Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-12-05 THWN RAINFOREST PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT DECEMBER 5, 2008 HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST A regularly advertised hearing on the applications of WATER CO. LLC (SLU 08-000021/REZ 08-000085) was called to order at 10:43 a.m. in the Office of the Prosecuting Attorney, Conference Room, 655 Kilauea Avenue, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Frederic Housel Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Daryn Arai, Acting Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner And approximately 15 people from the public in attendance APPLICANT: HAWAIIAN RAINFOREST WATER CO. LLC (SLU 08-000021/REZ 08-000085) a.State Land Use Boundary Amendment from the Agricultural to the Urban District for 10.373 acres of land. b.Change of Zone from an Agricultural 20-acre (A-20a) to a Limited Industrial 1-acre (ML-1a) district for 10.373 acres. The property is located on the southeast corner of the E. Milo Street – Railroad Avenue junction, in the vicinity of the current HELCO Keaau power plant site, Keaau, Puna, Hawaii, TMK: 1-6-3: 18 and 23. WATANABE: Agenda Item No. 4, the applicant is Hawaiian Rainforest Water Co. LLC. It’s a State Land Use Application 08-000021 and a Rezone Application 08-000085. With that, I’ll turn it over to Maija. COTTLE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The application before us is to consider a State Land Use Boundary Amendment from Agricultural to Urban and a Change of zone from Agricultural 20-acre to Limited Industrial 1-acre. The property is located in Keaau in the Puna District. And just to kind of orient you to the location of the property, on the slide, on the left side of the slide is the Volcano Highway, so it’s heading out of Hilo and then up towards EXHIBIT C Mt. View and Volcano. And then off of that is the Keaau Bypass that heads out towards Pahoa. That’s in the middle of the slide here. Keaau Village is in the area on the bottom of the slide here that I’m showing with the red dot, and then the property is outlined in red. It’s off of, it gets access off of the Keaau Bypass through Milo Street, which is the street that runs towards the property here. The property is zoned Agricultural 20-acres. All of the dark green that’s shown on the slide is Agricultural 20-acres. And the area north of Milo Road and west of Railroad Avenue, which is this curvy road here that comes down on the west side of the property, is zoned various zonings. The purple zoning is MCX which is mixed commercial-industrial zoning, and I believe that’s 20 acres. And this kind of triangle-shaped parcel is the location of the Helco power station, power plant; and that’s zoned Industrial, as well as this long strip of parcel that was recently rezoned to Industrial as well. This is an aerial photo and it’s a little dark. Sidney, could you just hit the light, do you mind? I’m sorry. That one, yeah. It shows the whole location of the property here. There are eight existing warehouses that you can see in this slide. Milo Street runs just to the north here, and then Railroad Avenue comes down heading towards Hawaiian Paradise Park area; and it makes up the western boundary of the property. The applicant is proposing to renovate the existing eight warehouses on the property; and they intend to use some of the warehouses as a water and fruit beverage bottling facility, and then the remaining warehouses they hope to rent or lease out to use for limited industrial uses. The Planning Department originally recommended a favorable recommendation be sent to the County Council for the State Land Use Boundary Amendment and Rezone, but we’re going to withhold our recommendation at this point because, in light of the access issues that have come up. You should have gotten a letter from Tom Yeh representing W. H. Shipman. So once those access issues are resolved then the Planning Department will give its recommendation. WATANABE: Thank you. COTTLE: Are there any questions? WATANABE: Do we have any questions of staff at this point? No? Then, Mr. Fuke, you’re representing the applicant, I believe you wanted to make a presentation in spite of the recent revision in the recommendation. FUKE: Okay, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. For the record, my name is Sidney Fuke. I’m a land use consultant. I’ve been retained by the applicant, Hawaiian Rainforest Water Company, to assist them with the processing of this rezoning application. My -. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. FUKE: I’m sorry. My business address is 100 Pauahi Street here in Hilo. WATANABE: Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? FUKE: Yes, I do. EXHIBIT C 2 WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Would you like to make your opening statements then? I’m sure that we have Shipman here, too, so I’m sure they have some concerns. FUKE: Sure. Not withstanding the access issue then I’d like to kind of just share with the Commissioners just the overall land use issue, particularly as it relates to what the project is about, how the applicant got involved, you know, just to share with the Commission some of the background associated with this application. As the staff had indicated, the property is off of Milo Street; but the zoning map is somewhat deceptive because although you’re within the agricultural district there are a number of urban-related type of uses. There’s a school close by, there’s a flower packing plant, there’s a retail sales for agricultural products, and, of course, there’s a power plant in that area. The applicant bought the property in August of 2007, with the initial intent of doing a fruit and water processing bottling plant. As the staff had indicated, the site is the former Puna Sugar Mill property; and it houses like at this point in time eight existing warehouse buildings which the applicant wanted to renovate. So it was, the recent historical use of the property has really been more industrial in nature. But prior to establishing the bottle plant, because the property is still within the State Land Use Ag District, the applicant through its representative sought an opinion from the Planning Director as far as like what would be the process. So what I had passed out to the Commissioners with the staff’s assistance are several exhibits. These are exhibits pretty much like already contained in the staff’s background report as part of the application, but I just wanted to make sure that they’ll not necessarily get buried. I attempted to highlight certain key items. One is, of course, that Exhibit A to Robert Eli who was a consultant to the applicant prior to his purchasing. The highlight portions, you know, basically states that the General Plan designation is Industrial. The Planning Director really determined that whether it’s for a bottling plant or otherwise that the appropriate processing measure is really to go through the zone change and not necessarily the special permit process. And on the second page I kind of highlighted, you know, the area where the Director in his letter kind of pointed out that there were a number of parcels in the recent vicinity that were rezoned into the Industrial District. Pursuant to, you know, his plans to construct a, you know, do a water and fruit processing bottling facility, he did apply for a water well and he did secure a permit in July of this year. The well is under construction