|
WOODWARD: We’ve got all the testifiers that have signed up?
<br />WATANABE: So far I have them all. I only had three; and Mr. Walter because of the
<br />meeting came a little late, but he also had an opportunity. So, yes, we’ve addressed all of the
<br />testifiers. So if there are no further questions for these testifiers, thank you for your testimony,
<br />yeah. And let’s take ten minutes and we’ll have an opportunity again to chew on the information
<br />that we’ve had. We’ll reconvene in ten.
<br />RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 10:32 a.m.
<br />RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 10:50 a.m.
<br />WATANABE: Let’s reconvene. So, Mr. Fuke and Mr. Sulla, I did indicate you’d have a
<br />chance to rebut and here’s your opportunity.
<br />FUKE: Okay, thank you very much. In the interest of time, I’ll make my
<br />comments very brief. There were a number of issues that were raised by the other parties. You
<br />know, one dealt with the community development plan issue; and I think we’ve tried to make a
<br />case in the application that the plan is, the project is consistent with the CDP, notwithstanding,
<br />you know, the fact that it may not be specifically identified on the map itself. But I think what
<br />was important to kind of point out, which in my previous submittal to the Planning Commission
<br />was the General Plan document which says that on maps like this here, you know, where there’s
<br />any conflict, that the General Plan is controlling.
<br />The other issue, you know, related to like the traffic. And I think that in response to
<br />Commissioner Bowman’s question, I mean, as well as Commissioner Housel I think, so, you
<br />know, we waited for the traffic study. The traffic impact study contrary to what was noted by
<br />Mr. Walter did address the warehouse, the use of the warehouse. It did not talk only about the
<br />bottling facility. And based upon the total analysis then it offered, you know, its conclusion. I
<br />just kind of wanted to make that clear.
<br />As far as the school testimony, it’s my understanding that the applicant did personally meet with
<br />representatives of the school and, you know, for its own reasons the school, you know, elected
<br />not to testify. And I would suspect that non-testimony would be indicative of more a silent
<br />consent rather than a silent objection. Cause normally, you know, you hear objectors coming up
<br />much more than you do supporters.
<br />The other issue is like relating to, you know, there’s this constant argument being made about
<br />like, you know, you need a 60-foot right-of-way for this kind of project, so on and so forth. I
<br />mean the provision that was cited is accurate; however, that refers to when and if you propose to
<br />subdivide the property.Now if you use that logic that Mr. Walter and his attorney were making,
<br />if you use that logic to say that, you know, you shouldn’t approve it because the right-of-way,
<br />you know, leading to the property is inadequate, so on and so forth, then it would stand to reason
<br />that for the most part you can’t approve any rezoning in this county. You know, you look at
<br />Kaumana Drive, for example, it’s a major collector. That right-of-way varies from 40 to 50 feet.
<br />If you look at the two other applications that’s going to be following this, and I’m going to be
<br />here before you again, but on Manono Street, it calls for a collector street. Hualani Street for
<br />example is a regular street, but Hualani Street has a right-of-way of 40 feet. Manono Street has a
<br /> EXHIBIT A
<br />25
<br />
<br />
|