Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-09-16 TCONTINENTALSMA 03-016 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI`I HEARING TRANSCRIPT SEPTEMBER 16, 2004 A regularly advertised hearing on the aplication of CONTINENTAL PACIFIC, LLC was called to order at 12:25 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom € (SMA 03-016) Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairman Fred Galdones presiding. PRESENT:Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED:C. Kimo Alameda William GrahamEarl Fujikawa Jeffrey McCallFrancis Smith Ren® SiracusaBill Thibadeau HannahSpringer IvanTorigoe,DeputyCorporationCounsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 12 people from the public in attendance. APPLICANT: CONTINENTAL PACIFIC, LLC (SMA 03-016) Application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of an 11-lot subdivision, ranging in sizes from 2.0 acres to 5.6 acres, and related improvements. The area involved is located approximately 1,900 feet south of the Hilo Coast Processing Co.s Power Plant and about 150 feet east (mauka) of the shoreline, Pepeekeo, South Hilo, Hawai`i, TMK:2-8-08: portion of 100. GALDONES: Commissioners, Application No. 4. This is under New Business. Applicant is Continental Pacific, LLC (SMA 03-016). This is an application for a Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit to allow the development of an 11-lot subdivision, ranging in sizes from 2.0 acres to 5.6 acres, and related improvements. Norman? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Just to move things along, the area that‰s under consideration is these 11 lots indicated by these green dots. This would be the SMA, so a portion of these lots would be within the Special Management Area. The lots are 2 to 5.6 acres in size; and we are recommending approval with conditions as have been circulated to you. GALDONES:Questions, Commissioners? Seeing none, Mr. Lim, you‰re still under oath. Have you received the background report and the recommendations, and also the amendments? LIM:That is correct. We have received the background report and recommendations from the Planning Department. We would have, I guess initially I‰d like to request that the evidence and the testimony that was entered in the prior proceedings just before 1 here on the Change of Zone, State Land Use and SMA-009, be incorporated in this present proceeding so we don‰t have to repeat everything. GALDONES:Norman, do you see that as a problem? HAYASHI:It‰s not a problem. And all of the correspondences would be also included. GALDONES:So noted. LIM:Thank you. We have the same comment on proposed Condition No. 9 for SMA Use Permit 03-016, where we‰d request addition at the second line after the word "lot," where it says: "$15,000 upon the sale of each lot, up to a maximum of 11 lots, created by this permit." AndIguesswewouldalsoaddthesimilarconditionsasproposedbythePlanningDirector regarding the grading for the Phase 2 improvements for the Kula`imano, for the Pepeekeo Community Center, I mean, the Kula`imano Community Center for the Pepeekeo Community Association. GALDONES:Thank you. Commissioners, any questions of Mr. Lim? If not, we have one individual who has signed up to testify, Claudia Rohr. LIM:Excuse me. While Ms. Rohr is coming up, a procedural matter. We received a copy of a January 8, 2004, petition for standing in a contested case hearing by Eusebio Lapenia, Jr. And what happened was he submitted that just prior to the January hearing that we continued at our request to work with the community. So, technically, Mr. Lapenia has submitted a petition, you know, seven days prior to the first hearing on the SMA, which is today. I don‰t know whether he submitted his $100 or not, but I guess we would ask that the Commission take action on that. We understand that, I think Ms. Mendoza is here, who would testify that Mr. Lapenia has been participating in their discussions, and he is agreeable to withdraw it if he needs to. GALDONES:Norman? HAYASHI:Yes. As far as Mr. Lapenia‰s request or petition for a contested case hearing, that was filed when the initial application was submitted, and he did file it in a timely manner. However, because of procedural, there‰s some procedural questions relative to notification requirement. We informed Mr. Lapenia that his petition would be returned to him, including his filing fee, and then he can reapply at the time that the notice, the applicant had resubmitted this notice for this application as well as for the, for this particular hearing. We have not received any new petition from Mr. Lapenia. We also informed Mr. Lapenia and his attorney at that time, Mr. David Frankel, of this meeting, so they were aware of the deadlines for filing of a new petition for standing. We have not received that petition. GALDONES:So, Norman, for all intents and purposes, a petition for a contested case hearing does not exist? HAYASHI:That is correct. 