimately have to correct the absence of that grant being carried forward by the precedessors, that includes my client. So we have the title company, we have an attorney in Ashford and Wriston in Honolulu, name is Wayne Nasser, who has been preparing it, for getting it ready to file to the Land Court, a petition to correct their mistake and to have this straightened out. This was not an issue that we felt to be a major one because our insurance carrier, Fidelity, affirmatively insured over it based upon the earlier deed and knowing that we have that right. It's just a technical defect in the title. So that's essentially where we stand with it. And we also want to note that that earlier 1938 deed is recognized by.Shipman as valid and they recognized that it was granted earlier, and that under that 1938 deed there were some restrictions that they haven't sought to enforce upon us, and we've agreed to them. But in the situation we are now in, it's that we can't have things go two ways, you know. The easement was granted in that deed by Shipman. The restrictions were put on that parcel by Shipman. If Shipman wants to enforce those restrictions which we've agreed to they should also recognize that we have an easement. However, this is a technical issue that they're using with us; and with regard to the negotiations, they've used it to put the applicant in a position where we can't go forward in agreement with them. WATANABE: Yes. Follow-up? WOODWARD: When do you anticipate that this will be settled? SULLA: We feel that this is a technical non -issue that is being used to block the application. What we are doing is filing this matter with petitions with the Land Court. We were told it may take up to six months to clear, because Land Court is not as quick as we'd like. We still don't even have our transfer of certificate of title. We don't have our TCT from Land Court yet. So this is the problem. Land Court is four or five months behind doing anything. So we're going to have our Honolulu attorney who's going to press very hard. The insurance company is very aware of the concern. The cost has already incurred and we're assured that this is going to take place and be done within six months, but it could go as long as a year. WATANABE: I think I kind of know where you're headed, Mr. Woodward. And, you know, potentially we could condition a recommendation. In this case it's not an approval because it's a zoning change as well as a land use change. So we could potentially condition our recommendation upon receiving legal access to the property. And so it doesn't necessarily mean that we're dead in the water today. WOODWARD: That would be fine with me. SULLA: That would be fine with the applicant also because we know we have a further procedure that we have to follow; and during that time we would have the access issue cleared, and it's a condition that we intend to have cleared up. WATANABE: Yes. Mr. Domingo, you -? DOMINGO: Yes, Mr. Chainnan. From the conversation that I've heard and the statement that you've made, permit me if I'm wrong, just tell me if I'm wrong, it is my understanding that it's just a matter of formality that this will be resolved by the Land Court in its final decision? SULLA: Yes. That's essentially it because the grant was already made by Shipman and it's on record in 1938. Then there was a subdivision, it was carried forward on a few deeds 4 and then it got dropped off by Puna Sugar when it conveyed back. And in that case, I mean, I've been a title conveyance person for 35 years and I would not have a problem with the title, just as Fidelity didn't have a problem with the title. The problem, however, is the Land Court in Hawaii which is, has to have these formalities covered, and has to go and review it. And as I said we still don't have our TCT from the conveyance a year ago. So obviously we've got to sit there. I've been with the Land Court here in Hawaii, you really have to press on it, you have to stay with them, and squeaky wheel to get there. So that's what we're against. There really is no impediment to getting that. Shipman may feel that they can object, but still the bottom line is that they've already conveyed it and they've obtained whatever they had to obtain back to give us the complete title. So that's what we feel, we agree, suspect. DOMINGO: You don't have any kind of a letter or affidavit that would indicate that what you're saying is in fact a fact for its to consider? SULLA: Well, I can provide that; and our attorney Wayne Nasser has provided that and detailed it to the objecting parties here; and they've seen that. So we can provide that very easily for you, whatever. Well, what we have are opinions of title by the attorney in Honolulu who's working for Fidelity Insurance and can outline what is going to happen and why. We can get whatever is required to satisfy, to make comfort with the Commission. WATANABE: Thank you, I appreciate that. On the other hand I think this body would prefer to stay out of the access issue and focus on the land use issues; and one way of doing that is conditioning the approval or the recommendation; and then we'd stay completely out of the legal access issues. Yes, Mr. Fuke. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, pursuant to that, I think if I can just kind of amplify a little bit, you know, in terms of the process. Because, you know, notwithstanding whatever recommendation that the Planning Commission may offer, the process, you know, of this application would require at least like maybe three or four months of hearing before disposition before the County Council. And assuming that there's like a favorable disposition on the application before the Council, then prior to establishing any use on the property the normal procedure requires that the applicant submit plans to the Planning Department for plan approval review. So pursuant to that like what I, you know, if the Commission is so inclined there could be like a condition that would read something along this line, and it would read like, "Final plan approval for any uses on the subject properties shall not be issued until proof of access meeting with the approval of the Corp. Counsel has been demonstrated." WATANABE: Okay. Did everybody get that? So what Mr. Fuke is suggesting is we could add a condition if we are so inclined that would require legal access to be established prior to issuance of final plan approval. Okay? Is that satisfactory? Mr. Hayashi, do you have something? ARAI: If I may. WATANABE: Oh, Mr. Arai. ARAI: I would not support such an amendment, that is deferring something as substantive as access or availability of access down to the individual plan approval review. 5 When you get down to plan approval review, that's about, that's just before when you're ready to build; and we shouldn't be having to determine on a case-by-case basis whether legal access is available. I'd rather have something as substantive as availability of access addressed more at this level than at plan approval. FUKE: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. FUKE: 1 can appreciate what Mr. Arai is saying; and, you know, to ask the Planning staff to kind of make the determination on whether proof of access is or is not there is kind of unfair. And that's why the way that I had proposed would be, you know, we would have to submit proof to the Corporation Counsel, you know, the County's attorney, they would then in turn make the determination whether access is available. And if the attorney concludes that there is, then in my mind what would be appropriate is to have the Planning Department confer with the Corporation Counsel and say like, you know, if access available. And if the conclusion is yes, then fine, process it. If you don't then you've just got to wait. WATANABE: Let me ask the Director then, I guess your concern may be that we're utilizing scarce resources to work on a plan that ultimately might not go through because of an access issue. But then you're also aware that there is a significant amount of time that will pass, yeah, prior to even the Council making a final decision. After all this body will only make a recommendation. So in the interest of time to move this process along would you be willing to craft a decision whereby maybe you would not commit those resources to actually working the plan approval until such time that access is determined, but that would not preclude the applicant from proceeding through the process of getting final approval. As I indicated earlier, you know, we are not the final step. If we were the final step I think everyone would be more inclined to say, okay, we'll just wait till we have the access issue resolved. But we all know that it may get tied up quite a while at Council. ARAI: Well, first of all, let me say that when we get down to the plan approval stage there should be a reliance that the property is ready to accommodate any proposed use, meaning availability of water, sewer, electrical, access. But at the same time this is a unique situation. And before I answer the rest of your question, is it okay if I ask Mr. Sulla a few questions? WATANABE: Oh, sure. ARAI: Mr. Sulla, about how long do you think the Land Court will take to respond to your petition? SULLA: As I stated to Mr. Domingo I believe that we can have this completed within six months. To respond to the petition, respond as soon as we file, the process starts with the Land Court. And so then their readers have to review it and follow the petition along, and go through it. And their procedures sadly are slower, that's why it would take so long. Normally this would be very quick because it's black and white, the record is very clear in black and white. But because of the land court procedures we think it might take us six months. And during that time the applicant is continuing somewhat in improving the property. Regardless of what happens here, he's going to have to use it; and lie has got a very large investment at stake here and he would like to keep on his timing. So that is happening. But as far as going forward with the plan review, the portion of the resources of the Planning Department, I agree with Mr. Fuke here that that would be something we would be agreeable to, to hold off on that unless we had that access resolved by that point. But let us continue with the process so that we can continue to have this working sort of parallel track. ARAI: Obviously to resolve this issue with the Land Court could probably take half a year which would go beyond the period where the Council could probably act on this change of zone request. So to delay it for that period of time may be an extreme hardship upon the applicant. I am willing to consider a compromise position which is probably to offer our support conditioned upon they continue to attempt to resolve the access issue. WATANABE: Prior to Council's approval? ARAI: Well, that was originally my hope, that we could move this application forward with such a condition that the access continue to be worked on; but I was really hoping that prior to Council taking action that a resolution be in place and that would afford, I'm not sure how long it takes, but maybe another three or so months to go through the Council process. I need to chew on this a little bit more before I make a decision. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Fuke, you have something to add? FUKE: Yes. It's more like just following up on Mr. Arai's concern which I can understand, you know, not wanting to burden the staff. But, however, I would liken this access question in the same way as like if you have like an archaeological report and then the archaeological report says that there's a burial on the property. So I don't believe that the Commission would not take action because there's a burial on the property. However, there would normally be conditions that would say prior to receipt of plan approval that you would have to have an approved burial treatment plan or burial preservation plan. And the proof of that is the submittal of that plan plus the letter from the DLNR-SHPD or the Hawaii Island Burial Council. And, you know, with that then it's proof to the Planning Staff as they review the application that this is a burial site and this is how we accommodate that. So likewise, you know, the hope was to be able to provide evidence, simplified evidence, along those lines to the staff in conjunction with the plan approval process. WATANABE: Okay, we do have two other witnesses that have signed up to testify. So if there are no other questions of the applicant's representatives maybe both parties can mull over a potential condition while we take testimony and see how we move along with that. And maybe we can resolve this a little later on. Okay? So you may seated. Or, Mr. Sulla, did you plan to provide further testimony than you've already provided? SULLA: I would just request if I could have the ability to speak following the comments of the other parties, just because there may be issues that are stated that I'd like to have comments on. WATANABE: Typically the applicant's representatives would have an opportunity to rebut. SULLA: Okay. All right. Well, that's all I need. WATANABE: And so you may be seated; and let's see what comes out from Mr. Yeh and whomever else that may -. SULLA: Certainly. But just to further answer to help the committee, we do have documents that establish this easement. We can present that, we can present the entire report which would at least demonstrate to everyone what kind of issue it is. I think the Commission even is not going to resolve it but should at least be aware of what it is. WATANABE: Yeah, I don't doubt the validity. On the other hand, I don't think we're really qualified to make determinations on legal access, yeah? So I think we'd probably want to defer that to the court system. SULLA: Okay. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, I have two others. I have Bill Walter and Mike Moore who have signed up to testify on this subject. So I did see Mr. Walter around earlier. Is he still here? MOORE: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission. My name is Mike Moore. Bill had to go to a meeting. He thought it was at 10, but, so -. WATANABE: Okay, so he won't be able to -? MOORE: He may be back after he attends that meeting. But in the meantime he's not here. WATANABE: Okay. Can I swear you in then, Mr. Moore. Would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? MOORE: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. And then full name and address for the record. MOORE: My name is Michael Moore. I'm an attorney with Tsukazaki, Yeh and Moore. Address is 85 West Lanikaula Street, Hilo. Unfortunately Mr. Yeh who I know was entertaining you previously had to go to Honolulu today so I'm -. WATANABE: Pitch hitting? MOORE: Yeah. So I would like to address the access issue. There are both legal and planning aspects to it. So it's not just a matter of whether or not there is legal access. But I think there are also some planning issues, and this Commission should consider them. Let me address both very briefly. The legal issue is not as simple as Mr. Sulla made it out to be. Okay? And I, actually he's aware of certain facts that he didn't share with you today; and those facts are that when Shipman granted this easement to Olaa Sugar back in 1938 there were three areas along Milo Street that were railroad rights-of-way that belonged to the Hawaiian, what was it, the old Railroad Company. Shipman didn't own those railroad rights-of-way. So these are, there are three breaks in Milo Street that title is in question. Now I don't want to bore you with that. But, in effect, Shipman did not own those railroad rights-of-way so they had no legal ability to convey an easement over those railroad rights-of-way. And it's a legal issue; and frankly I don't think the Land Court can resolve it. I think it's going to have to be resolved in Circuit Court, if it goes that far. I would like to let the Commission know that Shipman has been negotiating with the applicant since the last Planning Commission hearing to try to resolve these issues in a good faith manner. So it's not that Shipman is attempting to deny the applicant any use of its property. But Shipman has some serious concerns, one of which -. And shifting from the legal issue which I know you guys don't have the authority to resolve, but getting to the planning issue which is your jurisdiction, Milo Street is not adequate to handle Limited Industrial uses. As I understand it for Limited Industrial you need a 60 -foot right-of-way and at least a 32 -foot wide paving. Milo Street varies in width, the paving somewhere in the 20 -foot range. So Shipman as the owner of the roadway has serious concerns with respect to liability, safety, if the use in that area is increased to Limited Industrial I -acre, which means you could have 10 separate Limited Industrial lots on this property. And it's a real concern on Shipman's part. The other aspect of it is, I think Mr. Yeh has gone over this and I don't want to belabor the arguments that Shipman has presented, but the Community Development Plan designates this area for Agriculture, not Industrial. And the infrastructure is inadequate to have this area utilized for Industrial uses. It appears Commissioner Woodward would like to ask me a question. WOODWARD: Only if you are through. MOORE: No, I'm fine. WOODWARD: Okay. WATANABE: Go ahead, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Chairman, thank you. What is the acreage of the Shipman Industrial Park? MOORE: I don't have that, I can get that information to you. You're talking about the Shipman Business Park? WOODWARD: Right. MOORE: Yeah. No, it's, I don't know. Unfortunately Mr. Walter is not here. WOODWARD: Okay. MOORE: But we can get that information to you. WOODWARD: Well, let me just ask a pointed question. This is right across the street from where the Shipman Industrial Park is; and I get the impression that perhaps this is protecting turf, that is we don't want any competitors, more than it is a planning issue. How would you respond to that? MOORE: No, I think Shipman is trying to be a good steward of that, the Keaau area. And the Shipman Business Park does provide ample lands for Limited Industrial uses. As far as there being a selfish motive I could not speak to that. But I think that Shipman is actually concerned about overall long-term planning and that this area is not appropriate for expansion of Limited Industrial uses. WATANABE: It doesn't seem like -. Mr. Domingo, do you have a question to pose? DOMINGO: Yeah, just one question here. I heard that in the conveyance of the property to the present owners that you folks did not convey the legal easements to them. Is it because you're not actually the legal owners to the easements? MOORE: No, I -. The chain of title went down to various owners to the applicant. Shipman was the initial grantor but over the years it has been through several different owners. And I agree with Mr. Sulla that the fact that the easement was not listed on the TCT in subsequent conveyances is not legally a problem. 1 mean it can be remedied. But I did want to point out to you the fact that those railroad rights-of-way are intersecting Milo Street. That is a definite legal issue. WATANABE: Okay. I have a follow-up to that because I guess you implied there are maybe three sections of Milo Street where in your opinion technically Shipman never had the ownership to that property to convey easement. MOORE: They didn't have the ownership at the time of the 1938 deed. They subsequently, the road operated up till 1946 and then subsequently Shipman obtained title to those rights-of-way. But there has never been any conveyance of an easement over those rights- of-way. WATANABE: So you're testifying now that Shipman sold the land in 1938 with defected easements and no access? That's what you're saying? MOORE: No, there was -. WATANABE: Somebody sold the land. MOORE: Yes. WATANABE: You testified that there are three portions of Railroad Avenue, I mean, Milo Street -. MOORE: Yes. 10 WATANABE: That you never had the rights to. MOORE: Yes. WATANABE: But you sold the land with access? MOORE: Yes. WATANABE: How were they going to get there? MOORE: It's not a practical issue, it's a legal issue. WATANABE: We're really dancing around this issue but access is practical. I'm sorry, you can't have it both ways. If you sold the land in 1938 and you said, don't worry, Mr. Buyer, you have access but you never owned the right, full rights, to all of the land to which you provided access over, what happened? Do you follow me? MOORE: I follow you. WATANABE: Huh? MOORE: I follow you. WATANABE: Something is wrong. MOORE: Yes. WATANABE: But it's not an issue that the applicant created. He certainly had nothing to do with the 1938 transaction. MOORE: Correct. WATANABE: This is a tough argument you're producing. Even for a lay person for me, I mean, you know -. MOORE: It's, you know, Mr. Watanabe, I'm not presenting that argument, me, as a basis for denying the applicant. I think that's a planning decision. Okay? I'm just pointing out the facts, that there is this problem legally with respect to access that needs to be resolved. And, in fact, as I mentioned, Shipman has been trying to get this thing resolved with the applicant, you know, almost daily since the last Commission hearing. And we've been negotiating with the applicant and actually came very close up until last night in negotiating a settlement with them. So it's not that Shipman is being obstinate against the applicant. We've been cooperating with them and acting in good faith with them in trying to resolve these issues. So it's not like we're, you know, just -. WATANABE: All right. And I realize you're pitch hitting too, so I'm not going to shoot the messenger (jokingly). 11 MOORE: Thank you. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would just reiterate, to me, this doesn't pass the smell test. It smells to me a lot like Shipman is protecting their interests and they don't want a competitor, period. MOORE: That's fine if you have that belief, but you still need to, I think, consider this from a planning perspective. WATANABE: Yes. And to that end, as you know, this is a continued matter and we did address some of the infrastructure adequacy issues which were also presented by Mr. Yeh and testified to by Mr. Walter. And that is not to say that we are disregarding any of those issues. It's my understanding that those are some of the key issues that were being discussed during this five week or so period where the negotiations were on-going. As you indicated earlier you came very close. Maybe you can share with us if the infrastructure issues were a hold-up. MOORE: No. WATANABE: Did that create a bottleneck? MOORE: No. WATANABE: So, so does that imply that the applicant is willing to improve the infrastructure to the extent that Shipman is satisfied that it's not a liability issue? MOORE: Well, if I may share, I don't know. But I think yes, I can say yes, that that was not a problem. WATANABE: Maybe, maybe I see, thank you, Mr. Fuke, FUKE: Oh, okay. WATANABE: Maybe we can, again, -. FUKE: It's really like in deference to - WATANABE: Mr. Moore is pitch hitting so, you know - FUKE: Yeah, I understand that. MOORE: Although, Mr. Watanabe, I have been involved with Mr. Yeh in this matter so it's not like Fm coming in fresh. WATANABE: I'm not trying to diminish your capacity. 12 MOORE: Yeah, so I am very familiar with the substance of what has been going on. FUKE: You know, like there were multiple issues and, you know, I don't want to go into all of the issues. But specifically as it relates to the access and liability question that Mr. Moore raised, those were negotiated upon. So we did have a clear understanding between Shipman and the applicant. There were other issues relating to like land use restriction, compensatory arrangements. You know, those were the things that were like the bottleneck. But the primary issue that Mr. Moore raised relative to access, liability, improvements, so on and so forth, those were resolved very quickly. WATANABE: Those were resolved very quickly? FUKE: Correct. WATANABE: So I assume then that if this application is to proceed in any manner that the applicant remains willing to provide that same level of improvement to the infrastructure such that we don't have, shall we say, liability or safety issues? (Mr. Fuke had a short discussion with Mr. Sung at this time.) FUKE: I'm sorry, that was the applicant so I just had to get confirmation from him. Mr. Sung is saying that, you know, if the County requires that, whatever was negotiated and made part of the condition, then he will abide by that. WATANABE: And that's something, we don't have access to that. There were separate negotiations, yeah? So you would be willing to provide the County with -? FUKE: With that kind of information relating to liability and improvement requirements, yes. WATANABE: Yeah, yeah, okay, okay. Thank you very much. Do we have further questions for Mr. Moore, or any further questions? You have any final statements you care to make, Mr. Moore? MOORE: No, Mr. Chair. I think we've covered it. WATANABE: Thank you. MOORE: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. HOUSEL: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Hensel. HOUSEL: I had a question. Are you still negotiating or have you completed the negotiations? 13 MOORE: Shipman is still willing to negotiate. But it's up to the applicant. The applicant broke off negotiations yesterday. But Shipman is still willing to go to the table. So it's up to, you know, it requires two to tango. HOUSEL: Do you feel that there is an impasse that you can't get beyond? MOORE: We were very close, and I think there could be a resolution. HOUSEL: So you would be willing to negotiate, continue negotiating? MOORE: Oh, yes. WATANABE: Thank you. Actually I see Mr. Walter just got back from his meeting. So maybe you can be seated, Mr. Fuke, because he did, Mr. Walter did sign up to testify. And so if you still care to provide testimony, this would be your opportunity. Let me swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? WALTER: I do. WATANABE: Yes; and then, of course, name and address. WALTER: My name is Bill Walter. I live in Keaau, Hawaii. Please excuse me. I, we believe that negotiations were near enough to resolution; and we found out at 8:30 this morning that the other party didn't wish to complete negotiations at this time. Otherwise I could have scheduled and been here; but I had another meeting that had been previously scheduled, so I apologize for that. And I come in, and I probably will be a little bit redundant. But let me say that our concerns are, therearetwo concerns essentially. The first has to do with a safety concern. I'm sure Mike has covered that and possibly Sid. The roads are not, in our opinion, adequate for an ML zoning. An ML zoning requires, the Code calls for 60 -foot wide right-of-ways of which 40 feet are paved. The road today is 20 feet paved, has a 40 -foot right- of-way. It would be very difficult to pave that entire 40 feet. We haven't measured it but you come right up, I think you will go beyond fences on either side if you tried to do that. But it would be difficult to provide that. So if you give a zoning that's wide open, and following that the park, which his request was ML -1, gets filled out, you then have a lot of potential industrial uses that will be using that road. And we just have, we hold the liability on that; and we feel more than liability, we feel a responsibility because we own that road. So we feel that the road is not adequate. County Code seems to validate that. Our secondary concern is that we have about 5,000 acres of agricultural uses below that area. Agricultural theft is a very major problem. We have spent tremendous monies in 2008 adding gates, keeping them locked, and so on, to try to keep ag theft under control. It is not under control. The more people we draw into this area the greater the risk, the greater the problem that we anticipate for agricultural theft. And that's our concern. So we worked through this agreement; and it's all tied together. So, you know, whatever uses, part of it, if I can go into it legally, you know the uses and the improvements were tied together. If you give the zoning, 14 EXHIBIT A then that breaks that tie, at which point my own opinion would be that, that point, County requirements for appropriate access will come into play. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Let me ask you, Mr. Walter, how large is the Shipman Business Park? WALTER:' Shipman Business Park is zoned for 488 acres. It is not all developed. We do it, we do this in phases. It's maybe 35 to 40 percent subdivided. We have a lot of room to grow and go in the business park. WOODWARD: Okay. Well, that brings up my other question. These guys are looking at a 20 -acre development. You have 480 acres of which a good part is not currently developed and you want to expand. WALTER: Yes. WOODWARD: So it brings up to me the question of are you just protecting turf? WALTER: I think that's a fair question, Rell, and I'm glad you asked that. If we were protecting turf then we never would have gotten to the point in agreements that we had gotten to. In the long run, this is actually 10 acres. It's not 20 acres. He's using that for some light industrial uses that don't cause safety issues, that don't cause the potential theft issues that we're concerned about. We went through that carefully and we felt like these uses are not going to impact those two issues. Any use, any use impacts demand on the business park. And we, you know, we're not going to look at that. And when you look at the size of the park and the number of acres he has asked for, you know, 10 acres is less than one phase of our park. It really is not the kind of thing that, it makes no sense for us to come out and try to stop uses of small pieces like this. It does what are, one of the drivers for us is we don't want to look like bullies, that we're just trying to lock out all competition. And that's one of the reasons we had hoped that negotiations would be complete, and that the safety and theft issues would be well taken care of, and we could just move on. But, you know, negotiations are broken off, for what reason we really don't know. And so, you know, there we are. We remain with the safety issues. And I would point out as I did last time that there is another applicant who came through very recently for a water bottling facility within a quarter mile of him and we made no objection to that. You know, that's fine. But we have also gone to users, the school wanted to put in a cross -walk. As I pointed out the last time, we insisted that they have an engineer who could certify it because we have a safety concern. WOODWARD: All right. Well, I appreciate your frank answer. Thank you very much. DOMINGO: Mr. Chainnan? WATANABE: Okay, yes. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: In regards to your safety concerns and the road width, is it not common knowledge that when they come for plan approval that the Department would look at all these 15 issues and thereby impose any restrictions that would be addressing the safety issues? And then if that is done then Public Works will then recommend the improvements that need to be made? WALTER: I'm not certain that that would happen. Remember the road that they are on is a private road that we own; and the liability falls to us, as does the maintenance. So whether Public Works would come forward and insist on improvements on a private road is, you know, it's not clear to me that they would. What you have in front of you does not include something that Public Works has made requirements on to this point. So -. WATANABE: You also mentioned that agricultural theft. Are you saying that if this measure goes through that agricultural theft would increase in the vicinity? WALTER: My concern is that it would. And the reason for that is that right now you don't, there is no business reason or a particular reason for someone to come down into that area. They may come for schools, they may, you know, there are few reasons to come in there. But in general the population does not come into that area. The more people you have, casually or for whatever reason, pull into the area -- and this would pull people into the area -- that's the more people who become aware of it, and the greater probability that some of those people will then say, hey, you know, look at what's beyond this, let's go for it. So, you know, that is a set of assumptions on my part. I believe they're reasonable. And all I can tell you is that indeed agricultural theft throughout the County is a problem. It is certainly a problem to us and our lessees. DOMINGO: On the other hand, you know, as I look at it, any thief planning to conduct that illegal act will certainly not go where there is heavy traffic or where people would go. They'd look at a place where, you know, less amount of people travel and less people would be present. And that's what, that's the way thieves react. And I think your argument that this will certainly encourage agricultural theft with the reasons you've given doesn't sit well with me; and 1 tend to disagree with that. WALTER: Yeah, good point; and I appreciate that. Let me clarify on that point. Yeah, certainly if there's a certain level of traffic, while the traffic is there, people going forward to break in and steal things or cause vandalism is likely to be reduced. The issue is that what happens after, say, 6 o'clock at night when it's closed? What happens on Sundays when people have come down and became aware of it? Business Parks are likely to be, as with most of the industries in Hilo, are very quiet, probably few if any