and I believe there are some testing being done right now. Along the way he did retain or at least consulted with a realtor who was just trying to confirm what type of other interests there may be in that area, whether for businesses, whether it would be a farmers market or pure industrial, so on and so forth. And although there’s a sign-up, I just kind of want to make clear that at every turn of the way the realtor did contact the Planning Department just to make sure that the proposed use would be consistent with either the existing zoning or, if not, to defer any consummation of any letters of intent or whatever have you. His name is Greg Gadd; and if there are questions from the Commissioners or the staff relating to the representation I just shared with you, you know, he’s here to kind of amplify on that. What the applicant did subsequently is that, you know, he had stumbled across this enterprise zone concept; and under the concept of the enterprise zone, which is my Exhibit B, basically it’s a partnership between the State and the County to essentially help facilitate development particularly in depressed areas. And the State and the County collectively determined certain areas that would be eligible for an enterprise zone, and Puna is one of those areas, and EXHIBIT C 3 particularly this area. So he had applied for and then subsequently secured an approval from the State to have, if he’s successful, to have this area be declared as part of the enterprise program; and the approval letter is found in Exhibit B. The goal basically, and perhaps it’s very timely right now, the goal behind the whole enterprise program is really to help create new and, at a minimum, you know, retain existing jobs. And considering the global economic situation, whatever little that can be done to foster job creation, particularly in an area that’s relatively depressed, you know, I think from the State’s and the County’s standpoint they had looked at it rather favorably. The staff’s background report also discusses, you know, like preliminarily notwithstanding the access issue, all of the different infrastructure questions. The utilities are available, the government service is there. The plan is to do an aerobic system largely because of the location of the well on the property, and also there’s a County well a little more than a 1,000 feet from the subject property. So they would be subjected to, you know, an added wastewater system. We did conduct a traffic impact study which is included in the report; and essentially the report kind of concluded, based on the projected traffic generation, that the impact would not be significant. There are some, as the staff and, you know, you just kind of pointed out Mr. Chairman, some access questions but, and I’ll just kind of defer that to later on to subsequent discussions. We did have also an archaeological survey done. And as the Commission knows any building that is in excess of 50 years old is considered historic. And so what the State does is like require, like required of the applicant in this case to kind of take photos and catalogue all of the remnants of that building and they’ll kind of put it in their archives. I also kind of pointed out, like as your staff noted, that the General Plan designates it Industrial, as kind of pointed out in the Director’s letter. I provided also a copy of which was not included in my original submittal to the Commission excerpts of the County General Plan, you know, dealing with the relationship of the Community Development Plans and the General Plan. And basically what I highlighted was on page 2; and basically it states that if there’s a direct conflict between the Community Development Plan and the General Plan, the General Plan shall be controlling, basically saying that the CDP does not, you know, inherently trump the General Plan. Relative to the CDP however, and I can go into a little bit more discussion, if you want me to defer I’ll, you know, gladly defer in the interest time and to respond later on. WATANABE: I would suggest that we defer. That way if you do wind up addressing it we’ll be addressing the concerns of Shipman. FUKE: I understand, and I think that would be better. Just to go over very briefly, the other items that I included as exhibits would be Exhibit D, which would be like copies of the application which I tried to demonstrate the relationship of the project to the Community Development Plan. And, lastly, on Exhibit E, which is a copy of a letter which I don’t believe the Commission has, it’s a letter of support from a surrounding property owner. Actually the owner of the property is just directly across of the proposed development. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Do we have any questions of Mr. Fuke, Commissioners? Seeing none, you may be seated. I do have three people signed up to testify. Let’s see, we have Thomas Yeh, Robert Betts and Cory Gadd. Is that correct? EXHIBIT C 4 GADD: Greg, Greg Gadd. WATANABE: Oh, Greg. GADD: G-r-e-g. WATANABE: Oh, I’m sorry, Greg Gadd. Would you come up, please. GADD: I’m only here to answer questions if necessary. I’m the real estate broker. WATANABE: Okay, okay. GADD: If there are any questions I would answer them; but otherwise I don’t -. WATANABE: Well, if we get to that point I’ll swear you in then. Yes. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, I’d like to also acknowledge the presence of Paul Sulla who’s an attorney representing the applicant. And if you want him up on the podium at the same time that Mr. Yeh is here, you know, he’s over here, so -. WATANABE: Oh, okay, okay. But Robert Betts, you, this is separate now from -? BETTS: Yes. WATANABE: Yeah, you’re coming up as an individual. Why don’t we have you testify first? That might be the quickest way. That way you’ll be able to provide your testimony and move on. May I swear you in? BETTS: Yes, please. WATANABE: Okay. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? BETTS: I do. WATANABE: Yes, would you state your name and address for the record please. th BETTS: My name is Robert Betts. I live at 15-1635 Poha Street, which is 28, in Paradise Park in Keaau. WATANABE: Thank you. You may begin your testimony. BETTS: I passed out or I gave to the Commission a copy of a letter; and I’ll just read it into the record if that’s permissible. WATANABE: Okay. EXHIBIT C 5 BETTS: Dear Members of the Planning Commission, I have a consulting company working primarily with water quality issues and water bottling in Puna, HI. I have Mr. Shikwan Sung as a client consulting Hawaiian Rainforest Water Company in the effort to develop a water and health drink bottling plant at the proposed site. In this capacity, I have been at the site almost daily since March of this year, and have been aware of Mr. Sung’s desire for a zone change. When Mr. Sung informed me that W. H. Shipman was opposing the change, I was surprised. When I read the points on which Shipman was objecting, I asked Mr. Sung if I might speak to this Commission on his behalf. Because of my consistent presence at this site over these many months, I have some observations that, I think, are relevant. The site’s history is industrial in nature. These large buildings, some in terrible states of disrepair, housed the machine shops, maintenance bays, and wash stations for the heavy equipment of Puna Sugar Mill. In spite of the Agricultural zoning, this particular property was high impact when it was operational and