2 GALDONES:Okay. Any further discussion? Before we proceed, I havea request from the commissioners to take a short break, so Miss Rohr, would you indulge us? I‰m going to call for a five-minutes recess. RECESSEDThe Chair called a short recess at 12:30 p.m. RECONVENEDThe meeting reconvened at 12:40 p.m. GALDONES:The Hawai`i County Planning Commission is back in order. Miss Rohr, you are still under oath. Miss Rohr, we would appreciate it if you‰d be able to help us to expedite this along, so if you could make your presentation as expeditiously as possible. I‰m not trying to rush you. However, but if you could help us, we would appreciate that. You may proceed. ROHR:This is complicated. The negotiated, I mean the settlement agreement does not allow the Planning Director to make any changes within his office. So what gets done here is it. I don‰t think that the shoreline access in this project is to the law. If you read Chapter 34, there are distances for shoreline access. I think we‰re missing one. I‰m asking that you make as a condition, this application, an additional shoreline access at this point down by the power plant, because the distance is too far. The law provides for shoreline access in the case of RS zoning every 800 to 1,000 feet; in the case of Ag land, it‰s, maybe the Corporation Counsel could tell us thedistance.It‰sChapter34requirements. LIM:Chairman,IguessImightmakeacommentthatmighthelpsomeofthe resolution of this issue. Chapter 34 was enacted in response to a state law that required the counties to implement public access in any subdivision applications. Chapter 34 still has to have the Planning Director‰s rules to actually get, to implement them. And so what we‰ve been doing with the Planning Director on this and on other projects is to try to see what the best workable access was that was as close as possible to the requirements of Chapter 34. And Chapter 34 only requires pedestrian access mauka/makai at certain designated intervals. And as you see from the provisions that we‰ve given here, the public is allowed to drive down pretty much all the way close to the water from the main highway. So if you were to follow the strict requirements of Chapter 34, all you would have is, you know, every 1,000 to 1,500 feet 10-foot-wide mauka/makai public access alignments where theyve got to walk 3 or 4 miles down towards the ocean. That‰s all that Chapter 34 requires. So I think that the public access plan that we‰ve developed with driving down to pretty much near the water, parking lots, and then further walking down more than adequately meets the requirements of Chapter 34. YUEN:Let me just follow up on that. The public access here meets both the spirit and the letter of Chapter 34. In an agricultural area, which is what we‰re dealing with here, the location of the accesses is supposed to be 1,500 to 2,500 feet apart; and it does not actually call for a continuous lateral access. It calls for an access to the shore. So what we have is we have 3 access points that are -- if you look at the proposed subdivision map, we have, on this end -- for these 11 lots on the south end, we have two access points where youcanwalk to the shore, and then you have a continual lateral access along the shore. The widest gap between those, the gap between the two points is 873 feet. The one parking, one access point is 686 feet from the north end of the proposed subdivided lots, andthen it‰s another 800 feet to the boundary of the next lot. So there‰s about, from that access point, there‰s about 1,500 feet to the next point, to the power plant. Now when you hit the power plant lot, thepublic access stops. The power plant is owned by somebody else. It is under an SMA permit, but there‰s no public access requirement for that permit. So you don‰t have, even not counting the fact that you have a lateral public access, the spacing complieswithChapter34. GALDONES:MissRohr? ROHR:Okay.I‰msorry,butIdisagree.TherequirementsofSMA221requires that, what used to be lot 53, the Hilo Coast Power Company grant public access to the shoreline as a requirement. I also disagree. I think that there‰s, if you take the shore -. I‰m not