2008-12-05 THWN RAINFOREST - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Anyway, I’m hoping that you did have a chance or opportunity to review the submittal that we provided along with the exhibits. We did do that on Wednesday. Apparently there was some administrative snafu, but you do have that in your hands. And I wanted primarily today to supplement the information that we provided and then wrap some of our arguments into what we provided before. What I wanted to do is just, you know, briefly also respond to what Mr. Fuke said just at the outset, as well as Mr. Betts.From the standpoint of a water bottling plant, as indicated, Shipman in principal does not have a big issue with that kind of a use on that property. Historically that property as well as the surrounding properties have primarily been used for agricultural processing facilities, and that use is not entirely inconsistent with that previous use. We’d also like point out that from the standpoint of the General Plan the CDP, Puna CDP, as you well know, was adopted not very long ago that really more specifically laid out in the context of that general long-range guide what should actually be done in this particular area. And what had happened when the CDP was going through its analysis and its various revisions, you may be aware that Shipman had been somewhat vocal in making sure that the industrial park was included within the regional town center. Some adjustments were made. And at that time it, you know, the former Planning Director Chris Yuen had also been requested even by the Ulupono Center owners because of its MCX zoning to be included within that regional town center. Nevertheless knowing that that request had been made, this particular area, and particularly the area where the Sung property is, was kept out of there. As we pointed out in our analysis the CDP specifically and expressly says that any area outside of that regional town center, any application for light industrial should be denied. So the real question from a policy standpoint for both this body as well as the Council is what are you going to follow? Now Mr. Fuke has said that there is some language in the General Plan, which we also provided excerpts to you for, that states that the General Plan should be controlling in places of conflict. But I don’t really see that specifically saying that when you’re dealing with the issue of the LUPAG Map and what the CDP says expressly, that you therefore still must take the General Plan LUPAG Map as controlling. And here’s why: In our submittal with respect to the County General Plan, we referenced the information on the CDP; and I believe that’s found at page 15-1. And if you look at Section 15-1, point l, I should say, it states expressly that “The Community Development Plans will translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas. A Community Development Plan should direct physical development and public improvements within a specific area.” But, you know, the General Plan doesn’t even stop there when it talks about these kinds of issues because it also says at the next page at 15-2, the Community Development Plan shall focus on action and shall identify appropriate governmental actions that include enforcement of various regulations to control land use. Now what are those regulations that we’re faced with in the context of this particular development? Now I’m not talking about just the simple public access or the issue of access. I’m talking about general policies of planning. If you take a look at the other standards of the General Plan where it talks about roadways, 13.2.1 states “In planning vehicular transportation, the various systems take into consideration activities or land uses that will continue to generate traffic…. The planning and design of roadways must also consider the area through which the corridor passes…potential for multiple uses…and the impacts that may occur in the surrounding lands.” EXHIBIT C 8