has been steadily degrading since then. The majority of this property has not been in agricultural use at all. In fact, the proposed uses of this property are much less impactive than its history. The most surprising thing about working daily at this site is just how busy the area is. Considering this, I was surprised that traffic issues made Shipman’s list of objections. There is continuous heavy truck traffic moving from Milo Street to Puna Rock and Certified Nursery, and back. These trucks approach from both Milo Street and Railroad Avenue. Also, there are many vehicles from heavy trucks, to tractors, to personal trucks and cars moving up and down Milo Street. The majority of this traffic is early and late indicating that many people work down Milo Street past the gate. Considering the traffic currently using these roads everyday, the objection on this issue is disingenuous. In my experience, the water of the area is excellent without exception, as Shipman well knows as they own a well that was in the past, and will likely be again in the future, a source for bottled water and juice beverages. It is primarily for an evaluation of this water drawn from wells that have yet to be completed, that Mr. Sung has retained my services. Water analysis will be accomplished as the samples are obtained. It is this water’s excellent nature, not to mention its amazing abundance that makes it so desirable as a source for bottled water. Most importantly, both the expense of getting the water to the surface for analysis and the risks associated with the results are Mr. Sung’s alone. Over the last months, I have had several occasions to talk story with the neighbors. I have introduced Mr. Sung’s intentions for the property on several occasions. I have always received a positive endorsement. For example, this property represented a serious security risk for the Liberty Christian School. There was a lot of evidence of people “hanging out” at the site prior to it being fenced, and now secured by the daily presence of people working there. Mostly this evidence was beer and alcohol bottles, evidence of fires being built inside the buildings and other litter associated with questionable activities, discarded drug paraphernalia for example. In all of my conversations, it was recognized that people’s presence at the site was a positive for the school. Across Milo Street, Hawaii Pride is also strongly supportive of the site’s renovation and development. EXHIBIT C 6 I had not heard a disparaging word from anyone in the neighborhood until I read W. H. Shipman’s objections. Based on the vast majority of positive support and the level of site improvement that continues, it is my opinion that Shipman’s opposition is unfounded. It seems to me that rehabilitating and turning productive such a community risk and eyesore is indeed serving the intent of the Puna Community Development Plan, however, apparently not the W. H. Shipman Development Plan. I thank the Commission for the opportunity. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Betts? Yes. BOWMAN: I just have a, because I’m not again familiar with Hilo, are there other bottling companies? BETTS: Yes, Ma’am. Hawaiian Springs is located approximately 7/10 of a mile from the proposed site; and Aloha Water is up in Shipman Park. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Is there a well on site there? BETTS: They’re being developed as we speak. HOUSEL: I see. Cause, so the intent is to put a well in. BETTS: The well has been dug and there’s a pump now, but we’re awaiting water at the top yet. HOUSEL: I see. WATANABE: Any further questions? Okay, seeing none you may be seated. BETTS: Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Let’s get Shipman up here then. Mr. Yeh? May I swear you in, Mr. Yeh. YEH: Yes. WATANABE: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? YEH: I do, thank you. WATANABE: Okay. And, of course, name and address, please. YEH: My name is Thomas Yeh. My business address is 85 West Lanikaula Street and I’m the attorney for W. H. Shipman, Ltd. The president of W. H. Shipman, Bill Walter, is here in case any questions come up, too. EXHIBIT C 7 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 If you take a look at the standards for roadways, Section 13.2.4 which is at page 13-6 says “Local streets–commercial/industrial: Local streets within commercial industrial areas shall have a minimum right-of-way of 60 feet.” So we’re not only talking about planning policy. But the other provisions of the General Plan talk about what you should have as a minimum right-of- way. Milo Street is 40 feet in width. It has 20-foot pavements. Now let’s take a look at this issue of whether or not there’s sufficient inventory of industrial zoned lands in the Keaau Regional Town Center area. As part of the other exhibits that we provided to you, if you just take a look at the tax map that we provided for the area that we’re talking about, and that’s designated, it’s a new tax map issued by the County and that’s Zone 1, Section 6, Plat 152, take a look at the entrance to the Keauhou Bypass Road. That is probably at least 80 feet. If you take a look at Ulupono Street, that is at least 60 feet. Now let’s move on to Milo Street. And you can see that the standards and the widths of that roadway are very, very insufficient, and not sufficient to what we’re talking about. This map is good for you also because it also has some relationship to the issue of access. Because what the applicant has basically provided you information on is that they do acknowledge that these railroad rights-of- way that cross Milo Street heading to their property actually cut off this access on Milo Street. And so that’s part of the issue that we’re presently in some negotiations with the applicant on but have not yet finalized. So there is indeed a real access issue. This tax map also shows you that there are already from an inventory standpoint parcels of .5 an acre, .7 acres, up to 1.2 acres just in this Ulupono Center alone. The other map that we provided to you is the one for Shipman Business Park. There is an existing Phase I-D; and Phase I-E has already received tentative subdivision approval from the County. Daryn Arai, who previous to his current acting director term, had been involved in helping to approve that particular subdivision. And as you can see on that map that we have Shipman is also being required to put in 60-foot wide right-of-ways and 36-foot wide pavements. So when we’re looking at the issue both of inventory as well as improvements and necessary infrastructure that has to go in, the question for you is is what is being proposed here today consistent with both the General Plan, the minimum roadway standards, and those kinds of uses, just, not even withstanding the access issue? Before the Planning Department withdrew its previous recommendation of approval, what it proposed as a condition was that there would be a prohibition on home improvement centers as being an allowed use. Now why would that be? The reason for that is because the Planning Department recognized that if you have the potential, well, let me just put it this way, the proposal here for you is to approve this request to have a water bottling plant and some leases of warehouse space. But what are you really being asked to approve? It’s 1-acre parcels with a host of variety of uses that include not only just leasing warehouse space but service stations, car sales locations, big traffic generators. And when the Planning Department originally recommended a prohibition on home improvement centers, that tells you that there’s a recognition that there are some uses that would create unreasonable traffic loads on these substandard roads. So that in and of itself is an acknowledgement that we have a potential problem here. And that problem is what really drives Shipman’s opposition to this particular application. And that’s essentially where we’re coming from on this particular application. Now let’s go to the access issue because the way I see this application being reviewed is you have kind of a three-step issue that you need to think about.One is does the applicant have access now, from a legal access standpoint? The second issue is from a broader planning perspective, whether you’re looking at the General Plan or the CDP. Is it appropriate to rezone EXHIBIT C 9 this parcel given the circumstances and the conditions that we have? We’ve talked about the second two issues, let’s take the access issue in a little bit more detail. Before the applicant acquired the property we were approached, when the property was in escrow, we were approached to talk about an easement agreement. Shipman’s position was that an easement agreement is okay but there were concerns at that time; and at that time there was an understanding that there was an intention to do a water bottling facility. Shipman’s position was that we can negotiate an access agreement provided you do certain things, indemnification because of safety issues, insurance, and improvements to that intersection of Railroad and Milo Streets. But we didn’t want to have traffic going on Railroad Avenue because as you’ve seen from the photos that we submitted you’ve got some major curvature issues as well as sight distance issues. No agreement was ever reached, escrow closed. Subsequently we were contacted again to enter into an easement agreement. This property is what’s called land courted property. And basically land court property you don’t have adverse possessory rights. You have to have expressed easement rights. Again, we indicated that we were going to talk to them about it. As we were reviewing this we then get notice that there was this rezoning application. So it’s kind of a cart before the horse issue that we’re dealing with, which is let’s get this access issue resolved first. Now the context of the kinds of improvements that this easement agreement would necessitate now knowing what the plans of the applicant are, it does beg some question for Shipman as to the kinds of conditions that would be necessary for an easement agreement. We’re not trying to hold the applicant hostage on this rezoning issue but we want to know what is going to be happening with respect to the development of the property. And in that context what’s really appropriate from an improvement standpoint is to assure that there are no real major safety issues. And the fact is that this road does run past the school and is of inadequate width. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. So to be clear then you do have some concerns with regard to whether it fits within the CDP and you also have access concerns aside from the legal access concerns, which I guess to a large extent Shipman does control. Is it my understanding that Shipman is more concerned about the improvements or potential improvements that should be in place if such accesses were granted? YEH: You know, I would say it’s a safety, liability and adequate infrastructure issue that -. WATANABE: So if adequate infrastructure were there, there would be no objection? Is that what you’re saying? YEH: You know that’s a primary issue but, you know, there’s also the issue as to whether or not there is already adequate inventory of industrial locations, and if it’s consistent with the CDP. WATANABE: Before I state my opinion maybe -. OGATA: I have a question. WATANABE: Ms. Ogata, yes. EXHIBIT C 10 OGATA: I have a question. Just for clarity, I guess, on the Puna CDP map -. YEH: Yes. OGATA: Can you show me exactly where this property is. YEH: Okay, I believe that is part of our submittal actually when we sent the letter in. OGATA: Okay. YEH: And that would be in our Exhibit A. OGATA: So where is it? YEH: Okay, so if you take a look at our Exhibit A, if you look towards the bottom of the map, you’ll see that dotted outline -. OGATA: Yes. YEH: That dotted outline actually represents the regional center, Keaau Regional Center, within which certain uses are allowed. OGATA: Okay. YEH: And then the subject property -. OGATA: Is below that, right? YEH: Is below that, correct. There’s a little orange dot basically that represents the approximate location of that property. OGATA: That’s below that orange dot? YEH: It’s that orange dot in essence, yes. OGATA: Oh, that orange dot is the community facility? HAYASHI: School. OGATA: Oh, that’s the school. YEH: Oh, sorry, it’s below that. It is below that orange dot, correct, yes. WATANABE: Any further questions? I have some comments. It’s a bit interesting because I was the Chair when we went through the Puna Community Development Plan. Ironically I was the only one that voted against that CDP, largely because Shipman was EXHIBIT C 11 disallowed from being a part of the Steering Committee. I don’t believe Shipman was in favor of the CDP and it’s my understanding that much of the CDP was passed albeit after significant discussion largely in whole, meaning very few revisions as I believe the rule is nonsubstantive revisions could be imparted into the CDP. But otherwise the process went right back to the Steering Committee and we started all over again; and the emphasis was we want to get this passed before we get out of office. Yeah? I think I’m stating the facts correctly here. What’s ironic is Shipman was against the CDP and now you’re using the CDP, you know. And, I find it kind of ironic. YEH: And if I can, Mr. Walter can speak to that, too, but I’ll take a shot at it. WATANABE: Okay. YEH: Yes, Shipman was not, I guess, pleased with the fact that because it was one of the principal landowners in the area they weren’t directly included in the formulation of that CDP; and, yes, there are changes I believe that have been recognized that are necessary to undertake in order to correct certain areas or issues that exist. But in the context of where this particular property issue is, that context still applies, and everybody needs to live by that. And Shipman is living by it now, so should everyone. And there are some other issues. WALTER: You want me to answer that a little bit for you? WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Walter, let me swear you in then. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? WALTER: I do. WATANABE: Okay. And, please, name and address. WALTER: My name is Bill, William Walter, and my work address is 16-523, Keaau- Pahoa Road, Keaau, Hawaii. Your question is a good one, an excellent one. Our objections, we came initially and objected to the whole process. Mr. Woodward asked us subsequently to list specific changes that we felt needed to be made or if made would make the CDP acceptable, workable. And we did submit to this Commission and subsequently to the County several such amendments. The push as you properly stated was to pass it now and amend it later; and we could have a lot of editorial comment about the wisdom of that and it wouldn’t change things. With respect to this property and with respect to the general thrust of the CDP we were in agreement. Our objections had to do with the idea that, oh, excuse me, the limitations in a specific chart, 5-1 in the CDP, which if applied would result in our opinion in an urban sprawl, which was not the CDPs intention but would be the effect or result of certain parts of that chart. Also, we were concerned with the map of Keaau because among other things it appeared to remove zoning for our industrial park, and we didn’t believe that we should have to go back to justification to that time and again. Mr. Yuen subsequently put in an adjusted map as a nonsubstantive change that fixed our concerns to that aspect of it. The thrust of the CDP in the sense that it looked to keep Puna urban and, excuse me, agricultural/rural we agreed with. And our point was that if that’s to happen what needs to be defined simply is the footprint of the EXHIBIT C 12 urban areas and not to then restrict how much could be within that footprint. That was the major thrust. There were some other issues but that was the major thrust. As it relates to this, we have a very significant concern now as we did then that this area not be considered part of urban expansion. And there are basically two reasons for that. The first we’ve been hit on, and that is we have, excuse me, Tom has discussed, and that is the roads surrounding this property are private roads that we own. We feel not just legally responsible but personably responsible. There is a school on either side of Milo Street and the kids, the elementary school kids, are on one side, and there’s a playground on the other side. Added traffic puts those children at risk. When the school asked if they could put a cross-walk across Milo, we told them, yes, you may under one condition, or two conditions. But the main one was you have to get a civil engineer to draw, to give you a drawing that would put in an appropriate crosswalk because we don’t want your kids to get hit by the current traffic there. We insisted on that. We didn’t think it was enough to just draw a line to cross the street. So that has been a consistent concern. There’s also a safety concern on Railroad which the applicant maintains he has access to. And that is if you go towards Hilo, you’ll see the pictures there, and you’ll see that there are significant sight distance problems on there. Also, we have an agricultural processing plant that virtually sits on that road; and we have a strong concern that someone is going to step out of that factory and get nailed by a car. We have that concern today. But as we look at this applicant, the zoning he has asked zoned for, if it is it taken to the farthest degree, would greatly increase the traffic, in our opinion, on both of those roads, making them very unsafe. And can you cover us with liability insurance? You could, but I would give the same answer that I gave to Christian Liberty when they came to us and said how about we double the liability insurance? My response was, hey, do I care more about your kids than you do? It’s not about liability insurance. It’s really a safety issue. It has to deal with infrastructure and the safety of vehicles. It was pointed out that you have vehicular traffic generally in the morning and late in the afternoon that corresponds with work schedules of people down typically in the agricultural area. The types of uses that could be put here would allow constant all-day long traffic that would put at risk the children of the school, and the people who work at the processing plant, and so on. People have talked about the industrial nature of this property, if I could just finish this one thought, over the years. It was highly industrial at a point in time where Puna Sugar controlled this whole area and it was their truck processing facility and they owned, they didn’t own, they leased just about everything around there from us, or owned it. So it was one user control over that whole area. That’s not what we’re talking about now. We’re talking about many, many users. WATANABE: Thank you. Any questions? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I guess procedurally because of the access issue and I guess the change in the recommendation, are we actually going to proceed with this or is this going to be deferred until access is resolved? WATANABE: Well, it’s up to us, it’s up to us. But the intent is to continue this. However, both parties were present and had requested that they at least be able to present comments. And so at the present time my intent is not to proceed to a deliberation but to EXHIBIT C 13 continue to a future meeting. I do have one question though for you and it’s a kind of pointed question, I’m sorry. Okay? WALTER: It’s okay. WATANABE: So it’s your testimony that the CDP was fine except you wanted to make sure the footprint of Urban expansion, etc. was, you know, this specific area, yeah. And my question to you is within that vision of what that footprint is, this particular parcel is outside of that? WALTER: Yes, sir. WATANABE: But, okay. And then I did say it was going to be pointed, so within that vision, yeah, who owns all of that property of the urban expansion area? WALTER: We own the majority, we may own all of it. WATANABE: That, see, that’s where I have a bit of a concern. WALTER: You know, I think that’s a fair concern. WATANABE: I told you I’d be pointed. WALTER: Rodney, I think that’s a fair concern; and I want to assure you that if what we were looking at here was a special use permit, for instance, for the Rainforest Water Group to operate their plant, I wouldn’t be sitting here. And there is another group nearby that has a similar request now. We don’t plan to contest it. The reason is that that use alone generates very marginal traffic and not enough to put us at the tipping point. My concern here puts it at the tipping point. Let me say something else about the CDP, just so that we get it clear. There are many thrusts in the CDP that I agree with. There were some very specific details in it that we felt were harmful to that thrust. So I wouldn’t want to paint a brush that said we agreed with the whole thing, nor that we disagree with the whole thing. We suggested a number of amendments. Actually, Mr. Yuen had, I think, six or seven amendments that we were in agreement with; and we made it clear at that time that were his amendments approved that we would step back and be fine with it. WATANABE: Thank you. We have any further questions? HOUSEL: I have -. WATANABE: Yes. HOUSEL: To understand the chronology, the Puna Sugar Company, when did they cease operations at this site? WALTER: They ceased operations in 1988 I believe it was. EXHIBIT C 14 HOUSEL: Eighty eight? WALTER: I was not here at the time. They announced it I think in ’84 and actually had wound down in 1988. I should point out that that property at one point was all Shipman property. But in the mid-thirties Shipman Limited, actually my great grandfather, determined that owning land on which a factory stood may not be something he wanted to do so he sold this more, you know, the property that had the factory and supported the factory. He sold it to Puna Sugar. HOUSEL: And when was the school started on that road? WALTER: I do not know. I don’t have the answer to that. HOUSEL: Was it prior to Puna Sugar going out? WALTER: No. HOUSEL: Okay, okay. So the school came in later. WALTER: Yeah, and the school originally was on the Puna side of Milo Street. Subsequent