sure how you‰re supposed to measure, whether it‰s by the straight line as the crow flies or take into account the inundations of the shoreline, but I believe it‰s more than 2,500 feet to the, from this access to the one at Mill Road. I think the one at Mill Road was also the one that the power plant is using for SMA 221, so you‰re sort of using it twice. So I disagree with that. And I think the way to tell is for the Planning Director to provide you all with the requirements of SMA 221. I brought this up before that those should have been respected within this other SMA permit. Okay. So during the break we‰ve determined that the main road system on this Subdivision Map 7644 is misidentified as Parcel 93 and does not coordinate with this chart on the right which outlines the various easements. I would like to suggest in this next SMA that the Planning Commission, since the Director can‰t do this in his own capacity because of the settlement agreement, that you ask that Easement R-1 through R-8 be also designated a public easement for vehicular traffic in favor of the County of Hawai`i and public access. This is a requirement of Chapter 34, to provide a continuous access from a public road. Nowhere is there, in every other subdivision document, I think these things need to be corrected; that these file plans are legal documents. It‰s all we have to go by. That‰s all the title companies have to go by. I would appreciate it if I could go home and sleep tonight knowing that you‰re going to preserve for the future public access all the way to a public road. In other words, the public access that is listed on this subdivision plan remains landlocked. They start here. Maybe there‰s public access to this point, but there is no provision for the public to legally drive down Mill Road, go along the railroad and access the parking lot. 4 I don‰t like to feel like I‰m trespassing. That‰s why I‰m asking today that you direct the Planning Director to open the public access. This was a contract, and in any good contract you give something to get something. What Continental Pacific gave in order to get this huge property developed as a PC&R was certain conditions, of which are public access. I‰m asking that before they get their end of the contract satisfied that they show performance. I think they‰re in breach of contract. Thank you. That‰s all I have to say. GALDONES:Any questions, Commissioners? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER:Just if I could ask the Director to respond to the most recent comments regarding breach of contract. YUEN:Well, the settlement agreement says, as far as the vehicular rights-of-way, says,--andthisisincorporatedintotheSMApermit--itsaysthereshallbepublicvehicular access allowed on Pepeekeo Mill Road and along the old railroad right-of-way, the present road along Waimaao Streatm, unless equivalent vehicular access is provided. That‰s the road leading, Waimaao Stream is the stream on the Hilo side of this application, and there is a road paralleling that that leads to the subdivision. A new 10-foot-wide driveway from the railroad right-of-way down along Kapehu Stream to the public access parking area at the beach road cul-de-sac and along the segment of land leading makai from banyan tree on TMK (3)2-8-9-1 to various public parking easements as shown on Exhibit A. So that‰s all covered. It‰s incorporated into the SMA permit. And then one last point of clarification as to what is, what my obligations are here, and yours. The settlement agreement did not obligate the Planning Director to recommend approval of this SMA application. We are, however, recommending approval of it. That was not part of the settlement agreement. And, of course, the Commission does retain its ultimate authority to accept, reject, or modify my recommendations. GALDONES:Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER:I‰m looking at the settlement document on Page 9, Section , where C-5 there‰s a discussion of when the public accesses shall be officially open. And just clarify for me if previous testimony indicated that although the easement documents have not been accepted by both parties, the applicant has made the area accessible to the public. Do I €? YUEN:Yes. SPRINGER:And is that, to your knowledge, Mr. Yuen, is that between 6:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. seven days a week? YUEN:Well, why don‰t you bring them up to ask them, because I don‰t know any hours -. I don‰t know of any actual policing going on as far as the public use of the area, though. 