Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
COM 0664.004 2008-2010
JM tvoc q�� . William P. Kenoi .' r_( %:V: c• William T. Takaba Mayor J . Managing Director • .. %;;* Wally Lau County of Hawaii Deputy Managing Director 25 Aupuni Street • Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 -4252 • (808) 961 -8211 • Fax (808) 961 -6553 KONA: 75 -5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 • Kailua -Kona, Hawai`i 96740 (808) 329 -5226 • Fax (808) 326 -5663 c_ June 23, 2010 r� . • Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council • County of Hawai`i_ 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Members: County Council Initiated Amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan As Reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664 As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6- 4.3(C), Hawai`i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Windward Planning Commission's letter and enclosures regarding the above - referenced request. Sincerely, William P. Kenoi Mayor Enclosures cc: Planning Department Comm No. o _'• Ref. To: Ref. Dote JUN 2 $ 2O County of Hawaii is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. . 4 0 JNtY:OF N •. County of Hawaii WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Phone (808) 961 -8288 • Fax (808) 961 -8742 June 23, 2010 The Honorable J Yoshimoto, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawai`i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Yoshimoto and Council Members: County Council Initiated Amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan As Reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664 The Windward Planning Commission at its duly held public hearing on June 4, 2010, considered the County Council's request for amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan (Puna CDP) as reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664. A motion was made to continue the hearing to the next Windward Planning Commission meeting but no second was made. A motion was subsequently made to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council with two votes in favor of the motion and two against. Therefore, the motion did not pass. No other motions were made. According to Rule No. 2 -28.1 (Community Development Plan), Hawai`i County Code, the Windward Planning Commission's non- action constitutes an unfavorable recommendation. This unfavorable recommendation is being forward to you, along with a copy of the hearing transcript; the Puna CDP Action Committee's letter dated April 16, 2010, to the Planning Director; and the Planning Director's letter dated May 11, 2010, to the Windward Planning Commission. Should you have questions regarding the above, please contact Daryn Arai of the Planning Department at 961 -8288. Sincerely, Rell Woodward, Chairman Windward Planning Commission Lpunacdpamendmentsol w wpc Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer cc: Lincoln Ashida, Esq. WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 4, 2010 A regularly advertised hearing on COUNTY COUNCIL BILL 194 was called to order at 10:52 a.m. in the County of Hawai`i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai`i, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo (left at 12 noon), Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Norman Hayashi (Planning Program Manager), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And 7 people from the public in attendance. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL 194) Amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan (Puna CDP) as reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664. WOODWARD: The second item on the agenda is amendment to the Puna Community Development Plan as reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664. Planning Director, you're in charge. LEITHEAD TODD: What we have before us are County Council initiated amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan as incorporated in Bill 194. Bill 194 was introduced by the County Council, and then transmitted to me, and I then transmitted it to the Puna Community Development Action Committee. The Action Committee then submitted their advice to me, and I agreed in part and disagreed in part with their recommendations; and that is included in my letter to you. And one of the issues was whether they could make substantive amendments to Bill 194. And I felt that there were a number of things that they raised that would have to be brought in as separate amendments, which we are in the process of drafting. So what I'm asking for is that you basically submit a recommendation to the County Council that they approve Bill 194 with the various recommendations I made. And maybe perhaps going through them would be easier. I tried to do my recommendation to respond to the advice given by the Action Committee. ATTACH: Corn. 664.4 1 The first, if you look at page 3 of my recommendation letter it was on whether we would replace words such as "initiate" with "propose" or "amend" with "proposed amendments." And I support the amendments as initiated by the County Council in part because I see my role as a Planning Director to propose and, to propose amendments, because I am not the legislative body. And so I thought that this document was directing me to act, and that those words were more consistent with what my role is. Item No. 2, deleting establishment of a County historic preservation committee and in renumbering the remaining section, I also support the deletion of those sections as initiated by the County Council. I note that this amendment was originally proposed by Councilwoman Naeole in 2008, but was not acted upon because there was a decision made to adopt the CDP without any amendments. And part of the rationale is that they have established a County Cultural Resources Commission which is meant to be island -wide versus having something that is this preservation commission, which doesn't encompass as much as that. I understand that it has not been filled by the Mayor yet, partially because of the constraints of the budget at this point. But, also, I would note that specifically on historic preservation, any historic preservation plan is approved by State Historic Preservation and is done in consultation with both lineal and cultural descendants in any areas. And so a lot of what you might think would go to such a commission is actually within the State's jurisdiction. On No. 3, amendment to the section regarding Wastewater Disposal /Treatment Systems, I support the amendment as initiated by the County Council, and I noted that the amendment was originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008. And part of the rationale for some of this was a concern that the language would impact DHHL lands. As for No. 4, the amendment regarding Village /Town Center Formation, I also support the proposed amendments which delete references to floating zones and transferred development rights as initiated by the County Council, and note that these were originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008. Part of that is because while they have these references none of the enabling legislation exists in the Hawai`i County Code to allow for those actions to occur. On No. 5 regarding Downsizing of Agricultural Lands, I also support the proposed amendments as initiated by the County Council. And there are two different sections. One, the original amendment was proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole; and basically the rationale is that the CDP has other actions that protect agricultural lands without requiring purchase or lease of lands by the County. The other rationale for Section 3.2.2.b was proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen; and he felt that the CDP as it stands would be too restrictive on property owners. So there was additional language from the Action Committee which I found to be substantially different from the original text -- which would, basically it's to the new amendment -- and did not feel that that could be inserted; and I also don't support that amendment. I do not plan to initiate it. No. 6, Relocation of the Kea'au and Pahoa Transfer Stations, I support deletion of "Section g" as initiated by the County Council. I note that that was originally proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole. And I want to note that we currently have I think almost $4,000,000 going into the renovation of the Pahoa transfer station. So, you know, it's highly unlikely given the 2 timeframe for the CDP that you would be looking at any relocation of that given the investment that's going into that facility. On No. 7, Parks and Recreation, I also support the amendment as initiated by the County Council. And for additional information which not available to me at the time, I would note that the County is going ahead and looking at whether it's feasible to convert the old Pahoa fire station to be consistent with the CDP and provide both a senior center as well as some other facilities available for the community. And those meetings were just recently held by the Mayor with the various departments. No. 8, I support the Action Committee's recommendation to include the word "roundabout" in a list of traffic calming features but delete the addition of "highway widening ". And I felt that the addition of the word "roundabout" was not a substantive amendment so that it could be included, because it's just one of a range of traffic calming devices. And it is very consistent with what has been advocated by a number of people active with both the Steering Committee, the Action Committee, and various community organizations, that they do want roundabouts to be considered in future planning for roads in the Puna region. On No. 9, which is the proposed amendment to Zoning Designations in Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and Section 5.2.3, I support the original amendments as initiated by the County Council, and note that these were originally proposed by Planning Director Yuen in 2008. Also, regarding Table 5.1, the Village /Town Center Formation, I support the changes to Table 5.1 as initiated by the County Council and originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008. The one difference here is that the County Council had a recommendation to remove the word "preliminary" in the description of the Village Center Boundaries. I agree with the Action Committee's recommendation to retain the word "preliminary" in the description of the village center boundaries, cause I thought it was a much more reasonable position and allowed for greater flexibility. On No. 10 on the addition of new Section 5.2.4 regarding industrial zoning as initiated by the County Council, and it was originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen, I support that amendment as initiated by the County Council. And No. 11 on the list from the Action Committee was all other amendments; and I support all other amendments as proposed in Bill 194 as initiated by the County Council. On the other items since it did come in the letter from the Action Committee, I would support the additional non - substantive and formatting amendments that they had in Exhibit A because they are non - substantive and they made sense. I do not support the proposal for the new action item for the creation of Village /Town Center Steering Committees -- One, because I consider it a substantive amendment and cannot be incorporated in Bill 194; and, two, because we do not have the personnel or resources to support that. If the community on their own wants to fonn committees that provide input to the Action Committee, that's entirely acceptable because then that is not a Sunshine Law Committee or a committee that we have to provide support or staff to. And other communities have done similar things where they've formed their own committees to 3 provide input. In Kaumana many years ago before we were talking about action plans, well, we formed what we called a Upper Kaumana District Council with representation from various subdivisions so that we could comment whenever there were proposals for rezoning or improvements and infrastructure in the community, so that we could get community beat and then, the heartbeat of the community, and then take that to the County Council and provide input. And we would hold meetings, and none of that with any financial support from the County. It was entirely done through the community. And I think that can be achieved by the community without having to make them, committees created through the CDP. Because if it's created by the CDP, it then falls into all the Sunshine Law requirements, it requires minutes, it requires public hearing notices; and so I was very concerned about that, cause I don't have the staff or resources to support that. On the amendment proposed by the Hawaiian Shores Community Association, I support it. We're going to be drafting a substantive amendment and initiate it separately, because I did not feel it could be incorporated into Bill 194. Similarly, there was an amendment proposed by the Kalapana Seaview Estates. As it's substantive, I did not feel it could be incorporated into Bill 194. Staff is drafting an amendment; and we will be initiating an amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and Council as I agree with that recommendation. Similarly, there was an amendment proposed by the Hawaiian Paradise Parks Homeowners Association; and I support the recommendation of the Action Committee that the existing language be retained. So it basically is not supporting the amendment to the Hawaiian Paradise Parks Homeowners Association. Amendments proposed by a group called All Landowners of Hawaiian Acres, or their acronym is ALOHA, the Planning Director supports the Action Committee's recommended amendments; and we will draft a separate amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and Council. Amendment proposed by Foster Kern, we supported the Action Committee's recommendation to reject the request; and I will not be initiating an interim amendment. And because it's not something that affects Bill 194, it isn't something that you have to vote on today. Amendment proposed by Toby Hazel to expand Hele -on Bus Service, I agree in concept with expansion of the mass transit service; and, therefore, we will draft a similar amendment for submission, but they will not be part of 194. Now I have additional non - substantive amendments which are proposed. And they are basically things like the fact that -. To be consistent with other types of publications that we put out, I did not think that the words `Ohi`a, Hapu'u, Pueo, `Amakihi, and `Apapane should be capitalized. Because when I looked at other documents that we've produced they are not capitalized. On Page 1 -1, paragraph 5, I found an error. They had the word "Maka'aina" and actually it should be "Maka`ainana," which is the proper Hawaiian term for "commoner." 4 And on Page 2 -1, the correct diacritical marks for "Malama Ki" should have the macron or macona over the word "Kr. I also had another one that I wondered whether the Council should consider whether the word "ohi`a" should be changed to "ohi`a- lehua" to actually reference the tree that they are referring to; and that is because the word "ohi`a" in the Hawaiian language dictionary can also mean mountain apple, a tomato, a native variety of sugar cane, and a variety of taro, among other meanings. And so those are non - substantive, but I wanted to submit those for your consideration. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you, Madam Director. Do we have any questions for the Director? Okay, seeing none, we do have four people from the public signed up to testify. If we can get you to come up as I call your name, have a seat at the table here, Daniel Taylor, Jon Olson, Rob Tucker and Tim Rees. REES: I was testifying on a later matter. WOODWARD: Oh, okay. Let's see, if I could get you, let's see, you two gentlemen have already been sworn in. I'd like to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TAYLOR: I do. WOODWARD: All right, very good. And Mr. Taylor, you have signed up first. If you'll give us your name and address, and then you may begin your testimony. TAYLOR: Okay. My name is Daniel Taylor. I'm a resident of Volcano community. I have been a resident in Hawai`i for about 30 years. And I represent the Action Committee for the Puna Community Development Plan, and I'm speaking on their behalf. But I'd like to point out, you all lowlanders are wearing short sleeves and I am cold in this room. I had to put a sweater on to keep myself going here. I'd like to complement the Planning Director. We are very gratified by the amount of attention you gave to our letter and to the very rational well- thought response to us. And I'd like to pass on the respects of the Action Committee, too, for that. What remains with respect to Bill 194, just a few points where we'd like to simply clarify some of our thinking, we don't have a disagreement with anything. We simply would like to clarify some of our thinking on five points. And they're listed in a 2 1/2 page thing we copied for you; and they're available. I'm not, I'm not going to bore you by reading it, besides we have to get off for lunch in a few more minutes. We are still a little bit uncomfortable with something that the Planning Director referred to a few minutes ago about the kind of language that Bill 94 would use to tweak the, subtly tweak the intent of the community plan. We need some help on this. Our committee is new and this whole idea of community driven and action committees is kind of a new concept. And we might be 5 wrong on this, but we're not real comfortable with these conditional syntax that's been inserted into the plan that causes the plan to propose things or to consider things. We see it as an action plan; and we'd prefer to see the action words remain. We understand that we as a steering committee, is an action committee, are responsible to the Planning Director. We communicate to you and we support you in what you're doing; and we communicate to you the intent of the community. But, correct us if we're wrong, we think you're the implementor of this plan. And we're wondering if you're not, who is? You're part of the executive department of County government, and the County Council is part of the legislative branch. So who would be the implementing authority? LEITHEAD TODD: I see myself as working on implementing the plan, which is why I felt that words like "propose amendments" were more consistent with my role, because I don't amend. You know, the County Council amends it through legislative action. But as an example of, you know, what I viewed my role as, like one of the things that you referenced here is, you know, getting the County Building Code amended to add standards for traditional Hawaiian building design and construction methods. So in my role what I did is I went and got the design standards that had been adopted by Maui County, and sent them to the Building Division and to Warren Lee asking that they be incorporated into the Building Code. They responded that they have that appropriate language drafted and when they go to the County Council with the new Building Code that language will be part of the new Building Code. And so I have been working with them, cause I saw that as my role. The actual proposal to amend it will not come from me. The actual proposal will come from the Building Division. So what I did is I proposed those amendments to them; and they've responded that they're going to incorporate it in the next Building Code that goes to the Council, cause they want to do a comprehensive update. I also, you know, am doing what I can to initiate amendments. Staff has already been directed to draft those other amendments that the Action Committee recommended. And so that's exactly what I'm going to be doing, I'm going to be proposing them and starting the process. But it's going to be up to the County Council where they ultimately approve it or not, and thereby amend the CDP. And so I think maybe it's my view of what I can or cannot do versus what the Council does; and I saw this more as a plan that I'm supposed to implement. And I saw my role as implementing it and proposing the amendments as opposed to I can't amend and my Department can't amend them, and for that matter not even the Planning Commission can amend it. Ultimately it's the County Council. TAYLOR: That's great. And our interest as the Action Committee is what the action says, is to get action going on this plan. And if this is your approach we greatly respect that and will support you in that. We just want to be sure this plan doesn't get mired down in a mass of procedures and become sidetracked over things like that. So thank you for your clarification. A couple of other things we're a little concerned about have to do with quality of water in the Puna Watershed. And we might have some disagreement here, but the original, as you can read in my statement, the original intent was to protect this part -. NOMURA: Microphone please. 6 TAYLOR: I don't think it will reach. TUCKER: We need more cord. WOODWARD: He needs more cord. TAYLOR: It's okay, I'll just describe it. I'll just bring this closer. We have full water going underground through here. Above Highway 130 which is here, it's protected by, of course, Wao Kele o Puna Forest Reserve, Kahauale`a Natural Area Reserve, and maybe even further on. It's flowing under an area of land that some day is going to be densely settled. The original proposal in the PCDP was to give a little bit of extra protection to this area, about 5,000 acres. The Planning Director objected to that on a very good basis, that part of it is already settled, part of it is Hawaiian Home lands, about 2,000 acres of it; and all that is true. But we would like to, rather than to have disagreement over this, we'd like acknowledgment of the fact that this is, this underground water is a precious resource and it's going to eventually need to be protected somehow. You can't have a bunch of subdivisions in here all of which have cesspools and not eventually contaminate the water. Some day there's going to be a trigger point when this water is not going to be safe to use. And we don't just mean drinking water. It's water that eventually flows into the ocean and might be used for other purposes. And it's not just contamination from household use, it's contamination from runoff from roads and industrial uses. So we merely would like to see some recognition that this resource is deserving of some protection. And I can't go further than that. It's going to have to be some kind of containment of water that is generated by people in this area. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions? Okay -. TAYLOR: Well, there's one other point. Sony to be taking so much time. But we would like to certainly support what the Planning Director said at the very end of your comments before me, and that is there's strong support for community driven committees that might help to plan town and village centers. We strongly support and we very much agree with your statement on that subject. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. Mr. Olson, you're on. (Commissioner Domingo left at this time, 12 noon.) OLSON: Here we go again. Well, what I would like to see you do with this is I would like you basically to take no action and send this back to the Council requesting that they bifurcate this so that your body can actually consider what my body, the CDP committee, did, this abbreviated version of two years, two plus years of work and some numbers of hundreds of thousands of dollars that the County paid for us to do this plan. And they've squashed it all into 11 pages; and they handed it off to you like you're supposed to understand it. And I think that's, from my side of the fence, demeaning at its best, given the amount of work that my community put into this, the hundreds of hours that the different committees, aside from our committee, put into coming up with this document, and then having it shoveled off and shuffled through in a matter of a few minutes without any understanding of why we did what we did. 7 Let me just give you a for instance here, cause it's open to that page. On the issue of the relocation of the transfer stations, now why would that come up? Well, let's see. The transfer station in Pahoa, the access to that transfer station in Pahoa for the entire South and East District of Puna is through the Pahoa School complex. They drag, we drag our garbage through the school complex; and that's been there since day one. The school was built in 1908; and they moved the transfer station once a little further back. I was up there two weeks ago for the Senior Projects Day as a volunteer and it's disgusting. Okay, it's going to cost some money to move it. What choices? You want to move the school or the transfer station? Moving the Kea'au station, it is on Highway 130. Momentarily that is going to be at the transfer station nearly six lanes wide by the time you figure the shoulder, the turning lane, the two turning pockets left and right, two lanes of travel, a turning pocket and two more lanes of travel. If you pull out of there going Pahoa bound, you're going to have to make it across three lanes of traffic without getting hit. And they're coming at you at 55 miles an hour. Does that sound like a good scenario to anybody sitting here? It's already, in the last ten years, there's already been 8 people killed there. Is that enough? Do we have enough blood on the road? Oh, no, it's going to cost a couple of bucks to move it. And I'm not getting any more satisfaction on the State Highway's side either. Village and town centers, we didn't come up with this, folks. The County hired a planner, somebody with extensive, extensive experience in planning, who came down here and advised us how best we could go about solving our problems of getting these village and town centers built. We didn't come in making any demands. We said how do we fix this, how is the rest of the world dealing with this? This is what we were told, this is the one of the tools that you should have out there to deal with the problem. Well, I mean, if the guy didn't know what he was doing the County shouldn't have hired him. So that's the conundrum, either the man knows what he's doing or he doesn't know what he's doing. It's okay with one planning director, it's not okay with the next planning director. It's okay with one Council, it's not okay with another. I think you deserve, and I know my community deserves you to reject this. Send them a little letter that says bifurcate this, send this back in bit size pieces so we can understand what we're doing and why the community made the choices it chose to doing these things, and then we'll look at it. And I'm not objecting to having someone do a second look, or third look, whatever it takes to get it right. The Council didn't look at this. They simply know that this document takes some power away from them; and this new enervation of the Council doesn't like that. So I'm not going to drone on too much longer here. It's just, it's a real simple thing. We deserve better than we're getting, we're deserving better than what the Council is going to give us. We had a Council that adopted this document, I'm not complaining about the amendment process. I'm not complaining about a second, or a third, or a fourth look. This thing should be continued to be looked at; and the community's involvement should be kept up -to -date. We have huge problems out there. We have a growth problem that is out of control. The County does not control it, the State does not control it; and we're going to have to come up with mechanisms to deal with it. This doesn't get it, not even close. Thank you. 8 WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Tucker (sic)? Commissioner Kern. KERN: Thanks, Chair. OLSON: Mr. Olson. KERN: Mr. Olson. WOODWARD: I mean Mr. Olson. I'm sorry. OLSON: I'm better looking. KERN: Mr. Olson, quick point of clarification. You said to get to the Pahoa transfer station you actually have to drive through the school corridor? OLSON: It bisects the elementary and intermediate and high school. KERN: That, correct me if I'm wrong, that's the long way to go, isn't that? OLSON: Not if you live down Kapoho. In other words, Nanawale down to Kapoho, over to Leilani, and everything that's south and east of that, they go through the school complex. KERN: And then you've got to go up that dirt road, and there are subdivisions on top there, and then the road takes a right and bends all the way around through old cane lands, and then comes back down, and then you can take a left -hand turn into the transfer station. If you keep on going it comes to the old church and -. OLSON: Two point three miles. KERN: Preschool thing, right. So with the other access, the more commonly used one is off of where Mr., I think Mr. Gumpac had his, you know, tree business. There's a tree business right there on the corner there, right? OLSON: Well, see the people don't go through there anymore because that intersection, the Kahakai - Malama Market