Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-06 TSUMIDA PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 6, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of CARNOR J. SUMIDA (SPP 08-000053) was called to order at 11:35 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Alvin Rho Shelly Ogata Rene’ Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: CARNOR J. SUMIDA (SPP 08-000053) Special Permit to allow the establishment of a baseyard for trucks and trailers on 0.9 acre of land situated within the State Land Use Agricultural District. The property is located between rd Highway 130 (Keaau – Pahoa Road) and 33 Avenue, Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii TMK: 1-5-16:72. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 3 is Carnor J. Sumida (SPP 08-000053). We’re going to have Mr. Darrow provide us with the staff presentation before we take on the testifiers in this situation. So, Mr. Darrow. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If we could just hold on for a minute here. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If I can direct your attention to the board, the applicant in this case is Carnor J. Sumida. He’s requesting a special permit to allow the establishment of a baseyard for rd trucks and trailers on 0.9 acre of land on 33 Avenue in the Hawaiian Paradise Park Subdivision. This is an area that has been a focus of special permits for the last five years. There have rd previously been four permits on Makuu and 33, this is in between Paradise Park and Makuu Avenue. Just for reference we have the Keaau-Pahoa Road, Highway 130, running in a north/south direction, and we also have Makuu Avenue running in a mauka/makai direction. The EXHIBIT C 1 rd 33 Avenue is a short street. It does not go all the way to Paradise Park. It has a deadend rd approximately in this area. Access is from 33 and from the Highway. This particular map, what I’ve done is I’ve indicated with black dots the previous special permits that were issued. The area of the special permit application for this application is identified with a black outline. Previously, as I mentioned, in the past five years we have had four other special rd permits on Makuu and 33. These include: Whitney Investment and Mango Trust, they’re located two lots away from the applicant; Walter Tavares had applied and received a special permit for an auto repair and towing business; Greg Plescia had received a special permit for a commercial kitchen to process foods; and, lastly, Vern Wood had received a special permit for a contractor’s baseyard, mainly for his water business. The applicant in this case is requesting a special permit to allow an uncovered parking lot for up to 15 tractor-trailers, 3 water trucks, a water and freight trailers on a compacted red cinder surface. Also, a storage container to store truck parts and related equipment, a six-foot chain link fence and podocarpus trees along the perimeter to be able to mitigate the visual impacts of the rd parking lot. And, lastly, access will be limited to 33 Avenue. What I’ve done is I’ve put a copy of the area of the General Plan. The dark brown color that you see in the majority of the area is identified as Rural in the General Plan. You’ll see a few orange areas, these are Medium Density Urban that was changed in the last General Plan Amendment. thth We have one area identified on Kaloli between 13 and 15 that’s identified for Industrial uses under the General Plan. This particular area, these applicants that came in previously had unique conditions. They had a five-year permit life for each of these four previous conditions. So every five years they need to come back before the Planning Commission. Three of these four permits had another condition rd that stated no extension of the permit will be granted unless paving was done on 33 Avenue. At this time paving has not been done. At this time also we have two of the applicants that are preparing to come before the Planning Commission for a time extension request. This was a time, in review of this application, for the Planning Director to look at the long-range land use pattern, or land use plan for this particular area; and he has made a decision that this is not an appropriate area to establish a Light Industrial area. It’s not consistent with the General Plan. At this time this area is Rural under the General Plan designation. There are areas located within Keaau that allow for these, and Pahoa, that allow for Industrial-type uses, mainly Shipman Industrial Park. The area near Milo Street is identified for General Plan Industrial uses. We thth have the industrial node, as mentioned, on Kaloli between 13 and 15; and also in Pahoa we have quite a large Urban Expansion area where Malama Market is also located. The Planning Director is recommending that this application be denied at this time, or that it be deferred until we receive a response from a correspondence that the Planning Director had sent rd out to lot owners on both the mauka side and the makai side of 33 asking for their opinion as to whether or not they would be supportive of seeing this area being transitioned into a Light Industrial area. These letters have been submitted to the Planning Commission for review. They do go into detail as to what is requesting of these land owners, and also it has questions for them whether they would be supportive of participating in improvements, such as road improvements, water improvements, and landscaping improvements. Again, at this time the Planning Director EXHIBIT C 2 is recommending either a denial or that it be deferred until these opinions come back from the lot owners. There is a request to send these back to the Planning Commission by June 16, 2008. I just want to bring to your attention that there have been several correspondence brought to the Planning Department since the application was submitted. The two letters we mentioned, one to nd the makai lot owners, one to the mauka lot owners, dated June 2. We have a letter of support from Councilperson Emily Naeole. And, additionally, this morning we received a packet from the applicant’s representative addressing the issues of this recommendation. Are there any questions? WATANABE: Any questions? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Being that I don’t live in this area, I’m just trying to get an overall picture of the proposed industrial areas in Pahoa. You named several like in Keaau Shipman, and then in Pahoa. How far away from this area is like the closest? I’m just -. DARROW: The closest would be that area we had just mentioned, which is within thth Paradise Park on 13 and 15. There are some issues with this in regards to ownership of the property as well as being able to accommodate improvements for an Industrial zone. The next areas would be Milo Street which is between Keaau and Hawaiian Paradise Park where you’ll see the new credit union that was built. That particular area has General Plan Industrial. Going further towards Keaau you have Shipman Industrial Park. I believe that’s approximately six to seven miles away from this property. BOWMAN: And the Credit Union is how far away? I’m sorry. DARROW: I would guess to say three to four miles. PUBLIC: Farther. BOWMAN: Well, maybe we can get that -. DARROW: Yeah, it could be a little farther. Pahoa would be the next area going towards that area. And Malama Market is kind of representative of that particular location. WATANABE: Okay? Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. In the submission that Sandra brought in this morning are included a bunch of exhibits; and these are the applications, and actually the recommendations, for the other rd special permits that were permitted temporarily along 33. And each of them has a requirement for landscaping to be established and maintained at a minimum field of 10 feet and minimum depth of four feet within and along all property boundaries. And I can tell you right now that all of those applicants are in violation to one extent or another. And I’m very concerned about granting any more permits when people are not following the terms and conditions. And I know that Sumida didn’t do that. But what I’m asking is -. WATANABE: Well, Ms. Siracusa, we’re not deliberating yet. EXHIBIT C 3 SIRACUSA: I know. I’m about to ask a question. I was prefacing it. What I’m asking is is there any possibility of putting in conditions saying that the landscaping has to be in place before anything can happen, before any of the other decisions or policies take place? DARROW: This would be a matter that the Planning Commission could put as a condition of the permit. WATANABE: Yeah. And maybe it would be more appropriate to discuss that a little further on in our proceedings, yeah? So do we have any further questions of staff? Because I have a number of people that would like to testify and get back to work, as I had mentioned earlier. No questions? Okay.Now regarding testifiers on this, I have Peter Lum and John Gapp signed up. So I could call both of these individuals up, please. SIRACUSA: We haven’t had the applicant yet. WATANABE: I understand that. As I stated earlier, yeah, we’re going to take testimony first cause these people have to go back to work. SIRACUSA: I’m sorry, I missed that. WATANABE: We also only received this so most of us haven’t had a chance to go through this yet. Okay, would you both raise your right hands, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Would you like to start, sir? If you’d like to start, please state your name and address for the record. J. GAPP: My name is John Gapp. I have a shop couple lots away from Sumida’s, it’s a contractor’s warehouse; and we’re up for special permit renewal. We’re in the process of doing that right now. And we just received the application, or I guess it was a survey to poll the rd people on 33 Street. We had done a similar survey a year and a half ago and it came back with positive feedback from all the neighbors, all the lot owners. And so we’re optimistic that it’s going to move ahead. We’re also excited about paving the road.But I think it may be premature to pave the road until they decide on the future zoning designation, because they may want to put water underground and wouldn’t want to tear the road up to put water in after-the-fact. So I think it’s important to determine if it’s going to be future zoned and needs all the improvements, that we do everything in the right order. WATANABE: Okay. Anything else to add to that, Mr. Gapp? J. GAPP: I noticed that Carnor Sumida made the improvements on the corner going rd out from 33 Street to Makuu for the trucks to be able to make the radius there. I think the Planning Department or somebody had asked him to make some road improvements so that he could pull the trucks in and out; and those improvements have been completed. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Gapp? No? Is that it then? EXHIBIT C 4 J. GAPP: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. That’s it. Mr. Lum? LUM: Hi, my name is Peter Lum. I’m here for Carnor Sumida trying to get a special permit. I just want to help out here. WATANABE: We would need your address please, first. th LUM: Oh, I live on 28 Street in Paradise Park. WATANABE: Yeah, thank you. LUM: And we’re just trying to get some, you know, work for you. I mean, you know, we want the special permit for the island, you know. We’re trying to make it all good, looking really nice. We want the Board to really go out and look at it. I mean, you know, we worked hard on it. We’re all for the people, you know. I mean the island needs work so we’re here to provide. Okay? WATANABE: Do we have any questions? BOWMAN: Just a quick question. So you work for Mr. Sumida? th LUM: Oh, I live on 28 Street. BOWMAN: Okay. LUM: And I’ve helped him on the lot; and I’ve seen all the workers there, and they’re all excited to move there. So, you know, I mean, we’re just there to help him out. BOWMAN: To move their trucks there? LUM: To put their trucks there. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. LUM: Okay. SUMIDA: Can I add something? WATANABE: Yes. SUMIDA: We’ve been looking for other Light Industrial property where we could possibly move our company to, because that’s one of the provisions in the Special Permit, to look for another spot. And as early as just this last week we got another report back from our realtor saying that there was nothing within a four-mile radius that was zoned for the work that EXHIBIT C 5 we do. And we have been continually looking for another place to move to, but there’s nothing available in that area. WATANABE: Thank you. And to add to that you’ve stated that you all, and to your rd knowledge most of the people on 33 Street, are definitely interested in making the improvements? SUMIDA: Oh, yeah. WATANABE: Even if it’s going to be, I assume, a substantial sum? SUMIDA: Right. We have bids on it and we’re ready to do it; but I’m not sure if, No. 1, we want to commit to doing it until we know that we’re going to be able to stay at least a little while, because that would be a waste of money. And, also, more importantly, I think, is since you’re doing a census now to get consensus to see if it’s going to be zoned for Light Industrial, future zoning designation, that it should be done in the right order; and the water, of course, needs to go in before the road, if that’s the case. WATANABE: Thank you. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: Aren’t waterlines generally running down the easement but not through the pavement? SUMIDA: The waterline needs to go in before the pavement or the pavement will be torn up during the installation of the waterline. It’s right on the shoulder, right on the edge. WOODWARD: Okay. I only know what I’ve seen in the past. And that is generally you’ll have a 20-foot piece of road and a 40-foot easement, and generally they put in water and sewer lines on the easement, but not on the pavement. So how is the pavement going to be torn up if they put a waterline in on the easement? SUMIDA: Normally it’s right on the edge of pavement or 5 feet in from the pavement, and not over on the gravel shoulder, is my experience. WOODWARD: Okay. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, do we have any further questions? Since I am taking testifiers on the Sumida application, is there anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? M. GAPP: I’d like to. Do I need to come up? WATANABE: Yes, Ma’am. You’re going to have to come up if you’d like to testify. Can you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? EXHIBIT C 6 M. GAPP: I do. WATANABE: Would you state your name and address, please. M. GAPP: Maureen Gapp, I live on Pilikai Street in Paradise Park. I’m John’s wife. Some of the things they didn’t mentioned was that Paradise Park has changed their plan to rd include 33 Street as Light Industrial. Jeffrey had mentioned that down on Kaloli there’s something that the General Plan is going to call Light Industrial. That would require rd infrastructure. And although it would be expensive to put a road and waterline on 33 Street, to do it down on Kaloli would cost somewhere in the neighborhood of $10,000,000. It’s unrealistic. WATANABE: Why do you feel, is that that much further down? M. GAPP: Three miles. WATANABE: Okay. J. GAPP: There’s no infrastructure down there where there is up by the Highway. rd M. GAPP: There’s no three-phase power down there, which is available on 33 Street; and there’s no water down there. WATANABE: You don’t have water either though, yeah? But you have power? M. GAPP: We have water. J. GAPP: We have water. M. GAPP: John put in the waterline. That’s why -. J. GAPP: The waterline goes down the Highway and we’re on the Highway. M. GAPP: Our company installed that waterline; and that’s why he’s familiar with the process of putting in a waterline, then the asphalt. When it was put on Highway 130 the asphalt was ripped up and had to be replaced. It’s just very difficult for a machine to get into a very small area and not rip up the asphalt. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further questions? Okay, then thank you for your testimony. Well, Sandra, we could begin. Would you like to come up? Why don’t we try, I doubt that we’re going to finish by 12:30, but -. Okay, why don’t I swear you in then. SONG: Okay. WATANABE: Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? EXHIBIT C 7 SONG: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Okay. Then are you going to begin? SONG: Yes. WATANABE: So name and address first. SONG: Sure. I’m Sandra Song and I represent Carnor Sumida; and with me today is Carnor Sumida. My address is 10 Kamehameha Avenue in Hilo. That’s my business address. And I’m here to ask for your support and approval of Carnor’s special permit. Carnor is a small business person. He started his business hauling water from his home, like many other small businessmen in the Puna area. And water hauling in Puna is necessary because most of Puna is catchment. Well, Carnor’s business grew but he’s still a small businessman. But he did get a PUC license to haul freight as well. So Carnor hauls freight and he hauls water, that is his business. He has four water trucks right now and I believe 9 tractor trailers. One of those water trucks stays at his house. And on this lot he’s proposing to park anywhere between 7 and 8 of the tractor trailers and 3 of the water trucks on this lot. And all he’s asking for is really a parking lot. All right. This history of what happened is Carnor’s business got bigger, Paradise Park grew and there are th more residents moving in where he lived at 28 and Paradise. Neighbors complained, the Planning Department cited him for the violation. He had to move his trucks off his lot. He found a space. He did not want to move his trucks from his lot. But right after he was cited by the Planning, which was December 2006, he went looking for other space; and he found this lot. Before he bought the land, and he purchased it in early January. The notice from the Planning Department was in December. Before he bought the lot he went to the Paradise Park Community Association and found out that that area was designated in their plan for Light Industrial, that the Association would support it. He talked to some of the residents there. He did not talk to the Planning Department because the Planning Department other than saying they needed a special permit couldn’t really tell him one way or the other. All he knew was there rd were four special permits issued on 33 and then some more across the road in Orchidland right across the highway. So he took a gamble and he bought this lot. In the meantime he couldn’t put his trucks on that lot because he didn’t have a special permit. In order to resolve the violation, he found a lease in Shipman, which he wasn’t happy about because it was far away, he was worried about the security for his trucks, gasoline, not gasoline but diesel was an issue. And now since last December, since early 2007 and now, diesel is not just an issue, it’s a crisis. And, in fact, today Carnor spends $38,000 a month on diesel. Diesel is over $5 a gallon. So transportation and closeness of having his vehicles closer to where he is is more important. His lease in Shipman is up in October. So he wants to be able to use this property to park his trucks. Now the Planning Department has raised certain issues on other permits that were issued. One is the landscaping. And Ms. Siracusa asked a question whether landscaping prior to occupancy could be a condition of approval in this case. Carnor is willing to do that. That’s not a problem. Actually he would have installed landscaping already but this permit was so iffy he thought why should he put up the fence, why should he start doing the landscaping, if he’s going to be told he can’t do it. But he has no objection to doing the landscaping. And if this Commission approves EXHIBIT C 8 the permit, I would guarantee you that landscaping will be up quickly because he wants to park his trucks there as soon as possible, and his lease expires in October. As far as roadway paving, he’s also supportive of paving the roadway. He, in fact, and it has been difficult to get all the owners to get together to pave the road. They all have these five-year permits. But he has obtained an estimate for paving the roadway , he’s willing to work with the other owners and make sure that the roadway does get paved. As far as, somebody mentioned an rd improvement on 33 that Carnor made. He made that at the request of the Association so that there would be a better turning radius. They asked that a sign be moved, that is private so he did do that. How many months ago? SUMIDA: Seven months ago. SONG: Okay, all right. I also want to apologize for submitting something so late to the Commission, and also that it’s such a thick packet. But what it really is, all those exhibits are the prior special permits that this Commission has issued in the area; and I thought that the Commission should have those permits. And each of those permits, and those permits are as rd Mr. Darrow said for two contractor’s baseyard, one is on 33, the other one is across the highway, a towing and automobile repair shop, a commercial kitchen and a warehouse. Now when I looked at, part of submitting this so late is we also received the recommendation very late. I received the recommendation Wednesday; and since Mr. Yuen is recommending against it I felt that it was important to respond to Mr. Yuen’s comments and his recommendation. And I submit to you, if you look at Mr. Yuen’s recommendation in light of the findings of this Commission in the five prior permits, there is no basis for his recommendation. Mr. Yuen just doesn’t want to see this area used at all for Light Industrial. His position is go to the Industrial area. The industrial area of Shipman is about 9 miles away. That’s a long way away. The area thth of 14 and Paradise, 14 and Kaloli, which is General Plan designation, it is owned by Watamull, the developer of Paradise Park, there are no plans to develop that area. It’s three miles to bring water down to the area. And you very well know that if that area were ever zoned, and it would be a boundary amendment and a rezoning, it would take a minimum of five years, and the County would require Kaloli probably to be improved to dedicable standards. The costs for that kind of zoning for a project would be astronomical. There needs to be a place, places in Puna where small businesses can survive. A special permit is a way on Ag land to allow a small business. If you follow Mr. Yuen’s advice and say Mr. Sumida move to the Industrial area then every water hauler with more than one water truck, and most of them do, will be put out of business in the Puna area, except for Keaau Service, because there won’t be available land. Where are they going to move? This is a permit that will allow a vehicle for Mr. Sumida to be there in a permitted fashion. And you can also impose conditions on that permit to mitigate any impacts that may be unreasonable, particularly the visual impacts. Now I would like to point out that Mr. Yuen has alleged that this use is not a reasonable use because he says that it’s going to create traffic safety problems with 15 to 20 additional trucks traveling the road. There are not going to be 15 to 20 additional trucks traveling on the road. In addition Mr. Yuen sent out, as he always does, this application to all sorts of agencies, including the State Department of Transportation. And the State Department of Transportation specifically said they don’t see any problems or adverse impacts on the State Highways. The Department of Public Works did not say there’s any problem. And the Police also said the staff upon reviewing the provided documents and visiting the proposed site does not anticipate any EXHIBIT C 9 significant impact to traffic and/or public safety concerns. All of the agencies with technical expertise have said this parking lot will not create a traffic impact. But Mr. Yuen is not following the technical advice, instead he’s saying it’s a creating traffic impact. He also says that it’s not reasonable because of the visual impacts. Well, in all five prior applications Mr. Yuen acknowledged that this area is primarily vacant and that the visual impacts can be mitigated with landscaping. And I do agree with you, Ms. Siracusa, when you pass by the landscaping could be far better. But I also know that this Commission before has required landscaping as a condition to occupancy permit and has required established trees so that the landscaping isn’t about 2 feet tall, and that it can mitigate the visual impacts. And if landscaping is as Mr. Sumida proposes planted all the way around the property you’re not going to see very much once the landscaping gets bigger, and particularly if it’s podocarpus trees. Unless the termites hit them you won’t see anything. Mr. Yuen also said that this use will not promote the effectiveness of Chapter 205 or 205A. I would like to point out to you that in all five of your prior permits where the uses were not much different than this the standard was met.And 205 wants you to preserve the most important agricultural lands for agricultural use. This land is E, it’s poor, it’s not good for agriculture. I might point out that one of the other criteria is the land, that you have to find the land upon which the use is sought is unsuited for the uses permitted, which is agriculture. Mr. Yuen in his recommendation, you know, with all due respect, he acknowledges the land is very poor but he said you can still do agriculture on this land, extensive and intensive agriculture. This land is not good for agriculture. It’s close to the highway. The Paradise Park Community Association in its revised plan in 2005 decided that that area should be Light Industrial because there was a cul-de- sac there at the end of the road so it doesn’t go into the other subdivision, it’s close to the highway, and since more and more residences are being built in Paradise Park people won’t have trucks going through the residential areas, because the truth of the matter is this is becoming more of a residential area. The utilities, water is available and Department of Water Supply has said that water is available for Mr. Sumida. So water is available. Electricity is available. It makes sense to allow that. Now for some reason the Planning Department says it wasn’t aware of this plan; and, in fact, it was overlooked in the Puna Community Development Plan for some reason. In Mr. Sumida’s application I raised the issue, and now all these letters are going out. But as Mr. Gapp said he surveyed the community in this area 18 months ago, and the people were supportive of doing improvements. I commend Mr. Yuen for sending out the letter to the owners. I think it’s a good idea. I think it’s a good idea to plan and do a master plan. However, Carnor can’t wait 3, 5 years to move his trucks. He can still do certain measures right now with the special permit that would mitigate the impacts while this idea of turning this area into Light Industrial is implemented. And if he has to change the landscaping, he can change the landscaping. Or if Planning wants certain kinds of landscaping, you can condition landscaping upon landscaping of a variety of proof by the Planning Department so that they can be consistent on everybody having the same kind of landscaping. So there are definite ways this Commission could impose conditions on this permit that would be reasonable. My memo goes through each of the conditions for a special permit. One of the conditions is that the desired use will not adversely affect surrounding properties. The properties are mostly vacant, or the few special permits with scattered residential use. You have heard not one person EXHIBIT C 10 testifying against this. The Paradise Park Community Association has supported it. Mrs. Naeole from the Council, Councilwoman Naeole has supported this. The only, not one agency that was sent for comments has opposed it. The only person that’s opposed is Mr. Yuen because he feels in his mind, I believe he feels, that industrial uses belong in the Industrial zoned district; and we just don’t have it. Finally, Mr. Yuen is also saying that the use is contrary to the General Plan because this is zoned Orchards -- You have all of these five permits attached -- I’m sorry, General Plan for Orchards, for Rural, I’m sorry. Whether the General Plan was Orchards as it was prior to the last amendment to the General Plan or whether it was Rural, each one of these five permits, the findings of the Commission with the recommendation of Mr. Yuen was that the special permit was consistent with the General Plan. In this case now he’s saying it’s inconsistent. So there’s more than ample authority for you as a Commission to find that this permit meets all the standards for special permits. It is not changed by this one permit, it is not changing the whole character of the area. In addition, if other permit holders have violated the terms of their permit, you shouldn’t hold it against Carnor Sumida, and you can’t hold it against Carnor Sumida. rd Carnor on his own made this improvement to 33 before he even had a right to use the property. So he has already expended his time and money here. He is willing to live with conditions that would require his occupancy, conditioned upon doing the necessary improvements; and I believe that this Commission then could properly issue a permit. Now if you have any questions, I’d be glad to answer them. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I have a whole bunch of questions, but Mr. Watanabe will not allow me to fire them at you one at a time. So for one thing Mr. Gapp, I think his name was, had talked about the waterline and ripping up the road and then putting -. We’ve seen that the County used to do a lot of that, put the road in and then rip it up for a waterline, and then they’d have to repave it and it becomes all lumpy. So I’m glad that people are finally thinking along those lines. But I’d like to know what your position is about that, cause you heard Mr. Gapp’s testimony. SONG: Oh, okay. I think what Mr. Gapp was talking about, what Mr. Yuen wants to see done is a road improvement, a 12-inch waterline for fire protection purposes, and I think he talked about a 20-foot landscaped buffer on both the mauka and makai sides. What has been required up till now is a 20-foot paved road. And it is correct, Mr. Woodward is correct, if you want to put in your waterlines, if only 20 feet is paved you don’t have to tear up the road. If you have a road that is more to County dedicable standards, for example if you want the full 40 feet of the right-of-way paved which is unlike any other place in Paradise Park, any other road in Paradise Park, then you would have to tear it up and put in the improvements. I can’t tell you if you put in a 12-inch line how big a ditch you have to make that would go into the easement, because that 12-inch water line is a pretty big thing to put in. So, and I’m not an engineer so I can’t answer that. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. You mentioned about the landscaping mauka and makai. There is, one of the other special permit people has podocarpus and they have it along the Highway side. That’s where I see it, so I don’t know if it’s on the makai side as well. And it does a really good EXHIBIT C 11 job of screening. But because they didn’t do the side boundaries when you’re coming at the property along the Highway you can look right in there. And so would Mr. Sumida be willing to do all the boundaries? Because even though his neighbor may not have his land developed, tomorrow his neighbor may decide that he wants to put a house on that property and would not especially like to look at a baseyard out of his bedroom window. SONG: We actually submitted a revised site plan which showed landscaping all around all four boundaries. So, yes, Mr. Sumida is willing to do that, I mean, except for the gate. SIRACUSA: I wasn’t assuming the gate. You can hang hanging baskets from it, of course. And another question is in the past we have required the applicants to, well, we’ve said limit the life of the permit to five years or upon new industrial zoned lands becoming available within a four-mile radius. Perhaps four miles isn’t enough for a radius. Those other people were, you know, they were putting a lot of infrastructure into those properties. Certainly the certified kitchen was, right? The others with their warehouse type steel buildings were also. But if Mr. Sumida only wants to use it as a baseyard, then his investment would be greatly reduced. So would he be willing to look for something within a larger radius, for example, a six-mile radius, if we were to make a change in the condition? SONG: He’d be willing to do it, but part of his reason for having it closer right now is it’s going to save some fuel costs. So if, for example, water trucks that are in central Puna there, I mean, saving fuel costs is part of the reason for having us here. But the six-mile is acceptable. SIRACUSA: I understand that. The reason I mentioned six miles is because there is a possibility that some of the people in the Puna Community Development Plan have been looking at the Pahoa dump road as an area that might be suitable for future Light Industrial development, because it’s close enough to the town, the Water Department is right there so water isn’t a problem, and there’s even power poles. But at least it’s not within everybody’s viewplane and it is within the six miles there. And that’s why I came up with that six mile as a possibility. And I’m wondering did you look at all in the Pahoa direction when you were searching around, or only towards Keaau? SUMIDA: I was also concerned about security for the trucks also. WATANABE: Yeah, Mr. Sumida, you need to state your name and address for the record. I swore you in but you didn’t -. SUMIDA: Oh, I’m sorry. My name is Carnor J. Sumida. My address is HC2 Box 6481, Keaau 96749. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Now you can respond to that. SUMIDA: I’ve got about a million dollars worth of trucks and they’re right now located in Shipman; and I’m already getting a security problem there. And, you know, I’ve got thousands of gallons worth of fuel in the trucks and we’re already getting burglarized. And I rd know the neighbors up on 33 and I feel it’s a very safe area. And you’re talking about Pahoa EXHIBIT C 12 rubbish dump, and that’s where they’re throwing all the rubbish back there. Is that where you’re talking about? SIRACUSA: Hardly at all any more, by the way. SUMIDA: But, you know, it’s a very, you know, is that some place where you’d leave a million dollars worth of equipment? SIRACUSA: But you’re planning to put up a chain link fence, aren’t you? Are you saying that that would not be adequate? SUMIDA: I have a chain-linked fence with barbed wire in Shipman right now and they still burglarize the place. SIRACUSA: I see, you’re very resourceful. WATANABE: Yeah. Well, Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: I just have a question. I have a diesel car too so -. So how near is your diesel, I mean, where do you get your diesel from? SUMIDA: If you have a diesel car you’re either with Akana or Hawaii Petroleum. BOWMAN: Okay, and so that’s where you’re -? SUMIDA: Yes. BOWMAN: And that’s how far away from here? SUMIDA: Hawaii Petroleum is in Hilo; and there’s also Wiki Wiki in Orchidland. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Okay. It doesn’t look like we have further -. Oh, yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: Not questions. WATANABE: Any comments? YUEN: I just wanted to follow-up a little bit on where we were going with this application. And we will be fine with a deferral of it to see what’s happening with this questionnaire that we sent out.It’s a little more than a questionnaire. We gave you copies. It’s a little more than a questionnaire, not only about whether the owners were in favor of it or not of the area becoming a Light Industrial, but whether they would make a commitment to make the kinds of improvements that should go with a Light Industrial area. And we have approved a number of special permits with the idea that this is a transitional area that some day the businesses are going to move out of there because it’s not a great place to have it. The Paradise Park Association came out with an amendment to their Master Plan that said make this a Light EXHIBIT C 13 Industrial area. So taking that seriously we then are going to ask the owners if they are going to make the kinds of infrastructure improvements that you would have in an area where you’re intending for the lots to be Light Industrial. If we simply go ahead with special permits on a one-by-one basis what will happen is people naturally like Mr. Sumida who are looking for a place to locate their business, a trucking rd baseyard, a warehouse and the like, will buy lots on 33. They will quite naturally do that; and they’ll apply one by one for a special permit. And over time in 10 years you’ll have a dozen or so special permits, a vacant lot, a house, a trucking baseyard, a warehouse, another person’s house, at best a 20-foot wide paved road, no water, the kinds of water improvements that would not go with a Light Industrial area. And let me contrast that with if somebody actually came in to zone and develop a Light Industrial subdivision, like, actually the Shipman Business Park is zoned Heavy Industrial, but let me use that as an example because the requirements would be basically pretty similar. They would have a road that’s a pretty substantial road, drainage improvements, and a 12-inch waterline to provide fire protection for the buildings. And I don’t understand why we would have, when we develop an area in Paradise Park on special permits, with markedly less infrastructure simply as a matter of special permits. I don’t know, you know, because -. And as far as the cost element, if we let the Shipman Business Park, for example, develop a new increment without waterlines, with a 20-foot wide road, without regular kinds of drainage improvements, yes, they could actually offer lots in there for quite a bit less than they do with the County standard. And the final issue here is, I think if we were going to do a Light Industrial area here along the Highway, we would want to have it heavily screened from the highway traffic. The Shipman Business Park has actually a condition that -. You’ll notice there’s a complete vegetative buffer from the highway. They retained the existing vegetation. And that’s actually one of the terrifically positive feature of the way that an Industrial Subdivision was developed. Otherwise you’d drive along and it would sort of look like Kanoelehua Avenue in Hilo as you drove past that Industrial Subdivision, instead you see something that’s pretty much like the forested area in Panaewa as you drive through. That’s very hard to implement on a lot-by-lot basis where one person has a special permit and they landscape their lot, and then the next person has a vacant, and they have no permit or no requirement, they don’t have to do it. So the purpose of this questionnaire is to see, you know, it’s easy to put a line in the plan and say, okay, this is supposed to be a Light Industrial area in the future. But are the owners really committed to developing it and sharing in the cost of the improvements? And that’s what we’re trying to do here. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Sandra. SONG: Mr. Chairman, just to respond to Mr. Yuen, his intentions are very good but Carnor cannot wait a time necessary to do this grandiose plan that Mr. Yuen wants to see for the area. And that is good and he can participate in it, but he’s asking for a special permit now; and if it goes ahead, if the County decides to have this whole area rezoned with a master plan, he can participate in it. So there’s nothing to say it can’t be done as a parallel track. WATANABE: Okay. I have a question. How far down is this road? I mean how far down does it extend? So if we were, say, going to develop, if the community came out and said, EXHIBIT C 14 oh, yes, we want to do this as opposed to having the 40 acres that’s three miles down, how far along does this road go? SUMIDA: I don’t think it’s 3 miles down. I think it’s, from the Highway to the Ocean is 3 miles or something. SONG: This road to Mr. Plescia’s, to the Plescia permit is 1500 feet. WATANABE: Yeah. But now he’s not the only one, there are other people. So, you know, you’re not going to improve –. SONG: Oh, no, no. WATANABE: Only 1500 feet. So, and I’m trying to get a scope of, you know, okay, we’re going to put in a 12-inch line and we’re going to put in a 40-foot road, and we’re going to have all of these things to meet with the requirements of an Industrial zoning. How much is that going to cost? SUMIDA: Across the street from my lot is Wally Tavares Towing Company; and from Makuu to, I’m just a little bit, he’s a little further in from Makuu than I am so I imagine till the end of this lot. So I got a bid on a pavement. It comes out to 1527 feet. WATANABE: Oh, and what was the bid for? SUMIDA: For the pavement; and it came out with tax at $88,000. WATANABE: For a 20-foot? SUMIDA: For a 20-foot wide, 4-inch base course, 2-inch compacted -. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Yes, Mr. Yuen. rd YUEN: I’m just estimating – the full area along 33 till the end is about, is supposed to be 46 one-acre lots, current subdivision; and there’s probably a little more than rd another 1500 till the end of 33. WATANABE: So maybe 3,000 feet, some place in that neighborhood? rd YUEN: Three thousand, 3500 feet from Makuu to the end of 33. WATANABE: Okay. Any other questions? Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I just wanted to make a comment. You mentioned earlier on your testimony, Sandra, that you had a support letter from Emily Naeole. Emily has been confused, shall I say, about when someone had applied for a self-storage facility on the highway. She said, well, there’s all these other things on the highway, and she was thinking about the other rd developments along 33 which are so terribly visible.And so she, even though they don’t, people don’t adjoin to the highway itself she was under the impression that they were the EXHIBIT C 15 exceptions that had already been made, and if they could have it then why couldn’t these other people. And it was really an apples and oranges thing. But it does, a lot of other people didn’t realize it and they listened to that argument thinking that what she was talking about was something fair, cause you’re not going to be coming out to the highway, and it’s a whole different situation. But it still does give that impression when we approve something on the makai side of 130; and then it’s very visible, you know, that, especially with these big steel buildings that are way higher than the fence or that the plantings will be in maybe never depending on the species they put in. So that’s why I’m so concerned, because it does give other people the idea; and then we kept getting more permits, more permits; and instead of planning by Planning, you know, a whole area, we’re doing it all on a piecemeal spot basis. And I’m very unhappy with some of the other ones and wished that I hadn’t voted for them; and some of them I didn’t vote for, so, even though they passed anyway. So I just wanted to share with you that those are some of ideas that have been going through my head whenever I get another application on the highway. WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa, do you have a question? SIRACUSA: No. WATANABE: I thought we agreed that we would save position statements for deliberation, that doesn’t count this time. BOWMAN: I have a question. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Lani, I mean Lani Bowman. BOWMAN: Special permits are given for a minimum of five years or can they be less? WATANABE: Could be less. BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: You have to keep in mind though, that there is an investment so, you know, you don’t want a 90-day permit with a $500,000 investment. Along those lines though I do have a question for the Director. I know we had a representative from Shipman here but maybe the Director could respond to this. We did apparently allocate, you know, Industrial use. You indicated it was Heavy Industrial in the Shipman area. But you should be familiar, I think, with how much, you know, maybe acres we allocated and how much of it is actually used. And the reason I’m bringing this up is also economics. Because if we require someone to put in all of the extensive infrastructure and saying you’re designated as an Industrial area, and then we drive everything away from that, I mean, how much Industrial area do we need? You know, I understand that he wants the convenience but I think, you know, in planning you have to say, well, this is how much we need and -. YUEN: Actually Mr. Walter could give you a better answer. There is a very large area in the Shipman Business Park that’s zoned MG. I think it’s something like 400 acres, of which maybe a third or a fourth have been actually subdivided. So there’s a very large area that EXHIBIT C 16 was zoned and has not, only a relatively small proportion of it, as I say a third to a fourth, has actually been subdivided. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Quick one? WALTER: Do you want me to answer that question? I don’t care. WATANABE: Maybe we could get your testimony later. You know why I did -. WALTER: Only if you want me to address that. WATANABE: Okay, cause we did say we’d break at 12:30, unless there are other questions right now. Why don’t we break for lunch then and we’ll reconvene at about 1:45, as I’ve stated earlier; and that should give us an opportunity to go through the material that you’ve provided us this morning. Is that fair? SONG: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. So we’re in recess. RECESSED The Chair recessed the meeting at 12:40 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 2:08 p.m. WATANABE: Let’s see, where did we leave off. We were done I believe with questions, right? Over lunch, has anyone had an opportunity to come up with any further questions? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: You said that you buy your diesel in Hilo and yet part of your problem about being in the Shipman Industrial Park was that you had to go so far just for the cost of rd diesel to fill up. And yet where you want to be on 33 is even father from Hilo than when you are in Shipman. So I’m trying to understand how it really saves you on gas money by being rd farther away from Hilo on 33 than it would have when you were at Shipman a lot closer to Hilo. SUMIDA: Good question, no problem. The water trucks haul in Puna. Worked out something with the Water Department where I’m going to try and get a meter on the lot so I can haul the water straight from the lot. I got a standpipe there at the Pahoa water park, actually they own two standpipes there. But when there’s a drought like there is now, there is a waiting line, even for the water trucks. And they didn’t plan that too good. So having a water pipe right on my lot, I can just fill up my trucks so it won’t have to travel too far. And on the other trucks that haul the freight it’s just six, seven miles, that’s a gallon of fuel. It’s really insignificant for me from Shipman to the lot we’re proposing to put the trucks on. EXHIBIT C 17 SIRACUSA: May I -. You said that sometimes you also get your diesel at Wiki Wiki in Orchidland. Is it more expensive there than in Hilo or the other way around? SUMIDA: We buy it in bulk so -. I don’t know if you’re familiar with Hawaii Fueling Network but it’s, I guess Wiki Wiki is part of their network. So it just totals up at the end of the month, and it’s a bulk rate. SIRACUSA: Okay, the reason I’m asking these questions is because we had been talking before about the possibility of increasing from a four-mile radius to a six-mile radius for, you know, for looking for another location. And so I was trying to figure out since your attorney mentioned that the cost of diesel was an important factor so -. SUMIDA: Well, I think that’s everybody’s factor now. It used to be labor and now it’s fuel. SIRACUSA: So if for example something became available up the Pahoa dump road, you would have to buy your diesel from say the Malama Market Place. Do you know if that is more expensive there or -? SUMIDA: I don’t deal with that fueling network and it costs more money to run farther. My trucks run out of Hilo, the other trucks run out of Hilo. So before they come back home I always tell the driver just fuel up in Hilo. SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Are we done with the questions then? Okay, do you have anything further to add, Ms. Song? SONG: I think the Commission has heard enough. WATANABE: The bulk of it, okay, very good. Then you may be seated and we’ll try to get into deliberations. Well, we’ve heard the testimony, we’ve heard the questions. What’s your pleasure, Commissioners? Does anyone care to make a motion or you want to discuss this first to some degree before we have a motion made? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I have a question. Having looked at the other special permits, I noticed that there are two that are up, I think, in about 2010, which gives them about two more years; and then the other three were up last year, is that right, the five existing special permits? DARROW: We have two that are, that the time has expired. That’s Excavation Tech which is located across the road in this particular area here. And we also have John Gapp’s special permit that they were, Mr. Gapp had given testimony today, theirs had expired in November of 2007. We also have Walter Tavares who’s about to come before the Planning Commission, theirs expires this month, actually, 2008. WATANABE: While we’re on that, may I also ask how many of those indicated that an extension would not be provided if paving was not accomplished? EXHIBIT C 18 DARROW: That particular condition came in after John Gapp, so the last three permits. John Gapp’s permit did not have that condition. So Walter Tavares, Greg Plescia and Vern Woods all have that condition. BOWMAN: Is Vern Woods the Whitney Investment? DARROW: Vern Woods, no. Whitney Investment is John Gapp. BOWMAN: Oh, okay. Sorry. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. So, Jeff, given that number of applicants that will be coming back, what’s the purpose of them coming back, for an extension or we don’t know yet? rd DARROW: Each one of these permits, all five of them, the four along 33 and the one across the street, Excavation Tech, had a permit life of five years. And so each one of those are starting to come up now. We have two that won’t come up until two years from now; but three of those permits are coming up on their time extensions. ALAMEDA: On the five years? DARROW: Right. ALAMEDA: Are we aware of any of those who found some place else or -? DARROW: Not that I’m aware of. ALAMEDA: So the likelihood of them coming back for another extension or maybe -? DARROW: They’re in the process of filing at this time. ALAMEDA: Yeah, so I can see what the applicant is saying then in the idea that, you know, got all these potential applicants that will continue. Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions? Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: I have no other questions, no question. But I’m ready to make a motion at this time. WATANABE: For sure. DOMINGO: Okay, Mr. Chairman, in the matter of Carnor Sumida’s Special Permit No. 08-000053, I move for its approval. WATANABE: Okay. Is there a second to that? EXHIBIT C 19 WOODWARD: Second. WATANABE: Okay, we have a motion to approve the special permit. Are you contemplating any timeframes in the approval, to the approval permit, as the others, you know, typically they had five years, etc. DOMINGO: Well, just go for a five-year extension, just so we have something in the future to look forward to. WATANABE: Okay, okay, thank you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: We don’t have a -. WATANABE: I understand we don’t have conditions. SIRACUSA: Right. So are we going to have to go back? WATANABE: Let’s go through the discussion matter first. Shall we? SIRACUSA: Okay. I would certainly want to see a condition in there changing the radius from four to six miles, and another condition saying that the landscaping should be in place prior to occupancy. WATANABE: Okay. We have two additional conditions that Ms. Siracusa is looking for. Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: I have a question about the time, a concern about the time. If these three others come in for extensions, it says that, sorry, I just had it, no extensions of the permit shall be granted unless the road is paved to provide a 20-foot wide pavement. So no extensions for the next, for I assume the two that are up. I would like to see a 3-year special permit be given, and maybe if the applicant can address that, mainly because that’s about the time when the other ones are up. That’s my concern. WATANABE: Okay. Any further comments? Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I don’t know, it occurs to me that, you know, where are they going if they don’t have a place to operate their business? Where are we sending them to, the Industrial area? If that was viable they would have been there already. No, no, I’m just kind of thinking out loud like what’s going to happen to these potential businesses. That’s all, just comment. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: If I might -. I think too, and Commissioner Bowman brought this up, we’re going to be presented with this issue again on three occasions very shortly. And I think we need to treat everybody fairly. You know, we can’t say no you don’t get it but then we give the other three guys a 5-year extension. So that gets down to the fairness question. And it sounds EXHIBIT C 20 like they are making efforts in the community to put this, to do the road improvements that are required. You know how things work in government, it takes a while. And they’re working through their community association, so -. But, again, I think we need to look at this as a precedent for what we’re going to do in the other three cases that are going to be coming up before us very shortly. WATANABE: Okay, any further comments? Mr. Rho, you have any? RHO: Actually I have a question, and I’m not sure you can answer my question. But there’s this, and all of you know I don’t live in Hilo, so I’m not really familiar. But I wanted to know when the Shipman Industrial area was available to be occupied, was it like five years ago, six years ago, two years ago? YUEN: It was zoned in the mid-1980’s and has been established for at least a decade, probably more. RHO: When you say established -? YUEN: Like there are lots, there are subdivided lots in there for 10 or 15 years. RHO: So if I had a business six years ago, a trucking business and I needed parking spaces, I could have or I could go to Shipman and lease a piece of land from them to do this business? YUEN: Yes. RHO: So when all of these applications, and I’m not talking about the applicant today, but in the previous, they provided Exhibits A, B, C, D, and E, as well as the stuff that’s across the highway, and I’m not sure when those were approved. Why were they approved when we had an industrial area, I don’t know where Shipman is exactly, but let’s say it was 10 miles down the road? Cause it seems to me what’s happening now is we’re going to, or the possibility is that we reject this application, keep them at Shipman, and start rejecting all these other applications that will come up for renewal and also say that there are Industrial spots 10 miles down the road. My question is why didn’t we do that six or seven years ago, or eight years go, or whenever? It’s like we want to shut the door now that we opened it after five years. And it’s, as far as I’m concerned, it’s very difficult to do that. And we have nobody, at least today as far as I can tell, we have nobody testifying against this applicant’s application to develop basically a parking lot in that area. I mean that isn’t a question. That’s a statement. But my question again is it just doesn’t make sense to me that -. YUEN: Well, it’s a difficult question because the basic idea of zoning is that you go to a zoned area, that you’re supposed to, say a Light Industrial area, you zone an area and people go to an area that’s zoned for that use. And it’s not really compatible to take an area of what most of the, well, what is largely a residential area long term and put Light Industrial buildings in it. Now why did we do this, why do we do something different? We were persuaded by the argument that there should be opportunities for businesses in closer proximity to the residential areas. The businesses that came forward did have some indication that they had a need to be closer or that they would be useful closer to this, what’s really becoming a major EXHIBIT C 21 residential area in the mid-Pahoa to Keaau district. Looking at it though, my conclusion of what has happened, first of all, is that although we’ve had these conditions that say the road is supposed to paved, the road didn’t get paved.We have the first person who’s coming up after five years and the road is not being paved. We’ve had a very spotty compliance as far as the landscaping condition. And it’s not, and having this as a transitional area with this continued philosophy of a transitional area is very difficult. The people who come in there, they make an investment, they put up a building, they’re never going to want to go. Mr. Sumida is not going to want to go after he goes in there. So in a way we’re doing something that’s really difficult; and so we should make a decision either, actually make it a Light Industrial area. And so if you own a lot in there you have to, if that’s not your idea then you’re going to have to tolerate having, you know, take this business here. And it’s true that the lot owner next door has not objected. We don’t know what they want or what they think. But in its current allowable use the person could have a house there. But now you’re going to have a trucking company with 15 trucks that go back and forth, not really a good mix of uses. So there’s a law and, you know -. And it was a difficult issue when we started with this. It’s a difficult issue right now. But as far as how we got to this point, that’s the sequence of reasoning. So the idea of it being, while if we were going to, you know, if the Commission is inclined to grant it, I would say grant it with the same, you know, timeframe. We would continue on this path. And if it turns out that it looks like a good area for it to be changed into a Light Industrial area rather than an area that the business is established and then they’re supposed to move out after a few years, then let’s go down that path. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, you know, it’s clear that in the past the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owner Association, they themselves have indicated to the Association that this particular area should be designated for Light Industrial use. And I believe because of that designation, other applications were approved, and others perhaps may have entertained an idea to locate at that area, you know. And I would also assume that the Planning Department at that time concurred with that designation, the Planning Commission therefore approved those applications. And now I don’t think we should have any reservations whatsoever with not even granting this permit. It’s something that has been declared appropriate in the area. And all this while that use has been going on, there have been no complaints that I know of whatsoever from the neighborhood that it was a detriment to the environment or whatever. So I think my motion is appropriate, that we approve the permit application. WATANABE: Okay, let me throw in my two cents here. I believe that this area was designated by the Association, Hawaiian Paradise Park, as a Light Industrial area. It was a revision to apparently a former plan that recognized, I believe it’s close to 40 acres down below that’s also recognized in the Puna Community Development Plan as an area for future Industrial development and Commercial development. What I’m also hearing is that that site is roughly three miles from the highway and has no infrastructure whatsoever, and none of it has ever come about probably because of the cost to develop all that at that great a distance from the highway. Where I’m struggling right now is, again, as just before we took a break for lunch, we have an established Industrial area in Shipman that were required, like the Director indicated, 40-foot roads, 12- inch pipes so that they could have fire suppression there, etc. And yet we’re not driving people there. So the question to me is have we even decided where the right place is for EXHIBIT C 22 an Industrial area? I don’t think you can have, you know, a designated Industrial area every three or four miles. Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I’m thinking about all of those vacant lots on that street who I’m sure some of those are absentee landowners. And they may not even be aware that there are already these industrial uses on the block, and yet I know there are lots of people out there who hold on to parcels for a long time waiting until things change in their lives on the mainland and they can move over here and build their retirement home. And so I think that the first indication that some of them will get about this, all of this, is when they receive the survey letter. And I would feel a lot more comfortable about approving this, albeit with conditions, if I knew that the lot owners said that’s okay, you know. Because they have their investments, they’ve been paying property taxes on those lots for all those years, and I think they should be allowed to weigh in on it. So my feeling right now would be I would feel a lot more comfortable instead of approving this motion would be to say let’s continue this, let’s get a chance to get the responses, and then come back and look at it, because then we’ll have, one way or the other, we’ll have a public mandate. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman, you want to respond to that? BOWMAN: I just have a question. The applicant is required to notify surrounding -? WATANABE: Yes, for 500 feet. BOWMAN: Five hundred feet, okay, thank you. WATANABE: But the survey that Mr. Yuen is speaking of encompasses the entire road, I believe. Yeah, Mr. Yuen? YUEN: Right. They have to notify within 500 feet which I just counted up as 15 nd lots owners, including -. Some of the lots would be on 32 actually within the 500-foot radius. rd We’re writing to all the lot owners on 33, which is 46 lots. I think it’s not 46 owners but it’s 46 lots. BOWMAN: I just think that, you know, this one applicant is kind of, you know, between a rock and a hard place because of this, you know, waiting to hear back. My initial question was, I know in the background it said that the Director should send a letter to the people; and I don’t know when you talked about doing that. Because it just seems like, you know, one was sent just a couple days ago before this came up. WATANABE: Yeah, that was going to be my point. Because while I think having all of the information is always nice, the fact is his lease expires I believe it was in October or somewhere thereabouts, and when Shipman signs him to another lease they’re not going to sign into a six-month lease or one year lease. They’re going to ask for a longer term, so then he’s committed again. BOWMAN: I understand. But I think my question was referring to page 3, it said that rd the Planning Director will make an effort to contact the owners of these 46 lots along 33 Avenue to get their input. And my question is when was that proposed? EXHIBIT C 23 nd DARROW: Those are the two letters that were handed out to you dated June 2. BOWMAN: I understand. But when was this supposed to have been done? Was this, cause I refer back, and I could be wrong, to No. 11 where it talks about the master plan, and revised in 2005, which included a statement about the 46 parcels. So was that supposed to have been done in 2005 or near there? DARROW: This was something that the Planning Director just recently initiated based on this application. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: Thank you. The question I have in regard to Commissioner Bowman’s question is why are we raising the bar here? If every other application requires you to submit or notify people within 500 feet, why are we raising the bar in this case? WATANABE: I think the answer to that was not so much that the applicant was required to send out those letters, the Director took it upon himself to have the Department send out those letters to see if maybe the General Plan or even the Community Development Plan should be modified because the community itself really wanted a Light Industrial area. That’s what the poll is about, not for notification purposes, to measure interest and maybe, I’m assuming that the Director means if there is interest that maybe we should modify the Community Development Plan as well as the General Plan so that you can have the appropriate zoning there. It was not an onus on the applicant himself. WOODWARD: Not specifically to comment on this application? WATANABE: No, no, no. WOODWARD: Okay. WATANABE: Just that I think the Director is saying this is going to be a long-term issue, we had envisioned this as a transition area but maybe it doesn’t work as a transition area, so maybe we should turn it into a permanent zoned designated Light Industrial area. WOODWARD: Okay. Well, if I might follow-up, Mr. Chairman, then. Why are we bringing that up in the context of this application? That’s a zoning question, or, you know, rather than this application. YUEN: Well, if I could answer that? WATANABE: Sure. EXHIBIT C 24 YUEN: Because if you keep approving special permits in the area it definitely sets a pattern; and there will be more and more applications, and essentially this becomes a Light Industrial area by special permits. It’s one after another. That’s actually not the way you’re supposed to do things. It’s not consistent with the way land uses are supposed to work. It’s not consistent with State Land Use Law. And if the idea is that this is a good area for a Light Industrial development then it actually should be zoned for Light Industrial development, and appropriate infrastructure put in, and then people come in and get to stay. WOODWARD: Let me ask one other question then, if I could. Why are we just polling the people along this one street? Shouldn’t that be something that should be decided by the people of Puna and not just the people that live along that street? YUEN: The main reason, it’s not just an issue for people that live along the streets, certainly, but the main reason for polling the people on the street, first, is to get an idea of what they want for the area. You know, are they hoping to retire there and build a house there? In which case this is not really compatible with their long-term view. Are they happy with the idea of having a Light Industrial area there where maybe they can sell their lots for more? That’s one reason. And the second reason is that if we’re seriously going to have this as a Light Industrial area there would have to be improvements made, and the lot owners are going to wind up having to pay for it one way or the other. So the idea is not just you’re going to color the map as a Light Industrial area and then the people are going to sell their lots with no improvements for whatever they can get for them, and then people move businesses in there. That’s not a proper way to go about changing this into, this is not a proper Light Industrial area. So we’re trying to see if there’s any commitment on the part of the lot owners to pay for the improvements necessary to convert this into a permanent Light Industrial area. WATANABE: Okay. I might add that, and you’re right, it shouldn’t be just the owners on the street. But testimony has indicated that Hawaiian Paradise Park Association endorsed that particular area. So in theory that smaller community said, yeah, there’s a place we ought to be. But that is not reflected in the General Plan or the CDP, which was a bit of a surprise to me because I recall Mr. Brown indicating that we took the Hawaiian Paradise Park’s, you know, community development -, their developed plan and just adopted it. We didn’t change it. And, yet, you know, we have this discrepancy here. So, you know, I think there’s a fair amount of interest in that area becoming a Light Industrial. And while this may not be the way that we would ideally like to address an issue, I think what the Director is trying to do is find a way out of the transition and find whatever that permanent solution is, whatever it may be. Maybe it’s rd Shipman, maybe it’s 33 Street, I’m not sure. Now, Ms. Siracusa you had something, you had a comment? SIRACUSA: I would like to point out that I could see another reason for raising the bar. rd And that is that the northern end, the Keaau end, of that road, of 33 is a deadend, and so all those parcels at the very end while they may not be within 500 feet they will still be impacted by all of that commercial traffic, all the tractor trailers, and the heavy equipment, and that sort of thing. So it would be only fair, since they have no options they would have to pass through that. Damage to the road caused by that heavy equipment would wreck havoc on their cars. I could EXHIBIT C 25 see where it seems to me that it would only be fair to extend, you know, the possibility for them to weigh in on this because it will affect them, whether now or in the future. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, you know, I can’t visualize that the traffic would be so busy to such an extent that it would wreck havoc among the people who travel up and down in that particular area, in view of the minimal amount of special permits that have been granted. But the fact of the matter is, it’s something that we cannot escape, is that association of people in that subdivision wanted these uses to be established there.And perhaps they’re looking at it from the standpoint of efficiency and the standpoint of having them there when they’re really needed, rather than have to travel for a distance to extend the kinds of services that they give and they provide. So, you know, the association themselves said, okay, this is where we wanted you guys to go, there. And as indicated by the Chair there has been no opposition with our position expressing that, you know, that we don’t want it here. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I have a question for the Director. As I recall there were a number of streets that have been designated as commercial hubs in this area and designated for, as intersections that the County would like to see stop lights at; and there seems to be one that is in between all of those. Am I correct in that? YUEN No, I can’t say that there is an overall plan for which intersections should be signalized. I wished there was. WATANABE: But didn’t, you know, like for example when we had the Yamada application and we said, well, you know, you’re outside of this area that we’re kind of designating as a hub for commercial sites, and that was just an intersection down, where along all of this does this go? YUEN: Well, that was on Alii. But, well, that was on Alii Street which is up the, you know, in the Keaau direction a third of a mile or so. WATANABE: A little further up? YUEN: Yeah. WATANABE: Well, as a follow-up to that then, let’s assume we were to follow the direction that the Association provides, and apparently they want that area to become a Light rd Industrial area, do you foresee any insurmountable traffic problems from 33 entering onto the highway? YUEN: Well, they would all come out to Makuu. Something major has to be done at the big intersections. Whether it’s a roundabout, or signalization, or whatever, something has to happen. Well, in itself, you know, the Light Industrial is not going to change that because already Makuu serves probably a couple of thousand, a couple of thousand lots come out to Makuu. And, as I say, something more than what’s there has to happen along the whole highway. And one option is signals at certain intersections, another option is roundabouts; but Puna can’t go on with Highway 130 the way it is and the intersections the way they are. EXHIBIT C 26 WATANABE: Oh, without a secondary road? YUEN: Without a secondary road. But even with a secondary road I think you’re still going to have to do something at all the intersections. I don’t see this decision on either this individual decision with this special permit application or this question of possibly 46 one-acre lots as driving a change in the fact that there has to be an upgrade of the Makuu intersection at some point. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Again, we have the other applicants coming up for time extensions, we have two special permits that are up in the year 2010. Again I reiterate, I think, unfortunately the applicant is stuck here at this time with the deliberation about Light Industrial; and I don’t think we’re going to solve that today, obviously. But I do think in all fairness to the applicant I feel personally that a 3-year would kind of catch everybody up and hopefully in three years that there’ll be some kind of designation for the Light Industrial, whether it be here or somewhere else. But I don’t think we can deliberate that today. So, again, you know, I know that the motion is for 5 years, but we can talk about that. WATANABE: Any further comments? Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, I’m not adversed to changing it from five to three. And I think if we’re looking at the pattern in which the way this is going and others may come, I think it may be incumbent upon the Planning Department to then initiate a General Plan Amendment for that particular area. That’s not impossible, that can be done. WATANABE: What about you, Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: I have no objection to it. WATANABE: While we are on that, there was also a comment by Ms. Siracusa that she would prefer to have a landscaping condition, I believe that’s landscaping Rule 17, and that the landscaping should be in place prior to a certificate of occupancy. WOODWARD: Right. WATANABE: Is that something you can live with also? WOODWARD: Well, I would suggest that we use the same conditions that have been used for these previous special permits, and add that as an extra condition that the landscaping be in place before occupancy. CHAIRMAN: Okay, that said though a number of these special permits did indicate that no extension of time would occur if paving had not already occurred; and I’m wondering if we want to even keep that in there, especially since those that are coming up we’re going to go back on that. Yeah? If we approve this more than likely we’re going to extend those, it would seem. EXHIBIT C 27 Do you think there’s a way that we could craft it that an extension of time maybe will be granted if that particular area is not, say, approved or whatever for Light Industrial? YUEN: Well, what I would suggest -. You know, we try to assist the Commissioners in making decisions that work, even if they’re not necessarily what we’re recommending. But what I would recommend on the paving is just to say that this applicant rd shall pay his fair share of paving 33 to the subject site and the paving shall be completed within one year. And the reason I say this is that there’s a difficult situation here where you have these four other people who have this time limit on when the pavement has to happen. Two of them is not till 2010; and one guy who’s, you know, running around now and then Mr. Sumida running around because they’re trying to get their permits squared up that have a 2008 date. And there’s actually one guy whose permit has run out, has expired; and we would expect him to apply and help pay for the paving. So instead of everybody having this date, just put a deadline on the paving of a year from today and make these guys decide who pays for what when. But just set that out there. It’s not a huge amount of money. Otherwise you get this situation where Sumida doesn’t have to pay for five years or three years perhaps, Tavares has to pave, you know, next month, Gapp will have to pave whenever the permit comes in for an amendment; and it becomes a really chaotic situation. And rather than, just set a timeframe for it. The other thing to note, let me just ask a question on this landscaping. Landscaping in is, I don’t think really does it, because you can have little, you know, mark all the plants that are six inches high and they’re not going to do anything for a long time. And at the same time, you know, the resorts will transplant 30-foot tall banyan trees into the site, and I don’t think that that’s a reasonable thing. But something that requires them to, and I don’t have an exact wording for this, but something that requires advanced landscaping and maintenance of the landscaping so that it actually grows well, because typically you have to water it in the area, is what I’m suggesting. And, finally, some of the permits have special conditions related to the permits themselves, like one will have a limitation to a 3100-square foot warehouse, that doesn’t apply here. There’s also a question on hours of operation. The typical permits have been Monday through Saturday 7 a.m. to 4 p.m., and that should also be considered as to what are reasonable hours of operation. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Regarding the Director’s comment about the landscaping and tiny little plants being put in, I’m looking at the Gapp application; and Condition No. 7, the last sentence said landscaping shall be established and maintained at a minimum height of 10 feet and minimum depth of four feet within and along all property boundaries. So we’re not talking about them putting in tiny little plants. They would have to get, you know like fairly good sized plants; and it’s pretty obvious that some plants grow faster than others. And so they have those kinds of options to look at, not only how large an initial plant is when they put it in the ground, but to choose fast growing species and, of course, the nursery they deal with can help them with that kind of information. For example, an areca palm that’s may be 3 ½ to 4 feet tall would probably cost about $50. And that’s, you know, just to give you a general -. EXHIBIT C 28 WATANABE: Okay, to try and narrow this down then, let’s do this, may I suggest this -. Since you brought up the Gapp, let’s take a look at the example of the Gapp one and agree to what -. SIRACUSA: Page 6, Item No. 7. Gapp is Exhibit B. WATANABE: Actually it starts from page 5, yeah, “The applicant shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions,” that was No. 1. And it moves on to -. SIRACUSA: Condition No. 7 at the end. WATANABE: No, it moves on to condition 15.D, am I right? SIRACUSA: I was only referencing the landscaping part when I was referring to that. WATANABE: I understand. But, you know, earlier Mr. Woodward suggested we just use the conditions applicable to the other applications, and typically we do address things such as an extension of time, etc. In fact we also would then have the wording for the three years because we could agree that we’re going to change Condition 2 of the Gapp, life of the permit, baseyard from five to three years. Then we’re not really inventing the wheel, yeah. SIRACUSA: Well, in that case, Mr Chair, the Vern Wood is the most recent one that we had done; and that’s Exhibit E, page 8. In this case the landscaping part is discussed on Condition No. 3. But that is not the same as the condition in the Gapp one which quite frankly I like better because this one is only talking about along the highway for landscaping and not along the makai boundary or the side boundaries. I’m saying like a cut and paste from -. WATANABE: Well, I understand. Okay, I’m trying to keep this real simple cause we’re doing it on the fly. Yeah? You know, typically we try to, how shall I say it, adopt or approve the Director’s or staff’s recommendation, in which case we’re not crafting conditions on the fly. On the other hand, we, to be fair again, do make other requirements of other applicants and, you know, if we can get -. Mr. Gapp is coming up for review very soon. If we can use one model and just say this is what we’re going to do in this area, then it’s easy for us to be simple. If you like No. 7 of the Gapp application and you’re so tied to that, then let’s not look at the Wood application and cut and paste from five of them. Let’s look at one and say, hey, this is what we’re going to do; and that makes it simple. Can we do that? SIRACUSA: Yeah. WATANABE: Okay, Gapp, that was B. If we were to take that approach, Mr. Yuen, which ones do you believe don’t apply? For example No. 3 possibly doesn’t apply, yeah? BOWMAN: What exhibit are you referring to, please? WATANABE: This would be the Gapp one. It starts on the bottom of page 5 of Exhibit B that was handed to you today and continues on. BOWMAN: B, thank you. EXHIBIT C 29 YUEN: I believe what, if we’re working with Gapp, the Gapp permit, one is okay, two is okay. WATANABE: As revised to three years? YUEN: Okay, if that’s the Commission’s wish. I would add a condition saying rd that the applicant shall pay his fair share cost of paving 33 Avenue to the property site and to a minimum width of 20 feet meeting with the approval of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Association, and that the paving shall be completed within one year. WATANABE: This would be a new condition? YUEN: Right. WATANABE: Okay. YUEN: Then 3, if we’re going back to Gapp, I’m sorry, I would add a condition rd that the applicant pay his fair share of any other necessary infrastructure improvements on 33 Avenue. The 3 does not apply. Four, I think we can leave four in. Five would apply, in other words, this is for this person’s business, and he does not sublease the property. Six does not apply. WATANABE: Seven was the landscaping so -. YUEN: Seven is the landscaping. Eight, I would say that the landscaping shall be installed before the occupancy of the site for the baseyard is permitted. I would delete the sentence about native species from the area because the idea is to create a really strong visual blockage, and that’s hard to do with native species. We would not allow, I don’t know why we rd have a limited access allowed from the road. We would say “Access shall only be from 33 Avenue.” The hours of operation are something that I think should be discussed with the applicant. WATANABE: The applicant has that in their write-up. YUEN: What are they proposing? DARROW: They’re proposing 5:00 a.m. at certain times, but the majority of the time at 6:30 a.m. WATANABE: I think they went to 4:00, is that correct? DARROW: It’s 5:00 a.m. WATANABE: No, no, in the afternoon. I think they went to 4:00 in the afternoon in their application. EXHIBIT C 30 DARROW: It’s 6:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily, however trucks may on occasion leave as early as 5:00 a.m. and return as late at 6:30 p.m. That’s No. 2 on the background report on page 1. YUEN: I suggest the Commission hold that to discuss with the applicant because even though we don’t have an objection from a neighbor, remember that the next door neighbor, they have a legal right to build a house there, and I just wonder about the compatibility of a baseyard operation that starts up trucks at 5:00 a.m. to homes that somebody may want to put on the street. Instead of 11, let’s just reference the standard water condition, and that would be one where they connect to County water and that they submit calculations. I don’t know what the Water Department is going to let them have. They’re not going to let them run a standpipe off of a 5/8”, the normal 5/8” meter; but let’s leave that up to the Water Department as to what they want to do. Our standard condition would take care of that. And then the remaining 12, I would include. On 13, we’ve been lately requiring annual status reports only for major projects, and it’s really not necessary for a smaller development. And 14 and 15, 14 would be okay and 15 would also be okay, that allows an extension of time. And I think for everything except No. 2, which is the life of the permit and installation, well, the only timeframes, you know, I would not have any time extensions, except for -. You know, I could see a plan approval, extension of time only for plan approval. The only other timeframes are the life of the permit, which should not be administratively extended, as the Gapp Permit is not administratively extended. And the time for paving the road, I would not have an administrative extension of that time. The six months for plan approval, that’s okay to have an administrative extension. The installation of a landscaping has to be before occupancy, so that also would not be subject to an administrative extension. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. So is everybody fairly clear on what conditions we’re talking about then? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. DOMINGO: With all the requirements and the demands we’re making upon the applicant and the life of the permit will be just for three years, you know, I cannot see the economic feasibility in that it’s so much burden on them financially. And I think if we’re, this Commission as in other Commissions are determined to maintain the existing uses which is provided for the various special permits, then I think we should look at it seriously and perhaps consider that the Planning Department initiate a General Plan Amendment that would make this particular area for Light Industrial uses, rather than they coming in continuously for a special permit. I mean -. WATANABE: I’m guessing that that’s the long-term approach, and that if this applicant and subsequent applicants that are coming up for renewal are committed enough, they’re willing to take that chance and put in the improvements, because, you know, the County will help them with the General Plan Amendment. DOMINGO: But, you know, Mr. Chairman, on the other hand I don’t think three years is considered a long-term period, you know. EXHIBIT C 31 WATANABE: Yeah, I tend to agree with that. DOMINGO: If we can extend the life of the permit to a longer time and then I can say, okay, I would agree to that. But with all that we’re requiring on that, I don’t know -. Anyone want to comment on that? WATANABE: Ms. Bowman? Maybe Ms. Bowman might want to add to that. Do you feel comfortable with going to five years given that? BOWMAN: My rationale was because the other permits are going to be -. WATANABE: Coming up during that time -? BOWMAN: Coming up. And what I’d like to do is maybe ask the applicant if he feels that is doable and these conditions are doable. WATANABE: Could we call you up. SUMIDA: You want me up? WATANABE: Yes, please. SUMIDA: Thank you for considering all the conditions. I talked to the other permit applicants and I guess I shook up a can of worms, you know, doing this. But they all agree they’re all watching to see what happens with my permit. But I went and got the bid for the road paving; so they said if mines get, you know, approved, we’re all going for the paving. Everybody, we got four people willing to chip in already. There are some other owners that were in the back, they didn’t testify, they said they were willing to chip in also; but they had plans to also file for special permits. So you might have more problems in the future that I don’t want to get involved in. But that will make it easier for us with more people chipping in for the road project. And the longer we wait on this, and I think we can get it done now. Wally Tavares th is due up this month on the 20 so he really wants me to get going on this, cause his condition was on the road getting paved so he could get his permit renewed. The longer we wait on this, the cost of oil is going up every day. I’ve got a bid that will hold two weeks; and after that they’re going to raise the bid on me. So I want to get started on this road. Any other conditions, I can live with, like the landscaping. I was willing to fence my lot with a six-foot fence and put a shade cloth on the roadside just to help the landscaping while it’s growing. WATANABE: While we have you up here, can we address hours of operation? SUMIDA: We’re in a drought. WATANABE: Just mostly being mindful that, you know, it hasn’t really been decided that they’re going to change that street or designation to Light Industrial. SUMIDA: Right. Okay, I got one neighbor on the side of me, I’ve talked to him, he has got a house there. There’s an empty lot on the side of me, we’re in the process of trying to EXHIBIT C 32 contact that owner to buy that lot. But the lot on the Hilo side of me, he has a residence there and he’s ecstatic about me moving in. WATANABE: Could you share with us why? SUMIDA: I don’t know. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: You haven’t addressed the three years. How is that? I’d like to know your -. SUMIDA: When the three years run up, what happens after that? BOWMAN: Well, my rationale for that was that there are other special permits that are going to be up and hopefully by that time the County or we can, you know, establish that area. SUMIDA: Okay, what happens when I come in, if I got my permit approved and I come in and I implement the road that gets paved? Doesn’t that take care of everybody else’s permit conditions? WATANABE: Well, actually, Ms. Bowman, I think we’re finding out, assuming this testimony is correct, that you finally are beginning to get the critical mass that you need. Whereas in the past what has happened is in areas that we need more commercial development, we couldn’t decide on where, and you had spotted land ownership where one person wanted to retire or five people wanted to retire and three people wanted to have a baseyard or whatever it was. It sounds as though apparently the Association and the people on this street have found an area that they feel is pretty good. So maybe, just maybe, maybe five years isn’t that bad because maybe it will be rezoned and redefined in the LUPAG and the GP and the Community Development Plan, you know. BOWMAN: But shouldn’t it be done, I mean, before? Well, I guess, I shouldn’t -. I’m just looking at the other permits that are coming up in like 2010, and that’s why I thought if they were all around the same time -. WATANABE: Yeah, but if they’re all on the same street what’s going to happen is they will all have chipped in to pave. And that extension of time can occur, until such time that, if it passes public scrutiny you could then change the zoning, right? ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: That’s the good scenario, right? WATANABE: Right. EXHIBIT C 33 ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? That’s the good scenario, right? That would be the good case scenario. What is suppose to be the bad case scenario, that in three years or four years they could just contribute to the road and then we’d ask them to leave? WATANABE: Could be if the public says I don’t want to and they have that much opposition. ALAMEDA: Yeah. So as long as you know the good scenario and the bad scenario, and you’re okay with both sides. SUMIDA: Can I address that? WATANABE: To that, with that in mind, is five years okay? SIRACUSA: You know, we have the Chair of the Land Use Working Group for the Puna Community Development Plan in the room today and I was wondering if maybe we could ask them to come up and inform us whether or not the Land Use Working Group considered that rd area on 33 Street at all in terms of projected zoning changes. WATANABE: If no one objects, you’re welcome to come up, Mr. Brown. SIRACUSA: Well, either one of you. You both know the answer, I assume. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. HAYASHI: Just for your information, there is a motion on the floor. I don’t know if it’s proper to bring up someone from the public to testify. WATANABE: Oh, okay. SIRACUSA: Mr. Brown is a Planning Department staff. WATANABE: Well, I’ve been informed by counsel that if the parties would allow testimony, meaning the applicant and the Director would allow the testimony, then it’s okay. Anyone have any objections? DOMINGO: No objections, Mr. Chairman, well, on my part. WATANABE: Oh, okay. SONG: Mr. Chairman, if there’s going to be testimony, rather than Mr. Brown, I think the Chairman of the Committee would be better. Mr. Brown is staff from Planning and he has other resources. But the question was whether the Committee considered it, and I think the Chairman would be the best one to answer. WATANABE: Okay. How do you feel about that, Mr. Yuen? EXHIBIT C 34 YUEN: The Commission can ask for whatever testimony that will assist them in making their decision. WATANABE: Okay, so may we have you? Would you raise your right hand. I’ll swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TUCKER: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. Name and address for the record before -. TUCKER: Rob Tucker, Pahoa Village. WATANABE: Thank you. You’re familiar with the question I assume. Did you all consider -? TUCKER: I believe I understand. I was the coordinator for the Land Use Working Group on the CDP process, is that why you’re seeking my input? rd WATANABE: Yes. And we’re specifically addressing 33 Avenue and if it was considered as an Industrial area or an alternative? TUCKER: There were a list of village center proposals put together by the CDP and this location was not one of them. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: A village center is altogether different from a Light Industrial area. I was wondering if -. TUCKER: Well, we envisioned some regional village centers, for example, having some Light Industrial components. But we were not trying to finitely design every acre of potential Industrial or Commercial or other mixed uses within the district within our purview in the Land Use Working Group. We were hoping that that would take place on another level later, which is why I’m here to testify about later today. WOODWARD: Or tonight. TUCKER: Or tonight. SIRACUSA: Okay. So to clarify, although the Working Group did not look, you know, rd at 33 Street as a potential area for Light Industrial development, your deliberations did not preclude it, is that correct? TUCKER: Were not precluded. We did acquire from the Planning Department a map of all special use permits in existence on Highway 130 to an extent. We were not envisioning EXHIBIT C 35 that being an avenue that would be expanded on in the future as far as developing commercial uses up and down Highway 130 by the use of special use permits. That was really not our intent. SIRACUSA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Brown, the Hawaiian Paradise Park Homeowners Association’s master plan for development in the area had not been a matter of discussion with you people on the Planning Committee level? TUCKER: It was looked at and considered amongst other things. There were a number of General Plan issues, master plan, or planning from various subdivisions that were involved reflecting various input from various years or decades at various times; and they were looked at and considered; and that consideration became part of the Working Group report that we submitted to the Steering Committee. DOMINGO: I see. So you folks were aware that there was this designation for Light Industrial for this particular area in question? TUCKER: From the Paradise Park -? DOMINGO: Hawaiian Paradise Park Homeowners Association? TUCKER: We were aware of that. DOMINGO: You were aware of that? TUCKER: We were aware of other areas around the district as well. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: So just, correct me, you said you did review all the special permits that were given in the various areas when you looked at -? TUCKER: We did, yes. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. rd ALAMEDA: And just along those lines, Light Industrial for 33, is that a far- fetched idea, out of the ballpark, within reason? TUCKER: Well, to speak with you truthfully I would consider that to be the special interest of Hawaiian Paradise Park more so than a resident of Pahoa Village, which is what I am. EXHIBIT C 36 I could have my own personal thoughts about it, but I really think it requires more input from Paradise Park in today, you know, today’s interest. WATANABE: Okay. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Just following up on that comment, and this is a comment, again, well the plan suggested like what Commissioner Domingo said, that that’s what they want. So, you know, if you’re putting it back on Hawaiian Paradise Park then I got the answer. TUCKER: Well, I can’t preclude it, you know. And there was language earlier about what the people of the area, be it on the street, within that neighborhood or within the district, there are various perspectives you can bring to that issue. We would rather not see commercial sprawl up and down the Highway 130 of any nature, quite frankly. And the nature of special use permits with a limited time duration were considered something that would not conflict with the overall planning for the district from within the Land Use Working Group. But as your conversation is now expanding into the potentials for creating zoned Light, you know, Mixed or Industrial uses along the highway, that becomes a separate issue than we had considered. ALAMEDA: Okay. WATANABE: It doesn’t get any easier. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, if you look at the proposed development plan before us, along the Pahoa Road, it provides for other zones other than Residential. And, you know, it’s explicit in its whereabouts along the Keaau-Pahoa Road. WATANABE: Okay, okay. Well, thank you for your testimony. TUCKER: You’re welcome. DARROW: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: If I can just make a quick note. Commissioner Bowman has been referencing the additional two permits that will be coming in in the future. Those will be in a two-year period. They’ll be coming in 2010. We have three that are coming in now at this time that most likely if approved will have a five-year term life that will be back before the Commission in a five-year period as well. WATANABE: Okay, so back to the -. I’d like to get to the vote. BOWMAN: Right, right. EXHIBIT C 37 WATANABE: So I’d like to settle on the conditions, if we could. And we’re still back at whether three or five and -. BOWMAN: So the other two that are coming up if and when it comes to the Commission if we do extend the life it will be five years, but we don’t know that, right? WATANABE: We don’t know that. We don’t know if it is going to pass. There are no guarantees. They don’t even know if it‘ll get to a CDP or if Pahoa will overrule them and tell them yank out the road. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: One more question before we get to the vote. The applicant was going to address the concern about the bad case scenario. You know, got the good scenario and got the bad scenario. The bad scenario is, I don’t know, when the time comes doesn’t go to Light Industrial and you’re asked to leave -- and thanks for the road, by the way -- so, you know, what’s your response on that? How would you respond to that? That’s life or what? SUMIDA: It’s my understanding that the Community Association is behind us. That’s the road that they designated Light Industrial. That’s why I bought the lot up there. And we got their backing on this pavement project. They said they’ll let us some of their machines to do the rolling and the grading. So, you know, they’re behind us, you know, on this. I can’t see why, you know, I think they represent the majority of the people in the Park. ALAMEDA: So then it will be shocking, and surprised, and -? SUMIDA: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Yeah, okay. WATANABE: Okay, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: If we do grant a five-year special permit, then I believe that we’ll set a precedent if there’s an extension for the other applicants to go up to five years. WATANABE: We, for the most part, have not exceeded five years at this time. The only types of special permits I recall exceeding five years were the mining type where they were mining cinders and, you know, we’re looking at 50 years, etc. BOWMAN: Excuse me, I mean the applicants that are reupping that one time extension, the two that probably will be coming in. WOODWARD: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. EXHIBIT C 38 WOODWARD: The general procedure has been that if it’s extended, it’s extended for the same amount of time as the initial permit. That’s the way it has been done. It doesn’t mean it has to be done that way. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know, considering the amount of investment that they’ll be making on the property and the surrounding areas, and not discounting the fact that they probably may have or have made investments in the number of equipment that they need in having the business grow, I think five years is adequate for them. WATANABE: Thank you. Again, you know what, I don’t think I’m going to get an answer, so do we have any other -? Yes, Mr. Rho. RHO Can I just change the topic a little bit? WATANABE: Yeah. RHO: On Exhibits B, C, D and E, this is from the applicant’s attorney, each of them has an item or whatever you call this, and this one is Item 2 which talks about effective the date of this permit or upon new Industrially zoned lands becoming available within an approximately four-mile radius. That four-mile radius is mentioned in each of the exhibits. So I wondered why it’s chosen, well, why four miles is the radius that’s chosen for these applications?. YUEN: It encompasses roughly the Paradise Park, Orchidland, Ainaloa area which is a major population center of subdivisions now, but does not take you to Milo Street in Keaau or the Shipman Business Park where there are zoned lands available. RHO: So if, as a lay person reading this thing though I would conclude that for every four miles you would have a Light Industrial area set up.Because if you didn’t then we would be in this situation again where you would have to permit. If it was five miles down the road then a Light Industrial Park, then you would not be forced, but I would come before this Commission to ask for a special permit? YUEN: No. This is there because you have, and really the rationale behind having a Light Industrial or other area for the similar types of small businesses in the area is that you do have a population center there of something like 13,000, 15,000 subdivided lots that’s being developed as a residential area and needs some services; and the closest zoned area is about, I believe it’s about six miles away on Milo Street, and I believe Shipman Business Park is about seven miles away. RHO: My question is why can’t it be seven miles or eight miles? Why is it four miles? YUEN: Well, if you went to eight miles, for example, then all these guys we would say move out because there’s Shipman Business Park. That would be the result of that, of saying eight-mile radius. Okay? EXHIBIT C 39 RHO: My question -. YUEN: And then if your question is -. I’m sorry. RHO: My question really isn’t because there’s a development there that’s ready and available. My question is for a business person, what’s the distance that’s acceptable? You know what I mean? YUEN: Right, no, I know what you mean; and it’s a very good question. And, you know, I don’t have a hard and fast answer to that. But let me give you an example of something that we wouldn’t accept. For example, Opihikao, you know where Opihikao is? RHO: No. YUEN: I’m sorry. Okay, let me use a Kona example. All right, Hookena, all right, we would not see a need to have an area to support Light Industrial businesses within a four-mile radius of Hookena because there are not really that many people living in Hookena. You wouldn’t need to set up an area to support the population around Hookena. But you can make a case for having a support area around Hawaiian Paradise Park and the like because, as I say, you have these thousands of -. RHO: No. But it still doesn’t address the four miles. I can see that you have this heavy concentration of subdivided. I guess half of them are or a quarter of them based on the plan that I read may be occupied. But what makes it four miles as the critical number? SIRACUSA: Why four, and not six or seven? WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. YUEN: Just what I said earlier. WOODWARD: Well, it’s arbitrary. They pulled that number out of the air, but it has been used forever. And, you know, why should you change it? Admittedly it’s arbitrary; and I think that’s what we found, that it was just a number that was pulled out of the air. But I think we need to get on with the vote on this, to be honest with you. WATANABE: I would tend to agree. So unless we have any other suggestions or comments, discussion -. ALAMEDA: Can you repeat the motion. WATANABE: Repeat the motion. RHO: Well, before, can I make one more other comment? EXHIBIT C 40 WATANABE: Yes. RHO: I guess, you know, if you don’t understand why the four miles, then you’re going to repeat this same scenario over and over again, because there’s no rationale behind the four miles, that I can understand anyway. Maybe the rest of you can understand it but I cannot understand the four miles. So -. WATANABE: As I understand it, maybe I can interject a bit, as I understand it and see if this is kind of acceptable to you. The four miles, yes, is arbitrary in the grand scheme of the entire island. The four miles relative to this area because of the concentration of lots is not quite as arbitrary because you do have a, again, concentration and critical mass which would help to justify a Light Industrial area of certain size.Now that doesn’t mean the Light Industrial area has to be 150 acres. Maybe for that population maybe it’s 20 or 40 acres. I don’t know what it is. But I think there is some rationale to that, not necessarily that we will all agree. We’re not in testifying, I’m sorry. Does that satisfy? DARROW: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. DARROW: If I could just interject, my understanding of the four-mile radius is because in the General Plan Amendment there were several amendments done in this particular area, Medium Density Urban nodes and an Industrial node, which fall within this four-mile radius. The intention was that in the future these areas were going to be developed, either through improvements, or possibly if they were allowed to open up with special permits then we would relocate them in those particular areas. Those were the areas that we brought up on the General Plan Map, the orange little areas and the gray areas. So even though this particular area that is zoned Industrial isn’t improved to standards there may be an opportunity in the future that it opens up and allows for these special permits to move in that area. RHO: Anyway, the reason why I really brought that up was when the other applications come up for renewal they’re going to say there is no place that I can go within the four-mile radius, even though I saw it on the map, you have it zoned. But it probably won’t be developed in our life, well, my lifetime, because you need water and whatever was said previously. So we’re never going to get out of this thing if you keep the number at four, that’s all I’m saying. So to me everybody needs to understand the rationale for four which is down the road we were planning that, that’s why we chose four. At Hookena we would choose 20 miles or whatever it is, I can understand that. But without understanding the four miles, then you’re going to do this whole thing all over again, many times over. DARROW: Just to clarify, a good example is Orchidland. At this time we have an area that is Medium Density Urban, it is within that four-mile radius. It’s concentrated Commercial uses that have been approved through special permits. There are improvements that are required for those particular uses but they’re not up to dedicable standards such as it would be at zoning, if zoning came into place there. If the Industrial area that’s available within that four-mile radius becomes available -- right now it’s being held by a private landowner -- if it becomes available there may be an opportunity that special permits can come there without having to do at that time the major improvements that would be required for an Industrial zoning. EXHIBIT C 41 WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Repeat the motion. WATANABE: The motion is to approve a Special Permit for Carnor Sumida. You’re basically looking at the conditions? ALAMEDA: Maybe Jeff can say it since he’s the one that has to read it to us. Jeff, you got that motion clear? DARROW: Yeah. ALAMEDA: Go. DARROW: I just have one quick question before I start with this. There was still a question regarding limiting the hours of operation. Have you folks made a decision on that matter? WATANABE: I’ve been trying to get to that but we keep going away to something. I can’t even get from 3 to 5, you know. All I want is something that we can vote on. Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Did we ask the applicant if those hours are, this would be, what, Monday through Friday, or Monday through Saturday, from -? WATANABE: No, no, his application said actually every day; and I believe it was 6:00 to 4:00 o’clock most of the time, although occasionally trucks would come in as early as 5:00 in the morning, I believe. I believe that was a statement. The condition that we are looking at that we’re referencing in the Gapp application were from 7:00 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. You know, going from 4:00 to 5:00 p.m. is a little easier for obvious reasons. You know, I don’t know, for this business if he had to start from 7:00 maybe that’s difficult. BOWMAN: There are different kinds of businesses. I mean, Gapp is a -. WATANABE: Understand. But, well, why don’t we ask him. SUMIDA: Well, if there’s a day like today, Friday, my trucks start in Kawaihae and they have to be there at 7:00, they have to leave by 5:00; and they’re usually home at 6:00, 6:30. So if there’s a Friday, there’s a guarantee. And other days of the week it’s usually they start in Hilo, which they leave 6:30. They start at 7:00 in Hilo so they don’t have to leave two hours head of time. And they’re usually back home by 3:30 to 4:00, and that’s the majority of the days. But there’s alternate days that they do start early at 5:00 and they come home at 5:00. But there’s that one day, Friday, that, you know, they’re usually late, they come home 6:00 to 6:30. But the usual hours, it varies. You can never tell a truck come home exactly at this time. There’s traffic and there’s, you know, other circumstances. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Yuen. EXHIBIT C 42 YUEN: One comment on this I’d like to make. The gentleman is asking for a special permit and one of the criteria is that it not unreasonably burden other property owners. There are 22 lots between his property and Makuu of whom I think perhaps 10 of them have had notice of this application. On each of those 22 lots somebody has a legal right to build a house. I don’t know how many people have houses on them. But you have to think about if you are going to do a special permit for this trucking business the fact that you’re talking about a large number of trucks potentially driving by people’s houses at whatever hours, it would only reasonable -. You know, I’m not going to argue one hour against another hour, but please keep this in mind as Commissioners in setting what are reasonable hours of operation. ALAMEDA: One more question, Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: The trucks, is this the kind that make the beep, beep, beep when they reverse? SUMIDA: They’ll be going forward. ALAMEDA: Because, I mean, it is a little bit early to hear that sound. SUMIDA: But I don’t have reverse ones on them. ALAMEDA: Okay, I think Chris’s comment is a good one, we’ve got to consider the neighbors. WATANABE: Yeah, it is. And I think the reason we have a lot of special permits is because, and Mr. Yuen will verify this, I believe, we have complaints about businesses that are operating in an Ag area that does not conform, and so they come in and apply for a special permit to legitimize the practice. So I suppose if you have many complaints, the special permit can be given and can be taken away also, yeah? SUMIDA: Yes. WATANABE: You understand that? SUMIDA: Yes. WATANABE: Yeah, that is another controlling factor. I mean irrespective of your investment, I mean, if it becomes such a nuisance it could be taken away. OGATA: Question. WATANABE: Yes. OGATA: What are you going to lay down on your property, is it going to be gravel or, I mean, is it going to be paved, cinder, what? EXHIBIT C 43 SUMIDA: Right now it’s compacted cinder. It has already been there for a couple of years. OGATA: Okay. Cause we’ve had complaints from, other public complaints about trucks going on the gravel and making noise in the morning. So -. WATANABE: Okay, you were asked to read the conditions. And before you get through all of that, your original, Mr. Domingo, your original motion was for five years? DOMINGO: Yes. WATANABE: And you as the maker of the motion you originally said that you were not adverse to three until you started adding on all of these other conditions, and you are the maker of the motion. So I would defer to you as to whether you would want that particular condition read as three years or five years? DOMINGO: I think in view of the most recent discussion, I would prefer that it be five years. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. WOODWARD: I agree. WATANABE: Okay, so we have a motion with five years. And you get to follow-up with the others. DARROW: Thank you. As we go I’ll ask for clarification. The motion before us is to approve this special permit with conditions. Condition No. 1: The applicant shall be responsible for complying with all of the stated conditions of approval. Condition No. 2: The life of the permit for the baseyard shall be for five years from the effective date of this permit or upon new industrial zoned lands becoming available within an approximate four-mile radius from the subject property within a reasonable period to effect relocation, whichever occurs first. rd Condition No. 3: The applicant shall participate, pay its fair share in paving 33 Avenue meeting with the approval of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Homeowners Association, which shall be completed within one year from the effective date of this permit. Condition No. 4: The applicant shall also pay their fair share for other improvements that are rd required along 33 Avenue. Condition No. 5: The baseyard operations shall be conducted in substantial conformance with representations made in the application. EXHIBIT C 44 Condition No. 6: No further subleasing of the property shall occur for a baseyard or other business-related activities. Condition No. 7: Final plan approval from the Planning Director shall be secured within six months from the effective date of this permit in accordance with the Zoning Code Section” it names all the sections. This is the same condition that’s listed in the Gapp application, No. 7, so I won’t go into great detail on that. WOODWARD: Except that the landscaping is being -? DARROW: That I believe is a separate condition. That will be Condition No. 8. WATANABE: That was Condition No. 8. WOODWARD: Okay. DARROW: And that will say “The required landscaping shall be installed prior to certificate of occupancy being issued.” Condition No. 9, “Access shall be -.” YUEN: Jeff, I’m sorry, slight change on that, “Prior to occupancy of the property for a baseyard.” I’m not sure that there will be a certificate of occupancy per say for this project. DARROW: “Prior to occupancy of a baseyard.” WATANABE: Property as a baseyard. rd DARROW: Condition No. 9: Access shall be limited to 33 Avenue. Condition No. 10, this is in regards to hours of operation. WATANABE: Put 6:30 to 4:00, which was his general, that was his general hours, 6:30 to 4:00. DARROW: This would be daily? Monday through Saturday? WATANABE: That’s what his application represents. WOODWARD: Daily. OGATA: Daily. DARROW: Daily, 6:30 a.m. to 4:00 p.m. daily. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? Are you through, Jeff, with the conditions? DARROW: I have a few more. EXHIBIT C 45 DOMINGO: Okay, I’ll wait until you’re done. DARROW: Condition No. 11 will be our standard water condition. Condition No. 12, our standard condition requiring the applicant to comply with all applicable laws, rules and regulations of State and County and Federal agencies. Condition No. 13 will be “If the applicant fails to comply with the conditions of approval or is unable to resolve any public complaints, the Planning Director shall investigate and if necessary enforce the appropriate conditions. The Planning Director may as a part of any enforcement action refer the matter to the Planning Commission for review. Upon appropriate findings by the Planning Commission that the applicant has failed to comply with the conditions of approval or has caused an unreasonable adverse impact on surrounding properties the permit may be suspended or revoked.” Condition No. 14, this will be our standard administrative time extension, with the exception I believe of Conditions 2 and 3. Is this correct? YUEN: Yes. WATANABE: Is everybody clear on the conditions? DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Just one clarification. With regards to the improvements to Kaloli, would that read to the extent of the length of the property or -? Because it leaves it wide open. rd WATANABE: For 33 Street? DOMINGO Thirty-third Street. rd WATANABE: On 33 Street, actually the way it’s read, the way it’s stated he’d pay his proportionate share. DOMINGO: Okay. WATANABE: So you’re really looking at whatever fronts him, right. And people ahead of him may have to pay a portion, right? DOMINGO: That’s the way it’s written. DARROW: Mr. Director, I know you had mentioned that it was up to the subject, at the applicant’s property. Is that correct? YUEN: Correct. EXHIBIT C 46 DARROW: Okay. So it is up to the applicant’s property. Okay. DOMINGO: Any discussion? ALAMEDA: You know, we could -. WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: It is clear in my mind at least from the applicant’s standpoint that, you know, they’re putting all these eggs in this one basket that within the five years somehow they can have some permanency that I don’t think they’re going to be looking down the road or around. So just to keep that in mind. WATANABE: Okay. Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: And, again, my concern is if we grant this a five year, then our extensions would seem logical that they would be five years for the renewal. And, again, I’m not against the applicant’s intent but I am against the five years. So I just want to let you know that. WATANABE: Okay, all right. Any further objections or comments? Let’s go for the vote. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. With that I’ll take the roll call. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: No. DARROW: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Rho? RHO: No. EXHIBIT C 47 DARROW: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Aye. DARROW: The motion passes six to two. WATANABE: Okay. SONG: Thank you. WATANABE: We finally got through it. So what we’ll do is staff will, you know, document the conditions as stated and we’ll send that to you in writing yeah. SONG: Thank you very much. BOWMAN: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: I have a question just relating to the letter that was sent out to the landowners. Do you have the picture of the street, Jeff, the picture of the street. I just want to know if the lot owners on this side were given letters. YUEN: No. I’m thinking about sending them. But we didn’t send any to the nd abutting lot owners on 32, the people whose lots would back up to the Light Industrial lots. BOWMAN: Right. YUEN: No, we did not yet. BOWMAN: Okay. So can I suggest because they will be abutting -. YUEN: Okay. Yeah, we can do that. BOWMAN: I mean if it was my backyard and I had a commercial, you know -. YUEN: I understand. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. EXHIBIT C 48 The discussion ended at 3:49 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 49