people there; and it's at that point that we have the concern. It's those after hours where people become aware of it. DOMINGO: So what you're saying is that this development will bring people into that particular area thereby exposing the lands below this development? For people who have the mind to steal, they would be more informed of what's down there, thereby it'd be easy for them to go down because they know what they're going after, what they're going to steal? WALTER: Yes. In essence that's true. It's what happens after the park is closed, and the familiarity with the area. As I say, most people have no reason to go into that area today and are not particularly aware of what's going on. 16 DOMINGO: What preventive measures have been taken now since the night thefts and since the lands below there belong to Shipman and leased to farmers, I guess? WALTER: Good question; and, again, I appreciate it. I can tell you that within the year 2008 we spent considerable monies rebuilding gates throughout our agricultural area, resetting rules so that now all of our gates are kept closed 24/7, even during the day which is a pain, you know, to our agricultural lessees. It's a pain to me cause I live at the end of all that. But we have made a point of keeping those closed. We have met with all of our lessees in different groups to talk with them about the theft problem to come up with ideas. We've met with the prosecuting attorney, we've met with the Police Department. We've had some times where we've had the Police Department assist us in being available, or setting up times when they would be hidden in our area so that we could try to find people who are at theft. Our own patrols through the areas have increased. So we have done all of that throughout 2008. It has had some help. But, again, if, you know, the economy deteriorates we're probably not ahead of the power curve. And it's a matter of, you know, holding back and saying, hey, you know, we -. Again, I would like to stress that there were many other uses that were suggested that we said, yeah, you know, the traffic is going to be minimal for that, we don't, you know, we're not into that. But if you open it up to all of the zoned, all of the uses available, then you start getting some real theft problems as you do infrastructure. WATANABE: Okay. DOMINGO: May I -? WATANABE: Okay, go ahead. DOMINGO: My feeling is regardless of this or any application that does go through which would essentially use those lands adjacent or in that vicinity, that the issue of theft would be, that's already being addressed by Shipman by installing all of those preventive measures, and that, those measures that have been put into place today discourages or prevent people from going down to the property. And if any development comes in there that would certainly not change the situation because you have those measures in place already. WALTER: Well, it discourages it. But, you know, frankly speaking you have a gate and it's, you know, people actually have gone through the extent of cutting through our gates. They do that, they come around the gates. We have about in round numbers 14 or 15 miles, excuse me, probably 12 miles of access to the property. And so it doesn't take much to figure out, you know, the weak links in there. And so, you know, it's just a matter of familiarity and, again, there are many uses that don't impact that and there are some that do. WATANABE: Okay. I'd kind of like to get back on to some of the other issues because safety and adequate infrastructure certainly is within the realm of land use considerations. And to that end we have earlier testimony by both Mr. Moore, as well as Mr. Fuke, etc., that the negotiations did not break down over infrastructure adequacy, meaning that the applicant was willing to provide adequate infrastructure to Shipman's satisfaction. And I'd like to have confirmation from you that basically that wasn't the stumbling block. 17 WALTER: Well, let me clarify something. You know, these things are all linked. And so there was a willingness to provide adequate infrastructure that was linked to the uses that would be there; and those uses that would be there were much less than are in the ML zoning. Our opinion is that if you go to just wide open ML zoning that you then, I am not confident that the zoning that would be required typically Public Works or by the County for such zoning would be provided or could be provided. To begin with the right-of-way there is only 40 feet of which only 20 feet is paved. It would require the applicant to somehow buy the extra 20 feet in a situation where -. Again, the background is that much of this was under plantation days and buildings, some of the buildings are built fairly close to the road. In fact, if you go on Keaau Road we have a papaya processing plant that is virtually smack on the road. So part of the, that was handled under the negotiations. But if you throw out one part of it then you set in question the other part also, in our opinion. WATANABE: Okay, could you then share with us at what point you feel the negotiations broke down, where, what was the bottleneck, okay, related or not, whether it's limited uses -. Because I do recall from your earlier testimony at the previous meeting that you were looking at restricting usage, and you were certainly concerned about liability because it's a privately owned road -- all valid concerns, yeah. At what point did those negotiations break down? WALTER: Well, it broke down, as far as I could tell, 8:30 this morning. So I'm hearing that from counsel and talking a little bit with the other party, that there were a couple of issues, one of which did deal with restriction of uses. And again the issue, to me, there is the restriction of uses, and 1 thought we had agreed down to basically the square foot. But at some point I understand the feeling was, well, nonsense, I'm going to do whatever I want to do. Well, do whatever I want to do doesn't take care, doesn't mean that we're going to get adequate infrastructure. Cause I think it's very difficult if not impossible to get, for instance, a 60 -foot right-of-way and get it paved. And, if you did, I still am concerned, maybe I shouldn't be, but, you know, I'm still concerned that we have schools on both sides of this road and you're now going to introduce a fair amount more industrial traffic. You've got a playground on one side and the elementary school on the other. I think that's a problem. But -. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Yeah, I just had a question, Mr. Walter. It's something you said just a few minutes ago about building a 40 -foot road. What is the width of the easement? WALTER: The easement is, the right-of-way is 40 feet of which 20 is paved. When you go beyond that 20 feet, you start running into some physical problems that can be problematic. For instance, you have telephone poles or power poles that you start to run into -. People have placed fences because, remember, it's a private road. So people have placed, from what I can tell, their fences. And their parking area is close to buildings that you're going to start to run into -. And if you're going towards Hilo, again that was all part of the agreement. But if you go towards Hilo you have a problem of a hill which is blind and you also have a couple of bridges that are only 20 feet wide which would have to be rebuilt. And, one last thing, again, you have this agricultural processing plant that is within several feet of the paved road. WOODWARD: Okay. Well, since I serve on the board of two road maintenance corporations, 1 can tell you that the easements belong to the public. They don't belong to the 18 landowners. And if people put things up there you don't have to buy. You already own the easement. So you mentioned something about you have to buy that extra easement, well, that's not true. WALTER: Can I clarify? WOODWARD: Sure. WALTER: The County requirement as I understand it in talking to Daryn earlier is a 60 -foot wide right-of-way from, in this case, 130 down to the property. The current right-of-way infrastructure is only 40 feet. WATANABE: Correct me if I'm wrong because from the previous meeting it was my impression that it's a relatively short distance from the public highway to the subject parcel. I'm not talking about anything beyond that subject property. It was my understanding that we were talking about a very short distance from, again, the public highway to this subject parcel. I realize the subject parcel is not a corner lot. WALTER: It is a corner lot. WATANABE: Oh, it is? WALTER: It is a corner lot. WATANABE: So we're not traversing very much from the property. WALTER: It's about, and I can only guesstimate on this, coming from 130 on Milo it's probably in the neighborhood of down to where the second entrance would be somewhere between a quarter and a half a mile. Going the direction of along Keaau Road and Shipman Road, it is longer and it may be somewhat in excess of half a mile. WATANABE: So conceivably if you have one access on to Milo Road then they could give the County or create an additional 20 -foot easement without affecting anyone else; and obviously traffic would not head towards Hilo because they couldn't get past that 15- or 20 -foot bridge anyway. So they would go out towards -. WALTER: Well, they can get -. WATANABE: Is that correct? WALTER: No. To begin with, again, the easement is not today owned by the County of Hawaii. WATANABE: Right. WALTER: It's a private right-of-way. WATANABE: Right. 19 WALTER: So, I mean you could, let's say you have, taking a middle point, 3/8 of a mile getting to one access on Milo Street, he would have to buy 10 feet on either side in rough numbers and then do whatever, improve another 10 feet on each side to bring it up to 40 feet; and that would be a wider easement. However, going across the bridges and what not, those roads are still 20 feet. People use them all the time. And so his people could come out of Milo Street, hang a right and go to those roads. 1 mean, there's nothing to physically prevent them from doing that. And if they're going towards Hilo and decide that they'll take their chances with the light then, you know, that may happen or if they see, you know, a backup at the light. WATANABE: Yeah, I'm conjecturing on a reasonable person. WALTER: Well, if only we all were. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Well, again, we get back to the same point. You've got a 20 -foot road, you've got a 40 -foot easement, nobody has to buy anything. That's the easement. And if, in fact, they have rights for access then that easement should be included. So what are we talking about having to buy 10 feet on either side. Where does that come from? WALTER: Okay, let me point out two things. In the first place, the supposed access is not on his title. So whether or not he has access is also in question. That has not been resolved. The second is the reason I'm saying you have to buy 10 feet on either side is I'm saying that if you go with this zoning then certainly one would expect that he should bring this road up to what would be the County's standard. The County's standard is 60 feet, not 40 feet. So you'd have to buy an additional 20 feet, however you chop that up to get that roadway up to the County standard. That's wherein the 20 feet comes from. Is that clear? WATANABE: Okay. It's clear. And what I was pointing out is that if the County so desired they could indicate that, you know, you will have only one access from this property, it'll be 200 feet from the intersection, and I don't care how you get the 60 but find it. You see what I'm saying? So what I'm implying is if it's a corner lot we wouldn't require someone on a corner lot to improve a 10 -mile road. WALTER: Yeah, neither did we. WATANABE: Yeah. WALTER: Neither did we. WATANABE: And so that's all I am implying. It's workable, you know. But nevertheless we -. Ms. Bowman, it looks like you have a question. BOWMAN: Yes. 1 have for quite a while. I'm a little confused. If we look at the map provided by M&E Pacific, and maybe I'm backwards, but it does not match, the zoning map. And my concern is because I have questions about the traffic study and, now I lost my page. Ulupono is the light blue on this map? Could you help me staff? 20 WALTER: That's accurate. BOWMAN: Okay. But according to the map I have, we have in our background, the project is like on the other side of the road. Could somebody help me please. WALTER: You want me to point out what you've got here on the left? DARROW: Ms. Bowman, are you looking at the map -? BOWMAN: Oh, okay. Okay, and Milo, okay. Is that Ulupono the other purple, that -? DARROW: Correct. BOWMAN: And that is not developed yet? DARROW: There is at this time a credit union on the corner. I do not believe that there are other developments within that property, correct me if I'm wrong. BOWMAN: Okay. Forgive me cause I didn't -. And Puna Sugar Company Mill land is what, the light green? WALTER: Green. BOWMAN: I And is there anything happening there? WALTER: Power plant. BOWMAN: A power plant, okay. WALTER: Actually the light green is not. I believe the ex -Puna Sugar would be the dark green, between the light green and the purple. BOWMAN: Okay. I'm just trying to get a feel for what -. You know, we're talking about access, and the issue of the road, and what other kinds of uses will be eventually there, because it does say in the traffic study that the Ulupono Town Center has 12 undeveloped lots, totalling 9.55 acres that are zoned MCX. So that's mixed use. Finjust trying to get an idea for future use. The other thing, and I assumed that the schools have been notified of this; and there's nothing, I don't see any testimony from the schools. I know it was brought up that it would increase the traffic. But I would think -. WALTER: My understanding on that, to break in for a second, I did talk to the principal or headmaster, and my understanding is that the elementary school operates on a special use pen -nit and his understanding of that special use permit was that they were not to make comment on any traffic -related issues that may come up on Milo Street. So they have not, they didn't. That is what he told me. Whether that's accurate or not, I can't tell you. But that would explain in part why they're reticent to make any testimony. 21 BOWMAN: Would that be a requirement by the -? 1 mean could the Director -? WALTER: I'm just repeating what the headmaster believes to be the case. BOWMAN: Well, I think that should be clarified because I don't think that would be a requirement for a special use permit. Do you? ARAI: It is not a requirement for people or adjoining landowners to testify either in support or against a particular project. And so it's really at their discretion. It's just that they should be afforded the opportunity to comment if they so desire. WATANABE: I think what Mr. Walter was alluding to, he was implying that based on the information that he got, he's not testifying that it's true, based on the information that he got that the County in their special use permit put a condition in there that restricted them from objecting to traffic concerns. If it was in there, from my past experience it would be an unusual condition. But, you know, you certainly have more experience than I do. ARAI: Well, I'm not familiar with that special permit. Maybe Norman, could you clarify? HAYASHI: Yeah, I don't know what the exact conditions of that particular special permit are. But as you said it is, if it were imposed it is an unusual condition. I doubt it, I doubt if the Planning Commission did in fact impose such a condition. WATANABE: I think the other thing we should recognize is that Keaau is a small area. I would assume that the majority of the students attending those schools live in relatively close proximity to the area. I assume that as their parents bring them to the site that they're going to see a 3 -foot by 4 -foot sign that describes what is being applied for, etc. And so the general public, whether they are notified by mail because they're within 500 feet or not, typically should be aware. And so if the parents themselves had any individual concerns I would think we would have gotten some letters to that effect. BOWMAN: Well, I just want to maybe comment on that. I know a lot of times things that are given to the administration does not get to the parents. I'm not talking in any way -. But that's besides that. Again, the gray area is, what is that zoning between Ulupono -? DARROW: That would be ML, Light Industrial. BOWMAN: ML, Light Industrial. Well, how many acres? DARROW: I'm not sure exactly how many acres; but it appears to be between 10 and 20 acres. BOWMAN: I mean ML, wait. Isn't the applicant asking for ML -1? DARROW: Correct. BOWMAN: Is that ML -1 or you don't know? 22 DARROW: Well, I'm going to look right there. BOWMAN: Oh, okay, sorry -. WOODWARD: Well, let me, if I could just interject. Right now that area is zoned Agricultural. But if you look at the LUPAG Map, it says Industrial, which includes things such as manufacturing, processing, wholesaling, large storage and transportation facilities, light industrial and industrial, commercial uses. So the green is actually zoned Agricultural but it's right across from the Helco Plant. It's not far from Shipman's facility. And -. BOWMAN: I'm asking about the gray. WOODWARD: Okay. BOWMAN: But thank you. WALKER: Gray I believe is essentially the power plant. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman, the gray area is Light hrdustrial 20 acres, 20,000 square feet, ML -20. BOWMAN: Thank you. DARROW: The light green is Agricultural 5 acres. BOWMAN: What is there in the light green now? Sorry. DARROW: I'm not sure. That might be part of the Helco Plant. But the ML Industrial area is where the majority of the plant uses are located. BOWMAN WATANAB E: Thank you. Okay. Ms.Ogata? OGATA: Yes. I have a question. Or maybe if we can get more orientation because the map is not very clear. I hardly ever go down that road and if I do it's to that credit union that's right on the top comer in that purple area. So I never go past that, oh, yes, I guess I've been to the school once. But where exactly is the school on this map? Because I know that if you go down that road if you stop at the school, you wouldn't go past the school to see other things or, I don't know. I mean if your child goes to the school you would stop at the school and then come back out. So -. DARROW: The school is located on the property right here. OGATA: Right there? DARROW: Correct. 23 OGATA: Okay, okay. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions for the testifiers? HOUSEL: Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. HOUSEL: I have one question. We're talking about traffic and increased traffic. Have your reviewed the M&E Pacific Traffic Analysis Report? WALKER: I've only glanced at it. My understanding is it focused primarily on the water bottling plant use. I know when the Police made their report it was based on the water bottling plant as well. HOUSEL: Okay. Have you read the conclusions of the report? WALTER: I have not read them recently. HOUSEL: Okay. The way I read the conclusions which were presented were that this would not present a dramatic increase in the amount of traffic on Milo Street. And the conclusion is that it would not be, you know, an increased safety hazard. Do you dispute that? WALKER: Yes. We dispute it on the basis of the zoning -. If you look at all of the possible uses in the zoning, if I tell you today that I'm going to do x, y, and z but I have zoning that lets me do 1, 2, and 3 additionally, the 1, 2, and 3 may very well occur. There's nothing to stop them, at which point the traffic count and the traffic study become invalid. And that's why we think a special use permit that would lock those in made more sense. WATANABE: Do we have any further questions? HOUSEL: Thank you. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: Yes. That is my concern also. I know with another rezoning we had in Downtown Hilo although the applicant, you know, one of the small businesses, by granting the zoning it didn't limit it, it could have, you know, been a 7 -Eleven or whatever. So I think I have the same concerns. And I know, 1 think we asked this at the last meeting if it is a bottling plant and I know, I think the applicant desired more uses -- would they go for a less dense -? 1 mean -. WATANABE: Well, okay, that will require, you know, both the Department's as well as the applicant's response. And we've heard a lot and there's a lot to chew on. I'd like to kind of finish up the questions that we have outstanding for the testifiers, take a break, and allow then the applicant and the applicant's representatives to come up and respond to some of what has been discussed. And possibly during that break we would have a little more time to digest the amount, you know, all this information that has come in. And I don't necessarily want to rush to 24 a decision just -. Is that okay? Does that sound like a plan? So do we do have any further questions for the applicant? WOODWARD: The only question I have -. WATANABE: Yes? WOODWARD: We've got all the testifiers that have signed up? WATANABE: So far I have them all. I only had three; and Mr. Walter because of the meeting came a little late, but he also had an opportunity. So, yes, we've addressed all of the testifiers. So if there are no further questions for these testifiers, thank you for your testimony, yeah. And let's take ten minutes and we'll have an opportunity again to chew on the information that we've had. We'll reconvene in ten. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:32 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:50 a.m. WATANABE: Let's reconvene. So, Mr. Fuke and Mr. Sulla, I did indicate you'd have a chance to rebut and here's your opportunity. FUKE: Okay, thank you very much. In the interest of time, I'll make my comments very brief. There were a number of issues that were raised by the other parties. You know, one dealt with the community development plan issue; and I think we've tried to make a case in the application that the plan is, the project is consistent with the CDP, notwithstanding, you know, the fact that it may not be specifically identified on the map itself. But I think what was important to kind of point out, which in my previous submittal to the Planning Commission was the General Plan document which says that on maps like this here, you know, where there's any conflict, that the General Plan is controlling. The other issue, you know, related to like the traffic. And I think that in response to Commissioner Bowman's question, I mean, as well as Commissioner Housel I think, so, you know, we waited for the traffic study. The traffic impact study contrary to what was noted by Mr. Walter did address the warehouse, the use of the warehouse. It did not talk only about the bottling facility. And based upon the total analysis then it offered, you know, its conclusion. I just kind of wanted to make that clear. As far as the school testimony, it's my understanding that the applicant did personally meet with representatives of the school and, you know, for its own reasons the school, you know, elected not to testify. And I would suspect that non -testimony would be indicative of more a silent consent rather than a silent objection. Cause normally, you know, you hear objectors coming up much more than you do supporters. The other issue is like relating to, you know, there's this constant argument being made about like, you know, you need a 60 -foot right-of-way for this kind of project, so on and so forth. I mean the provision that was cited is accurate; however, that refers to when and if you propose to subdivide the property. Now if you use that logic that Mr. Walter and his attorney were making, 25 if you use that logic to say that, you know, you shouldn't approve it because the right-of-way, you know, leading to the property is inadequate, so on and so forth, then it would stand to reason that for the most part you can't approve any rezoning in this county. You know, you look at Kaumana Drive, for example, it'S a major collector. That right-of-way varies from 40 to 50 feet. If you look at the two other applications that's going to be following this, and I'm going to be here before you again, but on Manono Street, it calls for a collector street. Hualani Street for example is a regular street, but Hualani Street has a right-of-way of 40 feet. Manono Street has a right-of-way of 50 feet. And so what the Department does as conditions of approval, they require additional right-of-ways. So what you do is you incrementally secure the added and the needed right-of-ways. But if you use that logic to say you don't have enough right-of-way, then I would venture to say none of the rezoning applications that have been considered by the Commission recently, you know, could be favorably considered. Having said that, you know, relative to, and I won't go down the theft issue cause I think that it was well covered, I think, by Commissioner Domingo. But on the issue of the road improvements, 1 would like to kind of suggest, and Mr. Sung the applicant stated that, you know, the improvements that were negotiated with Shipman prior to the negotiations falling apart, he's still willing to make all of those improvements. Now I don't have that specific language before me. However, I did come up with something during the break that generally kind of reflect, could be reflective of that kind of improvements. And it would read something along these lines, "Prior to issuance of occupancy permit, traffic mitigation improvements such as signage and shoulder improvements within the existing right-of-way and between the subject site and through the school site identified by tax map key," and I'll leave that blank cause I don't have it with me, "shall be made. Said improvements shall meet with the approval of the Department of Public Works." Now generally the kinds of mitigation that we were talking about during the negotiations dealt like with making sure that, you know, there is adequate site distance, making some shoulder improvements so that it would not, you know, there will be minimal conflict between the children, the students, and, you know, that activity and any uses below that area, putting up signage, those kind of things, and, you know, coming up with specific plans and, you know, submitting it to the County. So that, I think, pretty much like summarizes the proposed mitigation that we were talking about. But I don't know, that's my part. Now I don't know whether Mr. Sulla wants to -. WATANABE: Mr. Sulla? SULLA: Yes. WATANABE: You have something to add without getting overly technical? SULLA: I hope to and I hope to be very brief. I know we've had a long time with this and a lot of things have been already said. And just to in some ways summarize some of the things that have gleaned through here, it's that there has been a statement that there has been no attempt to deny use in the negotiations, but then their, in that question, in the same situation, the negotiations have been broken down over that, and a few other things that have been sort of testified to. So what has happened is the special use permit route has been shown to be more restrictive than others would have; and we felt there is some sort of a problem because traffic and safety has never been a problem in our negotiations, we've agreed. We've had lots of talks about that in different ways. We even approached and tried to come up with ideas for better security if 26 that was a concern. So it has never been these concerns that have been holding us back. Negotiations have been difficult with the timing back and forth, and it came in the last minute that we didn't reach an agreement. Mr. Sung was flying. yesterday, and I know in good faith they attempted to. But the problem was, is that I think there's a breakdown of confidence in whether we can reach an agreement that's permanent. It keeps changing for us, and I know they can say the same. So in that case two parties always, it's either two parties are going to make a deal or they're not. And at this stage we have concerns of why the Shipman would have no problem with the earlier, another bottling plant that's going to go up there in 30 acres and use the same roads and didn't have the restrictions, didn't have the problems that we're having, which seems to be our site is just as well suited for. And we don't know why we're being singled out to have to sort of do some dances we don't feel are necessary or actually fair. But we're going to continue to negotiate as we do this. But we're going to ask the Commission if it would grant this with the condition that we solve the problem of the legal easement. It's a technical problem and there is one legal issue involved about that portion of the road. You see, the roadways in three parts were intersected by the railroad roads. And so there's little sections in our, that weren't owned by Shipman when they granted it; but under the law when you grant something, when you promise somebody something and you don't have it and later obtain it and that party relied upon it, under law, that's an automatic. You're granted. That's called promissory estoppel. Now if that becomes a Circuit Court action, then so be it. But we're not, it shouldn't be the Planning Commission'to stop us now; and let us deal with the condition that we have to do to satisfy that part and parcel. And so we want that opportunity to do that. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions for the applicant's representative? Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: If you get that ML -I, that would allow you ten different endeavors eventually, right? FUKE: Can 1 answer that question? WATANABE: Sure. FUKE: The ML -1, the one it refers to, you know, should the applicant decide or the property owner decide to subdivide the property, then each of the respective lots would have to have a minimum of 1 acre. So the property across the street is like, I think it was ML -20. So what that means is that if that person wanted to subdivide it, then each lot would have to have a minimum of 20,000 square feet. So at this point in time Mr. Sung has no planS on subdividing the property; and i think one of the proposed conditions that the staff had suggested was that the existing lot be consolidated, correct. BOWMAN: Okay. And then just correct me or help me, then if they did come in for a subdivision obviously the road would be, the access would be another major issue? WATANABE: Not necessarily. BOWMAN: I mean as far adequate access is what I'm saying. 27 WATANABE: Not necessarily. As I indicated earlier, you know, when they subdivide, you could say that everyone would cross, traverse the properties within that 10 -acre area and have only one access to Milo Road, in which case -. BOWMAN: Right. WATANABE: You know, then you don't have an issue. All you're doing is reducing -. BOWMAN: Well, the issue still would be Milo Road. The issue would be -. FUKE: Can I maybe amplify upon that and maybe Mr. Arai can further corroborate or not corroborate. Until Milo Street is dedicated to the County, it'd still be considered like a private road. And so should there be a subdivision of this 10 -acre site, then within the 10 -acre, you know, all of the requirements that Mr. Walter or others were talking about, 60 -foot right-of-way so on and so forth, they would have to be complied with. But because the property fronts a private road, then it would be at the discretion of the Planning Director upon advice of the Public Works whether additional improvements would have to be made. Can you confirm that? WATANABE: Mr. Arai. ARAI: That is true in a sense that normally the full standards, the 60 -foot minimum width, are normally imposed within interior subdivision roadways. Because no roadways are being designed for this particular project the Planning Department will use its discretion in consultation with Public Works to determine the level of improvements that we think is appropriate and commensurate with the scale of the project to be provided along say the Milo Street frontage. It doesn't necessarily mean that we will ask that the full burden will be placed on the applicant to provide a full 60 -foot width, curbs, gutters and sidewalks, or whatever. We may make them only do like a portion of it; and maybe the full width can be accommodated later by a future road widening, or easement, or something. But, again, we always strive to attempt to meet the County's standards, but there has to be a practical implementation of those improvements. BOWMAN: Thank you. And so, and forgive me for, but I really want to get a long term -. So there are eight existing warehouses, right, and some of the warehouses are going to be the bottling plant and then the others you're going to rent or lease. So your traffic study, I'm trying to understand it, is based on -? FUKE: It's 60,000 square feet of warehouse space. SULLA: Sixty five. BOWMAN: Sixty five thousand square feet of warehouse space, which would include about how many businesses? I'm just trying to get a feel cause your traffic study says that there's, I think, a.m. there's like 27 cars, p.m. 45. I'm just trying to think if that's realistic. Ijust am concerned with the density and the traffic on an already narrow road. 28 FUKE: Can I answer that? WATANABE: Sure. FUKE: The traffic study was predicated upon like all of the, you know, the anticipated uses. And what the, you know, based on 60,000 square feet of warehouse space and, you know, they're going to be within whatever is allowed within the ML zone, except like a home improvement center, for example, like a Home Depot or whatever have you. And the traffic engineers, they utilize, there's