to that they have a high school on the Hilo side of that. And as a result of that where you had no need for traffic across Milo you suddenly have need for traffic across Milo. HOUSEL: Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: So I gather that if they were entertaining a special permit on an agricultural parcel then you would not be against it? WALTER: If they were to request a special use permit for the operation of their rainwater facility alone, then that’s fine with us. DOMINGO: And the specific reasons for that is? WALTER: When they go for ML-1A, it opens up that property, whatever they may say. And their intentions, I don’t question their intentions. You know, I think that’s what their plan is and that’s fine. But when you give this zoning I can’t tell you whether they might flip the property in six months or a year or three years, or they may change their business plan. The point of it is is that zoning now allows all these other uses, many of which will generate heavy traffic. That’s where we have the problem, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: No further questions on this? You may be seated. And I’m going to provide, like I indicated earlier, we intend to continue this.We were kind of hoping that, well, or EXHIBIT C 15 at least I am hoping that you all would be able to work this out within, you know, amongst each other and we can discuss this later at the next Hilo meeting. Okay? YEH: Yeah, and I understand that. And we’re certainly willing to sit at the table and talk. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. YEH: Thank you. WATANABE: Great. With that, I’d like to call up Mr. Fuke and give you briefly, though, yeah, Mr. Fuke, you know, cause, again, there’s no intention to deliberate on this today. FUKE: Okay. I do understand, Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Just briefly if you want to rebut some of what has been discussed. FUKE: I do have a question, however, regarding the access issue. So if the Commission Chair is inclined to defer this matter then the question is like defer until when? I mean, defer until -? That’s kind of like what I wanted answered because Mr. Sulla is over here, he’s an attorney representing the applicant, and he has a different view as far as like the access question. You know, I’m really, I apologize to the Commission for having to put the Commission in a maybe quasi, in a position to quasi adjudicate this issue and perhaps maybe, you know, this is not necessarily the proper venue. But Mr. Sulla who is an attorney has a different opinion on the access issue. And that’s the reason I was asking the question, if there is going to a continuation, what would the Commission be looking for in terms of a resolution on the access question? WATANABE: In my opinion I don’t think we want to get involved with the access issue. You know, I think we’re lay people at best on land use issues, yeah. You know, I’d prefer the attorneys get with land court and each other and decide whether you actually have access, and to what extent you have access, etc. Now it would be even better if both parties could get together and determine that, oh, you know -. My real concern is only the amount of the adequate infrastructure. It seems like that might not be the whole thrust of the issue though. It sounds like we’re talking about footprint and this particular parcel being outside of the footprint that, I guess, we have to get involved in. Right? It’s a land use issue. FUKE: So from the land use perspective, and I’ll be very brief, Mr. Chairman, I think at this point in time I feel very sorry for the applicant, you know, because the applicant relied upon a letter that the Planning Director had generated to say, look, don’t go in for a special permit, whether it’s for a bottling plant or other wise, that the appropriate process in this situation here given the General Plan, given the fact that there are existing industrial zoning in that area, the appropriate procedural venue is the rezoning process. You know, having said that, you know, like relative to the CDP itself, and this is why like, you know, I was like not too involved in all of the different CDPs, but I think that there are some conceptual flaws behind some of the CDPs. And so if you take, for example, what Mr. Yeh is saying -- that if you don’t fall within the village core that there is this provision to say like no EXHIBIT C 16 zoning, no industrial or no commercial zoning -- now if you take that to the end degree too, then what happens if there is a need for an industrial zoning where it’s not designated for any industrial on the General Plan? So the only way that you can do that is you have to have a General Plan Amendment. So like in this Keaau Village area, the only place you have the industrial designated area would be the heavy industrial area or the Shipman industrial park and the subject area. And so like the subject area is outside of the so-called village core. So if there is an event for like an industrial need within the village core, where do you zone it? Because you can’t zone it, if you take that CDP Map to its enddegree you can’t zone it within the village core because of that one provision. Thus, from my perspective the way I had looked at the CDP is that you look at the overall objectives, you know. And what I tried to point out is, you know, you look at the CDP and then what are the guiding principles? The guiding principles in the CDP is that you have like the four major themes. So in my Exhibit D in the application that I, you know, the report that I prepared, what I tried to demonstrate is that looking at the plan as a whole does the project generally implement those three major themes. And I think that from the way that I had evaluated it that, yes, it did. Cause again if you take like only one component and then you eliminate everything else, then it becomes super controlling. So I was looking at it from the CDP itself. The other question in terms of like the demand, I think what’s really important to understand is that, yes, there are vacant subdivided parcels. What’s really important here to understand, what Mr. Sungis proposing to do, you know, he has those existing warehouses, he needs probably like about 60 percent of those for his operation. If the zoning goes through, if we can’t special permit, we’ve got to get a zoning. But if he can get a special permit -. But, nevertheless, he needs only 60 percent. So his idea is to kind of renovate the whole thing and eventually be in a position to rent or lease those vacant areas to area residents. If you look at the vacant parcel, it’s tough right now, you know in this state of the economy to find a developer willing to construct a new building and make it available for industrial lease. So that’s the difference. You know, inventory wise, yes. If you look at it purely from the land standpoint, yes. But the question is like from an inventory standpoint do you have structures where a person can readily move in and do, you know, this small type of industrial-related operation? That’s about it, without getting into more detail. I’m sorry. WATANABE: Okay, okay. You did mention if he can’t get the special permit he has to go through the change of zone, which he’s presently in because the former Director had suggested that this is the proper route to go. Am I hearing this properly? Does that mean that Mr. Sung is still willing to go along the lines with the special permit if that avenue is now open now that the administration has changed? Is that what I’m hearing or no you want to proceed no matter what with the change of zone? FUKE: I think, and I need to reconfirm this with Mr. Sung, and he’s here. I think the bottom line is that, you know, his primary intent is to do the bottling and fruit beverage plant. Now he has got like the, you know, he’s going to be using probably like about 60 percent of the existing structures. To help underwrite some of the costs, you know, he would still want to be in a position to utilize the remaining structures, not necessarily directly associated with the bottling plant but any type of industrial-related uses. WATANABE: I’m mostly, you don’t need to commit to that. I mostly asked that to get an idea of timeframe, you know. In other words if the special permit is on the table, yeah, then there are three parties that you can work with; and I would suggest that that may be on the table, yeah, that we continue this matter until it’s ready to be deliberated, you know. Meaning you would, you guys determine, you guys tell it, rather than we set the schedule now to the next EXHIBIT C 17 meeting in Hilo and come to find out you’re not ready. You understand what I’m saying? Now I guess what I’m saying is if there’s no way you can come to an agreement with Shipman we’re going to decide the land use issue. We’re willing to do that, right? I said that. We don’t want to decide the legal issue though, right? Because I don’t think we’re equipped to do that, yeah, as far as access is concerned.But you would have to work with the Planning Department in the event that you’re going to throw a special permit on the table. Cause Shipman already has said that if you throw the special permit on the table I’m gone, right, I’m done, you don’t have to negotiate with me any further. So it’s up to you guys now. Do you want to continue this to the next Hilo meeting or until such time that it’s ready to be deliberated? FUKE: I think that, you know, if the special permit is the appropriate route that the Commission and the staff believe would be, you know, acceptable then, you know, that’s a route that I think would be acceptable to the client. However, bearing in mind that, you know, as was represented in the application the intent is not only the bottling plant. He wants to be able to continue to utilize the underutilized structures in that area. And so if the special permit could be expanded to include only that component and eliminate the future subdivision and the more intensive use that, you know, Mr. Walter and Mr.Yeh had raised, you know, relative to an industrial zoning, then -. WATANABE: Okay. Then, you know what, let’s not put a timeframe then when we will continue it to, or would you prefer that we put a timeframe till the next Hilo meeting? FUKE: Well, you know, the timeframe to do what? That’s my question. I mean, timeframe so that the applicant can decide on whether to do a special permit, or continue with this application, or timeframe until there’s a deliberation or some determination on the access or what? That’s what I’m trying to get at. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: If I might ask Mr. Torigoe, cause this came up just recently with the Kohala LLC in deferring for, you know, a change of zone application for an indefinite period of time. And there was some provision where if there was information or pertinent information that this could be deferred for a longer period of time than the usual 60 or 90 days. Maybe you could rehash that for us just a little. WATANABE: Mr. Torigoe? TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically your Rule 11-3 on rezonings, as you know, basically requires that you make a decision within 90 days after receipt of the application from the Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant. So if the applicant is agreeable to putting it off for whatever period of time, then you can do that. WATANABE: That’s what I thought. So actually that’s all I’m asking you, is when do you want to defer to? SULLA: Can I address this? WATANABE: Yes, I guess I’ll have to swear you in, I’m sorry. SULLA: Okay, very good. EXHIBIT C 18 WATANABE: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? SULLA: Yes, I do. WATANABE: And then your name and address. SULLA: My name is Paul Sulla and I have a legal office at 2061 Kalanianaole here in Hilo. I represent the applicant. And specifically with regard to the purchase, with regard to the zoning issues, AND with regard to the conversations that Attorney Yeh mentioned beforehand, I think I have something to add that might help the Commission decide on how to continue and what to continue. And the first part I’d just like to add is that Shipman had conveyed and warranted access from the Bypass Road to the site in 1938. So, and further these roads have been used for 70 years in that area and there has been no impediment ever on access. So since that time it makes it difficult for Shipman to then argue later on you don’t have access. They, basically, cannot really contest access. And so we had that reason, and they’ve warranted it. So now what we’re hearing is really not about access. Because if it was then why would the special permit be okay but not the change of zone? Obviously the access issue is being tossed around, and it can be corrected very simply. It’s a technical issue that it was dropped off on some land court records. But as I said there is really no potential for conflict or for dispute by Shipman since it’s already warranted these rights-of-ways. IWASHITA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I have a question of the testifier. WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: Does the TCT for the property reflect the access rights you’re talking about? WALTER: The TCT in 1938 did. It got dropped off by mistake and, by mistaken Land Court -. IWASHITA: Well -. WALTER: At that -. IWASHITA: Today, but today there is no access you talked about on the TCT, is that correct? WALTER: What we have is Title Insurance affirmatively assuring this parcel on this technical issue; and an insurance company, and the Title Insurance Company, and the attorneys in Honolulu who will correct the technical issue. We also have essentially negotiations on the table with the party, with Shipman, about this issue. This is really not an issue but being used as an issue to pry open further things, that’s all stated. IWASHITA: I just -. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. EXHIBIT C 19 IWASHITA: I just want to make it clear in my mind, cause being a third person with a tie in this room, that the Land Court, the rights for Land Court property are required to be reflected on the Certificate of Title. WATANABE: Hang on, transfer to Certificate of Title. IWASHITA: On the Certificate of Title. So, and if it’s not there, and as the testifier indicated today there are no access rights as indicated, there’s a dispute, and there’s a title claim being made against the title carrier about correcting those problems, that’s all well and good. But for our, you know, we’re not the body to resolve access issues. WATANABE: Right. IWASHITA: And if there is in fact no legal access on the record as required by law, Land Court Statute, then I, you know, whatever the position -. And if it’s as easy as being represented that it’s going to be corrected, then we can put this off for a month and come back and it should be resolved; and then we can go forward. But until that’s done, we’re not the forum to resolve the access issue. Until that’s -. WATANABE: I think I made that clear earlier. IWASHITA: Yeah. So my inclination is to continue this matter at least until the next Hilo meeting and then resolve it, so that would be -. Would that be in time? I guess my impression was that the 90 days might expire. WATANABE: No, no. This is the first read of this. I don’t think that’s the issue. And what we’re trying to do is get them to agree when to continue, in which case the 90-day is not applicable anyway; and so -. IWASHITA: Well, they can make it longer. WATANABE: Yeah, right. And all I’m trying to get from the applicant is when do you want to continue to. IWASHITA: Okay. WATANABE: That’s all I’m trying to get. IWASHITA: Yeah, let’s resolve that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Yes, that’s all I want to get. Okay, when, next month, the following month, whenever. FUKE: Can we defer this until the next, your next available Hilo meeting? WATANABE: Next available Hilo meeting will be good. Okay. FUKE: During that time, we’ll, you know, attempt to resolve any access or related issues, you know, with the Shipman interest and evaluate the propriety of either the special permit or continuing with this application. WATANABE: Okay, great, great. Thank you. So -. BOWMAN: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT C 20 WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: I have a non-access question. If I don’t ask it now, I might forget. So can I -? WATANABE: Okay. BOWMAN: In reviewing the Planning Director’s letter to you I noticed all the rezoned parcels were MX-20, ML-20, MG-10a. Maybe this is a stupid question, but why apply for ML-1? To me, you know, you open a whole can of worms so you could sell all the lots; and I think then that’s a whole other issue. Why not ML-10? It’s 10.6 acres, right, what we’re talking about? IWASHITA: Yeah, 0.3. BOWMAN: It’s 10.3. FUKE: Can you, I need some coaching, excuse me. BOWMAN: Okay, that’s okay. FUKE: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. FUKE: In response to Commissioner Bowman’s question, the applicant who’s seated on my left said that, yeah, he doesn’t have any plans to further subdivide the property. So if the appropriate zoning would be like ML-5 or ML-10, because right now unless you consolidate you won’t have 10 acres, you know, it’s fine with him. BOWMAN: Oh, because it’s two separate acres? FUKE: No, it’s two separate parcels. BOWMAN: I mean two separate lots. FUKE: And one of the staff’s conditions which they kind of rescinded called for the consolidation of those two parcels, in which case when you consolidate then you’ll have more than 10 acres. BOWMAN: Okay. And I just have another quick question cause visually I want to, how big is like Prince Kuhio Mall? Not that there’s going to be a mall there but I’m just trying to see acre wise. FUKE: Prince Kuhio Mall sits on a property that’s like about 40 acres in size. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. I’m trying to find, you know, something visual that’s about 10 acres. Okay, thank you. HOUSEL: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Mr. Housel. EXHIBIT C 21 HOUSEL: One question, since this is going to be continued I wanted to ask our Acting Planning Director, as you’ve withdrawn the recommendation, do you expect to have a recommendation at that time? ARAI: It would largely be dependent on how successful the deliberations are between the two parties. WATANABE: Okay. So are there any objections to continue this to the next Hilo meeting? Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I might make a suggestion and just throw it out for what it’s worth. It may certainly be possible that this matter may not be resolved by the next Hilo meeting. Hopefully it will be. But it may make sense to say let’s continue this until the Planning Department is ready to issue a recommendation; and that way it puts it in their court as far as picking up all the pieces and making sure we’ve got everything we need, for what that’s worth. WATANABE: The only issue with that then we may wind up with the 90-day window. If it’s not resolved within the 90 days we need the applicant’s permission to proceed or continue beyond that. So, Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: I just reviewed the Code, the Zoning Code, and it says the Planning Director must make a recommendation to the Planning Commission within 120 days upon receipt of the application. That 120 days runs -. rd COTTLE: February 3. rd HAYASHI: February 3, so we would have to make a recommendation before that date. If we don’t then there’s no provision for a continuance on our part or the applicant’s part. It would have to go before the Planning Commission with no recommendation and it will be, the no recommendation would be a favorable recommendation to the Planning Commission. That is how the Code is written. Okay, because we don’t have a recommendation before you today, I don’t believe, correct me if I’m wrong Ivan, but I don’t know when the 90 days starts, although we did send the background and recommendation, which we pulled back today. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Well, unless there is something in the Code that says when the 90 days starts -. The rules don’t say anything about, you know, the recommendation being a necessary part. It just talks about the receipt of the application from the Director, that’s the receipt of the application from the Director, as being the start, the trigger. WATANABE: Okay. It gets kind of convoluted, Mr. Woodward. If it’s scheduled or agendized for the next Hilo meeting and we still don’t have a recommendation we, I think, know rd that we can continue on to February 3. Was it when the 120 days end? And we could continue it then without really going through all of this. This was the initial meeting so that’s the only reason why we went through it. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes. WOODWARD: Well, the other alternative would be to ask Mr. Yeh who represents the client whether he is comfortable with continuing this until you have your ducks all in a row and the Planning Director has issued a recommendation. EXHIBIT C 22 FUKE: One -. WATANABE: I tried that. WOODWARD: I mean Mr. Fuke, I’m sorry. FUKE: One correction, my name is Sidney Fuke. That’s Mr. Yeh. I think that from the applicant’s standpoint they would want to have like a disposition, you know, sooner than later because they already have that enterprise zone commitment from the State and they want to get off and running. And so some kind of decision, you know, they would appreciate some kind of decision sooner than later, whether it’s a special permit or if we have to go up to the County Council. Regardless of what the recommendation of this Commission comes by, you know, I think they would like to take it on. So if it can be deferred to the next month’s meeting only then that’ll be fine. Thank you. WATANABE: That will be fine and we’ll try our best, you’ll try your best to have all the ducks in the row then. FUKE: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, great. So I take it there are no objections then to continuing it to the next Hilo meeting. So we’ll continue this to the next Hilo meeting then. Okay? Good luck. YEH: Thank you. FUKE: Thank you. The discussion ended at 11:58 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawai‘i Secretary EXHIBIT C 23