5 SPRINGER:Okay. Thank you. Mr. Chairman, may we invite the applicant‰s representative to discuss this with us? GALDONES:You‰d like to direct a question to them? SPRINGER:Yes. GALDONES:Yes. LIM:Thank you very much. I‰ll have Mr. Peter Kubota, who is more intimately involved with public access issues, tell you what‰s happening. KUBOTA:Yes. Actually, Mr. Yuen is correct. The accesses have been generally open. The agreement provides for 6:00 a.m. to 6:00 p.m. access. I‰m not really aware of any effortsbyContinentaltopoliceitafterthosehoursunlessthere‰saproblem.Youknow, sometimes there‰s guys in there drinking or whatever, and so employees of Continental or security guards would chase people out. But other than that, it has been pretty well open, most of the time. SPRINGER:Thank you. Thank you. GALDONES:Hearing no further questions, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA:Well, I‰m new here, so I didn‰t have the benefit of the site visit or all the previous meetings that happened; and some points on the map that have been referred to elude me, like I can‰t tell where the stream is, for example. So I‰m wondering if, since we only have five people here, what would be the repercussions if I abstained? GALDONES:Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE:Generally speaking, like I said, we do need to have five persons voting in favor of any action that is taken. SIRACUSA:Today, period, for everything that we cover today? TORIGOE:That‰s basically correct, yeah. GALDONES:Miss Rohr? ROHR:For the record, Steven, would you mind telling me whether I would be free from any illegal trespass if I used these public accessways today, even though the agreement is that they‰re not open? Would I be guilty of trespass? LIM:Well, I can tell you that the Continental Pacific owners have not stopped people from exercising the public access to the shoreline. ROHR:So, technically, I may be guilty of trespass. So I would appreciate it if those access points would be open, Mr. Yuen. 6 LIM:Part of the reason why, well, there‰s two reasons why theformal public access grant of easement has not been recorded. One is we had to wait for this proceeding to see what would happen with the permitting and the conditions that come along with the permit. Second is that we have to finish our site visit with the Director for areas where the streams come down. You are going to kind of have to come back into the stream and then go back down. We do that, mark that off, have the surveyor then get the metes and bounds description, and then we would file our, I think it‰s called, I have the document already done. We‰re just waiting for the mapping. It‰s called a declaration of, either a declaration of public access easement or grant of public access easement, which it essentially lays out the terms of the settlement agreement, and describe exactly where it is. So for the mauka/makai accesses that Commissioner Siracusa was talking about, these pink ones are where the five mauka/makai, is that I‰m pointing to. And, you know, the Kapehu Stream, one isatthefarWaimeaside;thebanyantreeonetheytalkedabout,whichisthenextonedown here; the middle one is the one at the Pepeekeo point; and then you‰ve got two within the south lots SMA. SIRACUSA:And what are those black dots on your aerial map? LIM:The black dots. I don‰t have the map. I think I gave my map away. The black dots? SIRACUSA:They run €. LIM:Oh, I see. SIRACUSA:Above -. LIM:I think that the black dots are attempting to show you where the SMA line is. SIRACUSA:Ah, okay. LIM: Okay. ROHR: Could ask you, Mr. Lim, would you be opposed to the Director opening up the access as is and let you folks continue with your legal work at your convenience and not at the public‰s inconvenience? LIM: Well, that‰s the second part that I was going to, I had two points. The second point was that, and the reason why you want to have a granted public access easement and the Planning Director to adopt rules on use of the area, is that there is liability concerns by us as owners of the property and the other owners of lots in the area, and so that‰s what that grant would also cover. Because while we do have some protection from the Hawai`i Recreational Use Statute for letting people across the land for public access and recreational purposes, there is a continued concern with regard to what they do down there; and that‰s what the rules and regulations would be about. So that‰s what this document would encompass. And so it is going 7 to take time; and that‰s why we recognized that and we‰ve been