a certain table that's associated with the number of traffic generation by square foot for certain types of uses; and that's how they had arrived at that conclusion. The other thing, too,1 would like to kind of point out is that the staff's preliminary recommendation has a condition, and I'd like to read that to you. It's Condition I which says that "Should the applicant develop a land use that would generate significantly more trips than what was described in the traffic impact analysis report, a revised TIAR shall be submitted for review and approval by the Department of Public Works. The applicant shall implement at no cost to the County any transportation improvements deemed necessary by DPW." So there is like a, in the event like, you know, whatever was represented here proves to be obsolete, then there is an additional safeguard on the part of the County to require -. ARAI: And, Mr. Chairman, if 1-? WATANABE: Yes. ARAI: Just as a reminder to everyone, the recommendation has not been put on the floor. FUKE: I'm sorry. ARAI: I mean the Department had not introduced a formal recommendation on this project. So we shouldn't be discussing particular conditions. FUKE: I apologize. SULLA: Could I just address one point to clarify on the use. In the discovery of all this, the 1938 date has this interesting fact: First of all, we're relying upon it for the easement and we've discussed there's a grant of easement in that. And we found also there are restrictions that we weren't aware of as clearly. But they're actually going to, according to Shipman, be applicable to us; and that has to do with any kind of high density retail use is restricted under that 1938 restriction, that's already in our deed. So we're not going in that direction, has no intention of going in that direction, to compete or to go against that restriction. So it's not really an issue for us because we weren't going in that direction, don't intend to. But it's just an interesting example about how that 1938 deed really covers all these points already before us. And so we can clarify -. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions? It doesn't seem like it. You may be seated then. And then, let's see, Mr. Arai, I don't know where this is headed, obviously, 29 yeah. We don't have a motion on the table yet; however, I know you have been working on a condition with regard to the access issue should the need for that condition arise. And earlier you clarified that really the Department has not put forth this recommendation officially yet. So let me ask you couple of things. Based on all of the testimony that has occurred today, as well as the previous meeting, would you be willing to stand behind this recommendation with, or the previously proposed recommendations, with an added condition that would address the access issue? ARAI: I guess you saw me working feverishly in the background, right? Based on the testimony presented I believe I would be comfortable at this time to offer a recommendation to the Planning Commission; and that recommendation would be a favorable recommendation, subject to, however, conditions of approval. At this point in time I would, if it's okay with you, Mr. Chairman -- I know that the recommendation was previously distributed to all of theCommissioners-- and 1 need to confirm if whether or not this recommendation was also offered to the applicant and maybe even Shipman. JVa :►:C Mr. Chair? Yes, Mr. Fake. FUKE: On behalf of the applicant, yes, the applicant has received the recommendation of the Planning Department -. WATANABE: Okay, please remain there because I'm sure we have an added condition that we'd certainly want your input on this as the applicant's representative. And maybe this is a good time to review -. ARAI: Well, before we go any further, for the record, I guess, I would like to note that we are offering a favorable recommendation; and that recommendation was previously distributed to you; and I think it carries the date of 12/01/08. We could also make sure that Shipman, a representative from Shipman, has a copy of this recommendation report. Is it -? WALTER: I don't -. WATANABE: Sharon is taking it over. ARAI: Maybe we need to give them a few moments to look it over before we start. WATANABE: Well, while we're on that though, you know, and I don't know if this would even fly with the Commission because obviously we haven't deliberated at all on this. To that end if this is going to be adopted I assume that you're going to remain firm on your stance with regard to the access issue; and we had been discussing an added condition to this. So while Shipman is looking over the now proposed recommendation would you care to share with the applicant's representative? ARAI: Sure. In a moment. If I could defer to Mr. Hayashi. 917 HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, I believe the representative for Shipman was afforded the, was provided with a copy of the proposed recommendation at the previous meeting, although we did pull back the recommendation prior to the hearing. And I think Mr. Yeh did have an opportunity to review the proposed recommendation at that time. WATANABE: Okay. So, the record then will reflect they have had an opportunity. Do we want to at this point discuss then the added condition, or any revisions to the conditions? ARAI: Sure, thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I should also note that the recommendation also includes the recommendation for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment that accompanies -. WATANABE: That's correct, right, right. ARAI: Right. So at this point I'm not offering or suggesting any amendment to the State Land Use Boundary Amendment -. WATANABE: Right. ARAI: Conditions. And I'll be focusing all on the change of zone conditions. What I was looking at is condition, proposed Condition K on page 2 of the recommendation report where it reads, "Access from the subject properties over Railroad Avenue shall be restricted until the applicant provides evidence of access rights meeting with the approval of the Planning Director." That condition in its entirety should be struck out and replaced by the following condition, and I'll try to read it slowly: "Appropriate proof of access from the subject property over Railroad Avenue shall be submitted to the Planning Department prior to the issuance of final plan approval of any new use or new structure on the subject property." WATANABE: Oh, so for new use or -. ARAI: New structure. And part of the, let me elaborate, part of the reason for this is that we recognize that there are existing uses and structures on the property and, you know, we're not going to be in a position at this time to restrict access to any uses. Those uses are there, they're operating today probably, and we're not going to be in a point to restrict access to those existing uses. And this affords the applicant the opportunity, along with Shipman, to hopefully resolve the concerns regarding legitimate access to the property. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I think that -? WATANABE: Yes. FUKE: Maybe Mr. Sulla can explain. There's like two different issues, the Railroad is on one side of the property; and then the other one is the Milo Street extension which is not necessarily the Railroad Avenue. SULLA: Could I just add one -? WATANABE: Sure. 31 SULLA: Just so we're clear here. The Railroad Avenue runs this way; and the Milo Street comes this way. We're really only focusing on our Milo Street access and we're probably not going to pursue the rights-of-way through the Railroad Avenue access. So that this ' condition, we'll not even try to meet that condition cause we're not attempting to access on that road, Avenue. WATANABE: Okay. May I suggest that we add to that and/or Milo Street which then would address that. And in the event you change your mind and decide you're going to go toward Railroad, it still applies. SULLA: Yes. But I'm not making representations of our rights-of-way on Railroad Avenue, to be clear here. WATANABE: Yeah, l understand that. SULLA: That's a different animal. Milo Street is the one that we have the access and the technical problem. And we know we're going to have it clarified with no problem. WATANABE: Yeah, so we'll revise that condition if everyone is in agreement. FUKE: You could possibly still leave Condition K and just add a new condition as what Mr. Arai is saying and just change Railroad Avenue to Milo Street. SULLA: Yeah, just change it to Milo Street and then it will be applicable because what we've talked about is waiting to have that -. ARAI: You indicated that we should leave Condition K as written? SULLA: Leave Condition K because there's a possibility in our applications and in our negotiations that we may get Railroad Avenue still. That's up in the air but it's a little more of a long -shot for us right now. What we would like to do is leave it because it doesn't harm us, but the condition really should apply to Milo Street, only that you're attempting that now. WATANABE: Which would be like a new Condition L and everything else relettered? FUKE: Correct. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? FUKE: Yes. HAYASHI: I think there needs to be some clarification as to what, how they're getting to the property, whether they do have access rights over Railroad Avenue or is the problem Milo Street? So we need to -. WATANABE: It's my understanding that the problem is Milo Street, but I'll defer to the applicant. 32 HAYASHI: Because staff was under the understanding that it was Railroad Avenue that was the problem, that they had no access traversing across Railroad Avenue to get to the property. FUKE: You are correct, you are correct. And then the -. HAYASHI: And that is why we included Condition K, or I, or whatever the condition -. FUKE: Correct, you are correct. And so the other issue relates to the Milo Street Extension which serves as the primary access to the property; and so that's the issue right now. HAYASHI: I think as far as we're concerned the issue is with Railroad Avenue, whether you have access traversing Railroad Avenue. SULLA: That's a similar concern. That's one of the three parts that have come up that Attorney Moore presented. That is a little more of a difficulty because how do we traverse it? Well, since, two reasons. One, Shipman has obtained access to it so therefore the issue that I discussed was called promissory estoppel where they agreed to convey it to us. We have access, we've been using it, and now they obtained the rights to it; so essentially they're foreclosed or they're estopped from claiming we can't have it. But that's a legal situation that -. WATANABE: Okay, so this is one of the three issues, that theoretically in 1938 they provided easement over it but it was an imperfected easement because technically they did not have the ownership rights to provide an easement to it. Now, however, they do have? SULLA: Yeah. At that time they didn't, but they've since subsequently obtained it. WATANABE: Okay, okay. So it was brought up in an earlier discussion. But overall the real thrust as far as infrastructure adequacy, safety, etc., it has been in reference to Milo Street, right? SULLA: Correct. WATANABE: Okay. HAYASHI: Yes, we understand that. WATANABE: Okay. HAYASHI: And the concern we had is it was brought up that they don't have the right to traverse Railroad Avenue to get to their property, which is along Milo Street. SULLA: Okay. In that regard then it's a two-part problem. We have the access, the technical access issue of the Milo Street, and then we have the access or crossing, traversing Railroad Avenue and the other parts. So it's a double -type of approval that we have to show, and which we will or are attempting to do. 33 WATANABE: Mr. Hayashi, then in that case it's likely that we should retain and, just for the record, it is lettered K, right now. HAYASHI: Well, you can either retain it or -. But I think the Director indicated the alternate condition; and perhaps that condition could be further amended to say "Railroad Avenue and/or Milo Street." WATANABE: Okay. And that suits me fine. Do the parties agree? SULLA: That's okay. That's okay with us. WATANABE: So then we would revise the entire K to read exactly what Mr. Arai stated except that we would insert after "Railroad Avenue," "and/or Milo Street," right? SULLA: No problem. FUKE: That's fine. WATANABE: So that covers both issues. FUKE: So I want to kind of like get an understanding just for the record. And so if I'm hearing what Mr. Arai is saying, it's that there are some existing uses and there are like some, there may be some proposed uses that's consistent with the existing agricultural zoning, and so the restriction would not apply to those existing uses or those uses that are presently allowed under the Agricultural zone. Or are you just saying any new use, regardless of current zoning or new proposed zoning? ARAI: The requirement for plan approval only applies to new uses that would be introduced once the zoning, if the applicant is successful in getting the zoning put into place. So whatever is there now I suspect has gone through the proper review and approval processes. We won't be revisiting those existing uses. WATANABE: For clarification, Mr. Fuke, I think in the stricter sense it means only what is existing. Any new use, you know, you have to clear up this access issue on both roads, Railroad as well as Milo. Right? SULLA: With regard to an access, basically, yes. WATANABE: Right. Right, right, right, just access. SULLA: Okay. All right, okay. WATANABE: Strictly access, this condition is strictly related to access, legal access. SULLA: But just to be clarified — it's not requiring us to get access over all of Railroad Avenue? 34 WATANABE: No, no, no -. SULLA: Okay. That's all I wanted to make clear. WATANABE: No, no. Access to your property, legal access, that's all. FUKE: Basically there has to be a breach over Railroad Avenue. WATANABE: Right, right, exactly. And I realize it's a very limited area. We're not talking ingress/egress. Yeah? FUKE: Right. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I think we've gotten down to why does the chicken cross the road. WATANABE: Well, let me make sure, before we entertain a motion I suspect you're ready to make a motion. BOWMAN: I have a question. WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: Just so 1 can be sure, what is operating out of there presently? What kind of -? SULLA: It was run down and it was not used for a considerable amount of years. Prior to that it was used for agricultural purposes. They had an auto repair, heavy equipment repair in there, and they had a lot of these different uses for the sugar. Puna Sugar used it all for Puna Sugar. FUKE: What uses are there now? SULLA: Now, presently it's in renovation. I think there is some storage, some agricultural storage going on, some agricultural products in one area; and generally it's all renovations as he's putting a lot of money into all the improvements now. BOWMAN: This is my concern because I think it's kind of ambiguous with the new, with the acting director's new requirement, because it says before any new use, new use. So all of these will be new uses. WATANABE: That's right. So he can continue with the renovations, right? BOWMAN: Okay. WATANABE: But until, once he tries to sublet to someone else or tries to use it for -. 35 BOWMAN: Okay, the bottling or anything? WATANABE: He needs plan approval. But before he can get plan approval he has to prove that he has legal access. BOWMAN: The access, okay. WATANABE: It's not convoluted in any way, I don't think. BOWMAN: Okay. I was not sure if there were any present uses at this time. So what's happening now is just the renovation to create these opportunities? SULLA: Well, I think that actually there were existing uses that were not being pursued and he started to pick some of those up in terns of having some storage there for some agricultural products, storing some papaya puree there, and things like that. So that was the use of the property. When he acquired it it just had fallen by the wayside. Ag is the present use it has. So-. BOWMAN: Okay. I'm just trying to clarify. Good. Thank you WATANABE: Okay. It sounds like some of us are ready to entertain a motion. But before we do that, let me ask the Director if lie has additional conditions or concerns that, you know, we might want to visit now? ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. One statement that I would like to offer the Commission and if you do decide to forward a favorable recommendation to the County Council, I would like this statement to be included in your recommendation to the Council. And that statement would read, "Testimony both in writing and verbally was presented during the Planning Commission hearing on this particular application that raised the question of whether legal access exists to the subject property over and across Railroad Avenue and Milo Street. This issue remains unresolved, but there remains an opportunity for the applicant and the objecting party to resolve this issue," end of sentence. I wanted to include that just to prompt the Council that -. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. ARAI: Yeah, and not send something up without letting them know. WATANABE: Right. And that's a good heads up, I think. 1 don't think anyone would object to that. Do we have any further, though, revisions to any of these conditions, inclusive of now, you know -? Cause we have to address the State LUC. And is there any proposed revision to that? ARAI: At this point I'm not looking at any further amendments to the recommendation on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. WATANABE: Okay, okay, thank you. Then, yes, Mr. Domingo. 36 DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, in regards to the suggestion by the Planning Director and in deference to what he's suggesting, I think it's a common practice that the minutes of the Commission and proceedings of the Commission are sent to the Council with a recommendation And what we're doing through the suggestion is highlighting one of the issues, yeah. And although it may not be a precedent, or I don't know if we've done this in other applications, but I think if we're doing this I think it's okay, it's fine. It's for the benefit of the Council people to know that this is a particular issue of concern among the residents, among those adjacent to the property, that they be notified of this. I have no position to it. But I'd just like to mention that this is, what we have to do is something that we have not done in every other application that has come before us. WATANABE: Yes. And I think admittedly this particular set of circumstances is rather unusual in that typically legal established access is not a question. So maybe it's fine. I don't think it will be precedent setting in that regard. And if we have nothing, well, we can continue this discussion in deliberation. I suspect -. Mr. Hayashi, do you have something to add? HAYASHI: Yes. It was just brought to my attention, on page 3 of the recommendation, if you look at the second sentence. WATANABE: Page 3 of the land use or -? HAYASHI: Oh, Page 4, I'm sorry, on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment. And it states the Land Study Bureau's Overall Master Productivity Rating is class "C" or "Fair" and Unclassified. And the next sentence says "While the potential for agricultural uses may exist, the soil conditions within the site and surrounding area would preclude such agricultural activities from being conducted." I would suggest that that particular sentence be deleted. WATANABE: Deleted? HAYASHI: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Are we all clear on that one then, a rather minor revision? Okay, we would entertain a motion then. Let's begin with the Land Use Boundary Amendment Application SLU 08-000021. Is there anyone that cares to propose a motion or make a motion? Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: I move for the adoption of State Land Use Boundary Amendment SLU 08-000021, that would be the State Land Use Boundary Amendment, from the Agricultural to the Urban District for 10.373 acres of land, I move for the approval. WATANABE: A favorable recommendation forwarded to Council? DOMINGO: Yes, a favorable recommendation. WOODWARD: I assume that you're going to include the revisions -? DOMINGO: Oh, yes. 37 WOODWARD: That Mr. Hayashi -? DOMINGO: Oh, yes, yes. WOODWARD: All right, then I will second it. WATANABE: Okay, it has been moved and seconded to send a favorable recommendation on the State Land Use Boundary Amendment as amended. Any further discussion on this matter? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Just for the record, I will vote for it, but I am very concerned about the present state of the road and the density issue that added traffic may have. So I just want to voice my opinion on that. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further discussion. Mr. Darrow? DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to approve the State Land Use Boundary Amendment with the deletion as described on Page 4 of the recommendation. With that I'll take the roll call. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: IAnd Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. WATANABE: Okay. We have a second part to this, and this would be the Change of Zone Application. Mr. Domingo? 911 DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I move for the Commission to send a favorable recommendation to Council for the approval of the Change of Zone from Agricultural 20 -acre to a Limited Industrial 1 -acre district for this said parcel. WATANABE: And with the revised Condition K as discussed? DOMINGO: Yes, with the revised Condition K as discussed, and with inclusion of the Planning Director's statement. WATANABE: Thank you. WOODWARD: Second. WATANABE: Okay, it has been moved and seconded. Do we need to discuss this any further? Mr. Darrow.' DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I'll take the roll call. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward'? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Housel? HOUSEL: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to zero. WATANABE: Thank you. So you'll be informed in writing. And good luck with your access issues. FUKE: Thank you very much for your understanding. 39 SULLA: Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 11:32 a.m. 40 Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary