HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-06-02 Hearing Transcript - GAF Civil DefenseWINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION
COUNTY OF HAWAII
HEARING TRANSCRIPT
JUNE 2, 2016
A regularly advertised hearing on the claim by the Hawaii County Civil Defense for the release
of funds from the Geothermal Asset Fund was called to order at 10:24 a.m. in the County of
Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman
Charles Heaukulani presiding.
COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Charles Heaukulani, Joseph Clarkson, Donn Dela Cruz,
Gregory Henkel, Donald Ikeda, and Raylene Moses.
ABSENT & EXCUSED: Myles Miyasato.
ALSO PRESENT: Duane Kanuha (Planning Director), J Yoshimoto (Deputy Corporation
Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager) (to
10:53 a.m.), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner), Christian Kay (Staff Planner), and Sarah Hata-Finley
(Commission Secretary).
And 18 members from the public in attendance.
CLAIMANT: HAWAII COUNTY CIVIL DEFENSE
Discussion and action on a claim for the release of funds from the Geothermal Asset Fund that
includes a recommendation from the claims adjuster, for the following community approved
geothermal impact mitigation project:
a. Updated Air Quality Model - $362,719
Funding to develop an updated air quality model for the dispersion of H2S and other gases
from the PGV Geothermal plant, which will then serve as a tool to help update existing
emergency response plans; inform the location of new, fixed monitors to be installed in the
surrounding community; and to inform the proposed Geothermal Public Health Study about
the nature of public exposure in varying weather and release conditions.
HEAUKULANL Okay, we're going to call the Windward Planning Commission back into
session. I believe when we last left off, we were just going to Item No. 3 on the agenda,
Claimant: Hawaii County Civil Defense. Daryn?
ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Commissioners. Directing your attention to
the presentation screen. What you have before you is a claim for the release of funds from the
Geothermal Asset Fund with the Claimant being the Hawaii County Civil Defense. Today's
agenda is to have a discussion and action on a claim for the release of funds in the amount of
$362,719 from the Geothermal Asset Fund for the development of a comprehensive dispersion
and plume modeling program.
1
EXHIBIT C
The purpose of the claim, once again, is to support the development of an updated air quality
modeling program to improve upon hazard and risk assessment regarding potential future and
past releases of hydrogen sulfide and other gases from the Puna Geothermal Venture plant.
The updated dispersion models will provide guidance regarding the likely impacts of hydrogen
sulfide releases and assist in the development of effective emergency response plans; assist in the
location of future fixed air modeling [sic] equipment; and inform researchers chosen to conduct
the upcoming Puna Health Study on patterns of dispersion and potential exposure.
Your Planning Commission Rule 12 regarding the Geothermal Asset Fund allows the Windward
Planning Commission to authorize the payment of money from the Geothermal Asset Fund to
claimants whom the Commission finds has been adversely impacted by activities authorized or
unauthorized by the Geothermal Resource Permit No. 2 and to authorize payment for community
approved geothermal impact mitigation projects within the District of Puna.
Your Rule 12, in accordance with your Rule 12, the requested claim was transmitted to the
approved claim adjuster, John Mullen & Co., who reviewed the subject claim and recommended
that it be awarded as submitted for the reasons as detailed in their letter dated May 26, 2016, a
copy of which has been included in your packet. Whoops—and I guess that ends my
presentation, so I stand ready to answer any questions that you may have, and just to note, we do
have one written testimony that was submitted just this morning. I amoh, it's from Cory
Harden of the Sierra Club, and I believe copies have been distributed to you. And with that, I
stand ready to answer any questions that you may have.
HEAUKULANL Thank you, Daryn. Commissioners, any questions for Daryn? Hearing none,
we're gonna bring the Applicants forward.
ARAI: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And, we do have representatives of the Hawaii County Civil
Defense in the audience, so at your leisure, you may bring them forward.
HEAUKULANL I think that might be appropriate, so would the Applicant or their
representatives please come forward? Good morning, gentlemen. Could you please raise your
right hand, and do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter now before the Planning
Commission.
OLIVEIRA/TEXEIRA: I do.
HEAUKULANL Good morning. You've been sitting there, so you know the drill. If you could
speak into the microphones; give us your name and where you reside; and tell us what you have
to tell us about this claim.
TEXEIRA: Chair Heaukulani and Commissioners, my name is Ed Texeira. I am the Interim
Administrator for the Civil Defense, Hawaii County Civil Defense Agency. Seated to my right
is no stranger to you, that's former Fire Chief Darryl Oliveira, and also my predecessor who was
2
EXHIBIT C
in the Civil Defense Agency as Administrator for about three years. And, Darryl retired from the
County on May 1st, 2016.
You know, as a new person, having reviewed all the documentation that I think are before you,
and having an opportunity to go out to the PGV plant last week with the Chief and other
members from the Civil Defense Agency and an opportunity to also review the current plans on
the shelf for the PGV and all that, I've got to say, I'm very, very comfortable in what this
proposal is going to do. I think for one, of prime importance is how the community will benefit
from this proposal. As a matter of fact, the Chief tells me that this was really community-based
planning, the outcome of which was to have a recommendation for a research and study and an
upgraded air quality model program. It really came from the community surrounding the plant.
From an emergency response point of view in planning, you know, for us, planning is
continuous, so this particular project can only benefit both the plant and Hawaii County Civil
Defense and other State agencies in terms of looking what dispersion models can do, so we can
update our plans accordingly. In the two-year period that the study or research will take place by
Dr. Steven or Steve Businger, University of Hawaii at Manoa, who by the way is seated also in
this particular room, we're going to be benefitting from his research on an on-going basis as
well. That can help us again update certain things and our planning procedures.
So, I've just got to say I'm very, very comfortable with the proposal, and I urge the Commission
to approve that as soon as you can. I'd like to ask Chief Oliveira if he's got any comments as
well. He's had detailed history with the plant, response planning, as well as responses. Chief?
OLIVEIRA: Thank you, and good morning. Darryl Oliveira, Hawaii County Civil Defense
former Administrator. And, as Mr. Texeira pointed out, you know, this will close a gap that
we've had with identifying the likely or potential dispersion of releases from the plant so it's
definitely going to provide additional tools and capability for our office, the Civil Defense
Office, with being able to identify the risk the community is at when there is a potential release,
and how that release impacts the community and guide what actions we would direct the
community to take whether it's shelter in place or the need to evacuate. So, it's definitely going
to provide that tool as well as support the proposed Health Study with what is the impact the
community has experienced as well as what could be experienced with a release. So, thank you.
HEAUKULANL Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for Mr. Texeira or Mr. Oliveira.
Thank you, gentlemen. We do have a few people signed up to testify on this matter. I've got
five on the list so I think we're going to pull one more chair up and ask all five of you to come
forward so it's Christopher Biltoft, Steven Businger, Cory Harden, Mr. Petricci, and Paul
Kuykendall. Thank you.
Thank you. If you would all please raise your right hand, and do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth on this matter now before the Planning Commission?
TESTIFIERS: Yes/I do.
3
EXHIBIT C
HEAUKULANL Very well. Welcome. Good morning. You, we recognize most of you so you
know the rules. Please speak into the microphone. Give us your name, where you reside, and
please limit your testimony to three minutes. And you can start in any order that you feel
comfortable.
HARDEN: Hi. I'm Cory Harden for Sierra Club Moku Loa Group, and thank you for your
volunteer service. Please support this funding request. The current air sampling method is based
on a dispersion model chosen over 25 years ago. It's the dangerously outdated basis for PGV's
emergency response plan, and the model is a polluter's dream that's unlikely to ever find a
problem.
PGV released 3939 pounds of hydrogen sulfide during Tropical Storm Iselle, sickening over
130 people. The samplers failed to detect any problem, partly because PGV lost power and had
no backup power for the samplers. This despite the common knowledge that if PGV lost power,
a toxic release could be triggered. At first, PGV and Department of Health, DOH, denied any
problem. DOH finally acknowledged a problem and fined PGV a pittance, $23,700. PGV, in
turn, said it planned to appeal. No one offered any meaningful special assistance to people who
were sickened.
Currently, there are too few air samplers around PGV, probably sited too high to detect hydrogen
sulfide which tends to remain down near the ground. Data from the samplers is averaged over
one hour periods so they might miss spikes. There's no quality control to determine if samplers
are correctly calibrated or even if they're working.
No one is regulating airborne siloco [sic], silica particulates from PGV. Little information is
released to the public about chemicals other than hydrogen sulfide that PGV is releasing into the
air, and DOH does not require PGV to file toxic release inventory reports.
It's a polluter's dream, a neighborhood's nightmare, and part of 35 years of environmental
injustice. Funding today's request will provide a sound basis for an updated and meaningful
emergency response plan, basis for future air monitoring, and basis for the Geothermal Public
Health Study.
Thank you.
HEAUKULANL Thank you.
KUYKENDALL: Aloha. My name is Paul Kuykendall. Thank you for reviewing this matter. I
live within a mile of PGV, and so it's near and dear to our hearts. We were—we were home
when Iselle happened, and to give you an example, this sort of modeling program, if, if, it'sif
the modeling is updated, and we could get to a point where the neighborhood could know real
time what's happening at the plant, for example if there's a release, what's happening, you, many
of you may have visited Volcano National Park. They have a system where they know what's
happening with the vog which is a much bigger problem because it's dispersed over a larger
area. And, they know which areas are gonna have problems.
4
EXHIBIT C
In Iselle, not only did we not know. There was no siren. There was, basically, a friend of mine
called me, was when I found out that the plant had a problem. And, it took as, you know, Darryl
can tell you, the Fire people weren't able to get out. And, so, this sort of modeling will—will
help the emergency response, and I would ask you to please do this because there are people in
the neighborhood that will effect in a material and basic way. Thank you.
BILTOFT: Good morning. My name is Chris Biltoft. I live in Kapoho Vacationland, and I've
been working on PGV related issues for quite a few years now, and in collaboration with Dr.
Businger on this project, and I'm very much in favor of supporting the, the modeling effort here.
One of the basic problems we have at PGV is that it's a major industrial facility located in an
urban cluster. In other words, there are people living right outside the gate, right outside the
perimeter of PGV within a few hundred meters. And, these are areas where toxic gases can be
released at PGV and pass through the residential area within a few minutes. You know, it
doesn't take more than five or ten minutes for whatever is released at PGV to get outside the
perimeter and into the community. And, that is the crux of the problem. We need to understand
what conditions, under what conditions the public is exposed to these kinds of issues.
Now, PGV will tell you that it's a closed -looped system, and they don't release toxic gases, and
that's true most of the time. You know, 99.9 percent of the time that is true. However, that is
not always the case. Seals fail. Things happen. Upset conditions occur. And, it's under those
very specific conditions where we have problems. The thing gets away from them every once in
a while basically, and we need to have Civil Defense to be able to respond in an appropriate way.
We need the community to be able to understand what's happening and respond appropriately
when these upset conditions occur.
And, that's the whole point of this exercise—is to give Civil Defense tools and give the
community some assurance that there's some program, a possibility of they being informed and
being able to evacuate, if necessary, when these conditions occur.
Now, I'm going to talk a little bit about the monitoring program because unlike what PGV now
has, a real monitoring program includes source sampling where you sample where the stuff
comes out of the pipe. In other words, you need to know in grams per minute or some,
something like that, what is actually being dispersed into the atmosphere. It's not sufficient just
to have a few scattered samplers out in the weeds somewhere. You need to know what's coming
out of the pipe.
The other thing you need is modelling because you can take the grams per second, the source
term that is, and put it into a dispersion model and get some idea of where the stuff is going to
go, what the concentrations are going to be, and what the impacts on the community might be.
So, sampling at the source, modelling—these are the two key components to a monitoring
program.
5
EXHIBIT C
Now, Appendix H of the Emergency Response Plan was, was written sometime in the 1980's
using the Industrial Source Code [Complex] Model, which is a sort of a basic Gaussian
dispersion model, which is, you know, an okay model, but it's, you know, it's a quarter of a
century old, and there—there are new models available. And, there are new, I mean, PGV has
changed since the 1980's, and so, we need to know what their upset conditions are presently, not
what they were 25 years ago.
So, there's a great need for an update of this Appendix H, and so now we have a couple of
candidate models. One is the Vog Model that Dr. Businger uses for Kilauea and there's another
one called CALPUFF which is used at Lake County in The Geysers geothermal plant. It, the
CALPUFF is actually an EPA approved model for this particular application, but what we need
to do is a validation program to make sure that these models actually work in this particular
location.
And, so what we're proposing to do here is do some studies and try to give ourselves some
assurance that the new models that we're looking at will do the job, will actually perform as
they are supposed to. And, so that's, that's basically what we're trying to do here with this
program, and I hope you will offer your support to it.
BUSINGER: Good morning, and thank you for your time in assessing this program. My name
is Dr. Steven Businger. I'm a professor and chair of the Atmospheric Science Department at the
University of Hawaii at Manoa. I have been doing dispersion modelling for 30 years. I'm also
a fellow of the AGU and a fellow of the AMS. I think that Chris has really given a nice outline
of what it is we hope to accomplish, and I have been doing dispersion modelling of the vog
plume and to make that available publicly on-line, you may be available—may be familiar,
rather, with that model. And, that model started in 2010, and it's been validated over time, and
as Chris mentioned, it's very important for us to validate these dispersion models so that we get a
tool that really provides guidance to the stakeholders, including the community, Civil Defense,
and so on, and the Health Department.
I'mmy presence here today, I flew over from Honolulu, is to allow you to answer questions, to
ask questions that are of a technical nature, and I'd be more than happy to answer any questions.
Thank you.
PETRICCL Aloha, Commissioners, and good morning. My name's Robert Petricci. I'll be
speaking for Puna Pono Alliance today, and I, first I want to talk about Chris. You were really
lucky to have a guy like that. He worked for the Army for many years on their chemical
weapons disposal monitoring, and he was the head of that program. And, he's doing this all as a
voluntary effort so the County is very, very lucky. We're saving a lot of money to—we can have
a state-of-the-art system here, and I hope you guys will pay attention to that.
And, as Duane can verify, when this whole permitting process went into place, that's what these
funds were for. And these funds have been used for things like bus stops and paving roads, and
other things that I don't think they were intended for, so I hope that we can now find the money
after 35 years, really, since HPA [sic], to finally have some kind of monitoring program that the
6
EXHIBIT C
community will have confidence in, and that program as Chris said, is going to have to be
source, source monitoring because that's a standard for the industry. That's how they do it in
almost all the industries, and so that's a—what they have now with a few stationary samplers
doesn't work. And, I've been there, like I said, for 35 years. There's been 18 declared Civil
Defense emergencies at that power plant, and I don't think that there's another power plant for
sure in the State of Hawaii that can come close to anything like that.
I think PGV should strongly support source monitoring in this because their position has been
that we're not causing a problem and, but there's no data to prove that. So, from PGV's point of
view, from the community's point of view, we need to have this information.
I like the CALPUFF monitoring system because after listening to Chris, it seems like that's
gonna be the best for this situation.
That's about it. I hope we can finally this done. It's been a long time coming, and it's in
everybody's best interest. Thank you.
HEAUKULANL Thank you. Commissioners, any questions for these gentlemen?
CLARKSON: I
HEAUKULANL Sure, Commissioner Clarkson.
CLARKSON: Yes, I have a question. Does this proposal—now, correct me if I'm wrong—but,
assuming that an accurate model is developed, dispersion model, for various concentrations of
pollutants, when or if a release occurs, the model will only be accurate if you have a real time
monitoring of current meteorological conditions. Does thisI'm, I've been looking through it.
Is there any money in this proposal to actually establish on-going real-time data about wind
conditions that will allow the model to predict where a release would go?
BUSINGER: That's a very intuitive question. It turns out that there's a lot of synergy here. I
didn't mention that I'm also the Director of the Mauna Kea Weather Center. We gather all kinds
of data from NOAA and from satellites and all of the available surface observations, and ingest
that into a weather and research and forecasting model which is custom run for the Mauna Kea
at the Mauna Kea Weather Center. The output from that model, which then provides at high
resolution, the meteorological conditions provides the input for the dispersion model that we will
be running for this.
The Mauna Kea Weather Center has been in operation since 1999, and it runs its model twice
daily, the WRF Model. That will continue as long as there are astronomers working on Mauna
Kea, so that, that output of meteorological conditions is free to this project. And, that, by the
way, also provides the input for the Vog Model. So, the fact that we have a Vog Model running
and that is efficient and it provides guidance for the community on where the vog is going, that
also is benefitting from the Mauna Kea Weather Center.
7
EXHIBIT C
So, essentially, the science of astronomy is providing the background, meteorology that we need
in order to make this a true guidance. And, it does presuppose one point, is that we need to have
this dispersion model on stand-by, if you will, that it can be run at the press of a button if there's
a release, and we need to know how much gas is released in order to get a good, you know,
model output.
I hope that answers your question.
BILTOFT: Let me add also that I believe PGV does maintain some meteorological
measurements on site and with the, with their cooperation, we should be able to plug into those
data as well. And we are, we're also for the purpose of this study, we're going to acquire some
sonic anemometers, which are designed for measuring wind and turbulence that would be I
believe available then as well.
So, yes, we're going to be watching very carefully, the meteorology at this site; in fact, creating
hopefully a, a climatology, if you will, of the meteorology at this site so that we can really
understand better of the dispersion process around PGV.
CLARKSON: One more question. So, you—I've heard this mentioned several times, that
source of volumes or mass needs to be known before this dispersion model can accurately
predict concentrations distant from the source. I I'm skeptical that, that critical piece of
information will ever be available rapidly enough to make a difference. Please assuage my
skepticism.
BUSINGER: Well, we have had conversations with staff at PGV, and they've been very
supportive of this and very forthcoming. It remains to be seen, of course, so your skepticism is
duly noted and understood, but I remain optimistic. Plus, we're going to have some monitoring
downwind so, if they give us a wrong number, we'll have a pretty good idea that they're giving
us a wrong number.
BILTOFT: And yes, source sampling is really a, one of the real crux of the problem. We need
to know what's coming out of the pipe basically, and there are a number of ways to do that. I
mean we, PGV already does source sampling. It's for their own protection, you know, when
they, when something goes wrong, they get into their HAZMAT suits and trot out to wherever
the problem is and try to fix it. So, they—it's something that they already do. What they do not
do is give us that information and so, hopefully, PGV will cooperate with this project and
provide some of the basic source information that's needed for input to these models.
And, we probably don't want to get into a technical discussion of the exact types of instruments
that are used. I mean, there are spectrophotometers, for example, that can do this sort of thing
and, but let us say, that we are certainly going to pay a lot of attention to source sampling
because without a reasonable idea what the source is, no dispersion model is going to do any
good at all.
8
EXHIBIT C
And, the other thing II should emphasize, too, is that it's the temporal and spatial resolution
that is, is one of the real issues here. The, anything released at PGV could be into the community
within minutes, and so, this model has to be able to resolve those kinds of scales. In other words,
it, it can't be an hourly averaged model. It has to be something that will give us some idea of the
concentration over time, shorter time periods on the order of minutes, and shorter distances on
the order of several hundred meters. So, that's one of the things that we're gonna really look at
real hard is the ability of these models to give us the temporal and spatial resolution that is
required for this particular kind of application.
And the final thing I'd like to say is that, you know, we can do some pre -modelling. We can go
in and determine what conditions are the worst for dispersion. In other words, what conditions
are gonna give us the highest concentrations. And, we can model the heck out of that kind of
situation and then if we are, find ourselves in that sort of a situation, low wind speed, a strong
inversion lid, that sort of thing, then we know that we are in trouble, and we can react based on
what modelling we had done previously. So, that's one of the other things that I probably should
have said earlier.
PETRICCL I'd just like to add that your point is well taken. Basically, PGV is largely self-
regulating at this point. When there's a problem there, the Department of Health calls PGV and
says what's going on. And, so that's, we're gonna have to address that from, in a separate venue,
I think. We are, as Puna Pono Alliance, working on that and have been for quite a while. I hope
that helps clarify it but largely, Department of Health and even EPA delegate a lot of those things
to PGV to be self -reporting, and we need to change that as well.
HENKEL: Mr. Chair?
HEAUKULANL Commissioner Henkel.
HENKEL: Okay, I'm a layman. I'm wondering, is it possible to release inert materials at certain
times under different conditions to kind of map what's going to happen?
BUSINGER: That's a very prescient question, and actually it is part of the proposal. We're
going to release a non-toxic, very easily detectable gas that doesn't occur in nature, and we're
gonna sample it using a special technique called bagged sampling downwind, and that's how
we're going to validate the dispersion models that we, that we're going to run. And, we're going
to run two different dispersion models. One is a HYSPLIT Model which is continually evolving
and improving. It's, it's developed by, in NOAA, within NOAA, and the other model that we're
gonna look at is this CALPUFF Model. So, we're going to have two competing models, and the
CALPUFF Model is really excellent for close -in and very, very high resolution.
This is a state-of-the-art project, but it's definitely something which is doable because there are a
lot of circumstances in which there's pollution that's being released, say—say, a sarin gas that's
being released in a subway tunnel. Any of those kinds of circumstances have, have been
addressed using these kind of models. So, it is something which is doable.
9
EXHIBIT C
HENKEL: Thank you.
HEAUKULANL Thank you, gentlemen. Any other questions, Commissioners? Thank you. Is
there anyone else that would like to be heard? Good morning.
GREEN: Elisabeth Green speaking for myself I live and work three miles downwind of PGV
during such events as Hurricane Iselle during which I smelled the gas and put on a gas mask and
texted everybody I knew letting them know that there was blowout. And, so I have two
proposed amendments for this.
One is a proposal to add modelling to predict changes in vegetation distribution to account for
the expected deforestation due to the Rapid `Ohi`a Death that we're experiencing in the area.
It's predicted that within three years, all the trees will be gone, and right now, I guess about 30
percent are gone. So, during this mulling procedure, we're gonna see significant changes, and in
the future, I supposed we should probably just take account for the possibility we might not have
any `ohi`a left by the end of this.
And my other proposal is I don't see any qualification credentials for Ryan Lyman or Rob
Taylor. However, I know that Rob Taylor is qualified to use equipment because there, five of us
are. We were qualified together. I'd like to see the other three technicians' names on there and
to see a transparent hiring process for this. Only $6,000 each, but that's significant for what's on
there `cause it's hard to get that kind of money. Like for us to get a chance to provide our
credentials and so that it'd be a selection or a hiring process that's normal. Contingent for when
Chris and/or Rob are away on emergency, for example, for the roles of field data collection for
model validation under the section called "other direct costs." And, we can just amend the
proposal to add the names of all of the qualified technicians so that if somebody is away, there's
another technician available. Thank you.
HEAUKULANL Thank you. Commissioners, any questions? Anyone else that would like to
be heard on this agenda item? Hearing none, Commissioners, could I get a motion to close
public testimony?
MOSES: I make a motion to close public testimony.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
HEAUKULANL Thank you, Commissioner Moses.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
HEAUKULANL A second from Commissioner Dela Cruz, I think. Any discussion? All those
in favor signify by saying aye.
COMMISSIONERS: Aye.
10
EXHIBIT C
HEAUKULANL Any opposition? Public testimony is closed. Commissioners, is there a
motion for action on this one?
IKEDA: Mr. Chairman, I'll make the motion. I move that the claim for $362,719 be approved
based on the claim adjuster's findings and recommendations which shall be adopted.
HEAUKULANL Thank you, Commissioner Ikeda.
HENKEL: I second.
DELA CRUZ: Second.
HEAUKULANL Second by Commissioner Henkel. Commissioners, any discussion? Hearing
none, Jeff could you please roll call the vote.
DARROW: Could I just get clarification on the second? Commissioner Dela Cruz?
HEAUKULANL I believe that's correct.
DARROW: Okay. Thank you. With that, we'll take the roll call. Commissioner Ikeda?
IKEDA: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Dela Cruz?
DELA CRUZ: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Clarkson?
CLARKSON: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Henkel?
HENKEL: Aye.
DARROW: Commissioner Moses?
MOSES: Aye.
DARROW: And Mr. Chairman.
HEAUKULANL Aye.
DARROW: The motion passes six to zero.
11
EXHIBIT C
HEAUKULANL Gentlemen, you'll be notified in writing from our office. Thank you.
PETRICCI (from audience): Thank you, all.
HEAUKULANL Thank you, Mr. Petricci.
The discussion ended at 11:01 a.m.
Respectfully submitted,
Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary
Windward Planning Commission
12
EXHIBIT C