letting people godown basically, you know, without challenge. ROHR: Okay. We‰ve beenhere for a year now. In that time, these gentlemen have not found the time to get this work done. The public has been inconvenienced. The developer has suffered no repercussion. He goes on getting to do his subdivisions. LIM: We cannot finalize our €. ROHR: Please -. LIM:Oh, sorry. ROHR:Please, please. Okay. The public is being inconvenienced. You gentlemenhavehadallthetimeyouneed.Youjusthavenotscheduleditin.Ithinkthatit‰s unfair to continue on; and this is the only chance I ever get to speak of this matter. After this, it‰s a dead issue. This is the last hearing. The public has no input. I‰m asking, please, before you accept, I mean, pass this SMA you make as conditions: That the existing public accesses, first of all, are clarified in the survey and go to a public road, a continuous access to a public road in the survey. Two, the dedication documents are drafted and handed over to the County. And three, the Planning Director implements his rules. As for these other issues of staking the shoreline trail, if they haven‰t done it in a year, they‰re never going to do it. Sorry. GALDONES: Miss Rohr, are you completed with your testimony? LIM: Just a short response. Like I said, we can‰t finish the public access easement until we get the permits issued so we know what the conditions are. So we‰re waiting partly for that also. But I think, you know, I think that Continental and the Pepeekeo Community Association have worked out reasonable access agreements between themselves, and the Pepeekeo Community Association would even have a little bit more access than the public. Part of this is a management responsibility as to, you know, who‰s going to be responsible for policing the public access, and who‰s going to help the developer do that. So that‰s the fine-tuning details that they spoke about. And I don‰t know -. Lorraine Mendoza is still in the audience. I don‰t know if she wants to come up and say anything about the acceptability of the public access to the community, but that might be the best person since she lives in the community and, as I understand, uses the recreational resources in the area. GALDONES: Miss Mendoza, you‰re still under oath. MENDOZA: I‰m still under oath and I‰m hungry, like the rest of us. GALDONES: So are we. MENDOZA: What am I supposed to be commenting on? I‰m sorry. 8 GALDONES: The public access. MENDOZA: The maintenance of the public access? LIM:Actually adequacy of the public access that you guys -. MENDOZA:Oh, okay. Like the six to six hours that suggested seems, you know, fair to the community. And what our issue was like 24-hour fishing, because fish don‰t bite during the day, they bite at night, you know. And that‰s mainly the concern of our residents, and that‰s what the community association was taking into consideration when doing this. The public access from six to six is a separate issue. But for our community and wanting to maintain the lifestyle that our people have had, you know, over the years, this is a hot-to-trot topicthatwasbroughtup,andContinentalhasaddressedit,youknow,tothesatisfactionofthe community. And this has been expressed many times during several of our general membership meetings. GALDONES: Thank you. Further questions or comments? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: Lorraine, let me just, my understanding of Claudia Rohr‰s comment was more of an interim situation, like the Planning Director has to finalize this and that, and they‰re waiting for this and that. And I thought, my sense of where she was coming from was that we don‰t know, she doesn‰t feel real confident in how long this interim situation is going to run. And so the specific agreements you‰ve made, her concern is, you know, they‰re not sort of officially enforced yet. So do you or your association have any concern about the interval of time between now and to when everything becomes officially down on paper that you will be able to exercise the sort of access and fishing rights that you are expecting? MENDOZA: Yeah. We don‰t have a concern about the interim time that it will take, no. We‰re fine. GRAHAM: Okay. GALDONES: Mr. Lim, do you have a closing comment before I close the debate? LIM: No further comments. GALDONES: No further comments. Any questions from Commissioners? Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: I‰m wondering about our new Commissioner‰s comfort level with voting on this matter -. SIRACUSA:Thank you. SPRINGER:Given that concern that was raised. I guess, I‰d look to the Corporation Counsel as far as guidance, how much discussion we can have on this matter. 9 TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman? GALDONES: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: I‰m not sure I understand the question. What do you mean by how much discussion -? SPRINGER: We can have one whether or not there will be a vote of abstaining vote. Do we need to make the motion and go through the vote? TORIGOE: Well, are you intending to discuss whether or not Miss Siracusa may abstain, or should abstain, or what are you planning to discuss? SPRINGER:Well,shecertainlymayabstain.Sheseemstofeelthatsheshouldabstain. And I‰m wondering whether we should move forward with a motion given what we understand. TORIGOE: Well, I think that‰s something that if someone wants to make a motion and want to discuss that, you can do that. LIM: Yeah. I guess on the applicant‰s behalf, you know, if Miss Siracusa intends to abstain, then we, I think, have no choice but to ask for a continuance. I don‰t want to get a denial on the permit which we think, you know, should be the issue. I don‰t know what additional time would make it clearer to her, though, because I‰m not sure what your issue would be. SIRACUSA: Well, it‰s just that there‰s so many things on this map that I can‰t pin into an, you know, on-the-ground situation; and the whole thing is rather complex; and I didn‰t have the benefit of, you know, a site visit that the other commissioners did. And so, you know, it‰s even hard for me to tell exactly, you know, where the accesses are that we‰re talking about, and this and that. YUEN: I wonder if you have some specific questions relating to the map here, and I understand the rest of the commissioners went on a site visit with €. SIRACUSA: Okay. The access that, the red line that goes right along the shoreline, is that just a marking of the shoreline, or is that the marking of the public access trail? YUEN: That‰s the marking of the shoreline. SIRACUSA: Okay. And then the next red line mauka of that, those are the parcel boundaries, or is that the marking of the trail? YUEN: That would be the parcel boundary, that would be the makai, the next red line would be the makai-most boundary of the parcel if this SMA permit is accepted. SIRACUSA: Okay. So €. 10 YUEN: They would get tomove the parcel boundary to that line closer to the shore from otherwise. SIRACUSA: So somewhere between those two lines is where the public access would be, the lateral public access? YUEN: Yeah. Physically, if I could describe that, along the whole length of shoreline here, running from the gulch on the left side of the map to the mill site that‰s labeled as 5 sort of in the middle of the map, there is a plantation field road. I‰m not sure that it runs, I‰m not sure that it runs all the way, but it runs almost all the way the length of that. So a condition of the permit is that, proposed condition s that public access would include that plantation field road. That field road runs anywhere from 10 to 40 feet or so inland from the top of the sea cliff. If you see the, long the ocean cliff there, there‰s a line of ironwood trees. Do you see the dark line? SIRACUSA: Yeah. The dark line. Okay. YUEN: Well, those are ironwood trees. SIRACUSA: Okay. YUEN: And then on the mauka side of the ironwood trees is an old plantation field road. Its pretty, not very good condition now but a walkable path. So that, the public access would run just through those ironwood trees and just mauka of the ironwood trees, the lateral access. SIRACUSA: Okay. Thank you for helping me visualize that. YUEN: And then the two mauka/makai red lines that you see are, there are N-3, two straight lines going through the area labeled 3. SIRACUSA: On either side of the 3, the number 3? YUEN: Yeah. SIRACUSA: Yeah. YUEN: Those are the public pedestrian accesses to get to the lateral access. SIRACUSA: Ah, okay. YUEN: Then there are parking areas along a road that‰s labeled as Road Loea there. Physically, if you were curious about the shoreline here, it‰s almost all nearly vertical sea cliff about 100 feet high. You can scramble down to the shore with difficulty at the very far left where there‰s a gulch. At a point that‰s directly below the, see the right-hand mauka/makai access, and then there‰s a point sticking out in the ocean there? SIRACUSA: Yes. 11 YUEN: You can scramble down to the ocean at that point. SIRACUSA: That‰s between the 5 and the 6? YUEN: No. Way, way back at 3. SIRACUSA: Oh. YUEN: I‰m still on the left-hand side of the map here. SIRACUSA: Okay. YUEN: Look at the number 3. SIRACUSA: Yeah. YUEN: And then looking to the right of that, there‰s a red line €. SIRACUSA: Uh huh. YUEN: Heading toward the shore. SIRACUSA: Yeah. YUEN: There‰s a public access there that comes out. And you see in front of that public access; there‰s a point sticking out in the ocean? SIRACUSA: Uh huh. YUEN: That place you can, with some difficulty, scramble down and get to the water‰s edge. You can probably, I think you can do that as well at one of the other points to the right there. And the rest I don‰t think you can get down the coast, the cliff there. But that would be, those would be public access points. I think, and then right at the mill I think you can get down again. Lorraine, is there any other places? Is that about right as far as getting down to the water? MENDOZA:Yes. YUEN:Okay. Thanks. SIRACUSA: Thank you. GALDONES: Further questions or comments? Miss Mendoza. MENDOZA: I just wanted to go on record that the Pepeekeo Community Association also supports Continental Pacific‰s application for SMA 03-016, and that we stand by our earlier 12 supportive testimony. And just to reiterate Mr. Lim‰s comments, Mr. Lapenia has expressed verbally in several meetings that he will not proceed with the contested case on this SMA application. GALDONES: Thank you. Miss Rohr, you have closing comments? ROHR: I again want to emphasize that I feel that Mr. Lim and Mr. Yuen are going to find it hard to schedule into, I mean, to put into their schedule time to get these things done. I‰d appreciate it if you would put some additional conditions into this SMA which puts a definite time limit on getting these things done, so that they will get done. Thank you. GALDONES: Mr. Lim. LIM: I guess my only comment would be, I could understand her comment if we werestoppingpeoplefromgoingdownthere,butthat‰snothappening. GALDONES:Mr.-. ROHR:Wecouldn‰tgetdownthere,andwetried.Itsnottrue. GALDONES:MissSiracusa,areyouatthecomfortleveltotakeactiononthismatter? SIRACUSA: Yes, thank you. GALDONES: Thank you. The Chair is going to be closing the debate and further discussion. SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: If I may ask of Mr. Lim, under what circumstances might public access using the Mill Road occur during daylight hours? Under what circumstances might vehicular access using Mill Road be prohibited during daylight hours at this time? LIM: None that I know of. It‰s opened up, you know, theyve got to get down to the power plant too on that Mill Road. SPRINGER: Okay. LIM: This is Mill Road, the main one coming down straight to the power plant over here. SPRINGER: Yeah. LIM: So, no. I think that people regularly drive down there just to sightsee a lot of times, too. 13 SPRINGER: Thank you. GALDONES: Okay. If there‰s no objection, the Chair is going to be closing debate. The application for this SMA comes with the recommendation from the Department to have the Planning Commission approve of it with revisions to Condition Nos. 3, 7, 8 and 9, and also an amendment that was introduced by Mr. Lim regarding the addition of the word "lot." The Chair is prepared to entertain a motion. SPRINGER: Mr. Chair? GALDONES: Commissioner Springer. SPRINGER: With regard to Continental Pacific, LLC‰s Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 03-016), I move for approval by the Hawai`i County Planning Commission for the reasonsandwiththeconditions,asamended,asrecommendedbythePlanningDirector. MCCALL:Second. GALDONES:IthasbeenmovedbyCommissionerSpringer,secondedbyCommissioner McCall, Continental Pacific, LLC, Special Management Area Use Permit (SMA 03-016) be approved by the Planning Commission and the conditions as stated by Miss Springer. Further discussion? Hearing none, Norman? HAYASHI: Commissioner Springer? SPRINGER: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner McCall? MC CALL: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Motion carries. GALDONES: Thank you, Norman. Mr. Lim, you‰ll be informed in writing of today‰s actions. 14 LIM: On behalf of Continental Pacific, LLC, thank you very much. It has been a long road. We think we are going to work out the details with the Pepeekeo Community Association that will be good for everybody. GALDONES: Yeah. I commend the corporative attitude that the applicant has taken in working with the community and to have their continued cooperation and dialog continue. LIM: Thank you. GALDONES: Thank you. The discussion ended at 1:15 p.m. Respectfully submitted, SharonM.Nomura,Secretary 15