intersection, is the most dangerous intersection in the entire State of Hawai`i. People don't go there if they can avoid it. KERN: Yeah, just clarifying that I -. OLSON: Yeah, you remembered it right. KERN: Okay. OLSON: Yes. 9 WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. Now, Mr. Tucker. TUCKER: Thank you, Commissioners. The CDP, the Puna Community Development Plan, and the amendment process, now this has been a path I've been on since 2006 when we were invited by Mayor Kim and the Planning Department to participate in the Community Development Plan. And as Jon said there has been a lot of time and effort. I don't really need to go back and rehash every moment. But I would like to pick up the thread a little bit at Council in 2008. Now at the time that the CDP, the Puna CDP, was going to Council, we had four days notice as a community, as community participants, that there were 21 amendments coming to the CDP from the Director's office. Now we were not at that time not particularly enamored with the fact that we had, you know, four days in which to try and digest 21 amendments, I believe it was. Well, my numbers may be not, maybe it was 19, but I remember 21. And at that point we had to take an approach that, listen, if this is just going to get bogged down for months on end with amendments that were not even given the dignity of time to review, then we were going to take a stance to pass it now and amend it later. Now we said that at the time because we knew that some reasonable amendments would be appropriate to the document. It was a long and difficult and cumbersome path trying to get the CDP together. We did it on time, we did it on schedule, we did it on budget. And we brought it to the Council, and suddenly there were 21 amendments. Well, that morning that there were 21 amendments being presented by Chris Yuen, by the end of the day we were at 56 amendments. Now the additional amendments we had zero time to appreciate, zero time to understand. Now we're grateful that the Council at the time decided to listen to us, passed the CDP, and there was a promise made both emotionally and publicly - pass it now, amend it later. Now we did not expect that it was going to be more than a year before the amendments were going to come back, you know, up as an issue. And Friends of Puna's Future in December of '08, just a couple of months after the Council passed it, we went out into the community, we formed a committee of 28 individuals new to the process which spent nothing but the next five months studying 56 amendments. We gave it a long and thoughtful consideration. We were expecting in the spring of 2009 that the amendments were going to be coming back to Council. It didn't. It took several months for an action committee to be appointed. It took several months for a planning director to be appointed. And that was not of our creation, that was not of our, you know -. We were prepared and ready early in '09, you know, for an amendment process to take place. Now we can flash forward a little bit into December 18` of 20 -, 2009 when with no public notice an agenda item was filed with Council right at the holidays for a one bill, Bill 194, to amend the Puna CDP. Now it took us several or ten days to even realize this had been put on the agenda over the holidays. And when we finally got a copy of it and got to look at it, we found that this one bill, Bill 194, contained approximately 83 amendments now. So we went from 21 amendments, to 56 amendments, now we're up to 83 amendments. And instead of really going back into the community, which Chris Yuen never went to the community to talk about his 21 amendments and the rest of the Council never really came to the community to talk about amendments -. We had to start asking ourselves what is this plan? Is this a community plan or is this a community plan subject to the veto of the largest landowner in the district? Now I'm really not trying to be mean, I'm not trying to be angry. I'm really trying to be simple and blunt 10 and clear so that we can abbreviate this conversation and not tiptoe around everything. But Chris Yuen to our knowledge really consulted with one individual in the development of amendments to the CDP, which was the largest landowner in Puna. And those amendments had been brought forth by wagon and cart and packed basket through processes to land in a big lump as Bill 194 now at your lap. Now we were a little astonished to see Bill 194 hit Council with so many amendments in it that it really didn't consist of a bunch of amendments any more, but consisted of a rewriting of the Puna Community Development Plan, quite factually. We also were confused on how do we deal with Bill 194 with its 150 pages in a coherent manner with what we perceive to be substantive and non - substantive amendments within it, up to 80 something in number. Because it was written as a single bill, we think it had to go forward with either a single recommendation, either for or against, from the Action Committee, from the Planning Director, and from the Planning Commission. We do not see a mechanism presented at Council being to take Bill 194 and deal with it in its sundry parts. And while there are things within Bill 194 that amend the CDP in ways that Friends of Puna's Future approves of them and supports, there are other things which we are extremely uncomfortable with. When we heard talk that there is no language in the Code to empower floating zones, we listened to that language. And then we read the newspaper and we see that the planning group for the city of Hilo has just amended the planning language so that they can pursue something in the way they want to pursue it within Hilo. So Hilo has the ability to amend the planning code, you know, to within their community design criteria. But Puna is told, well, if it's not already in the Code we can't go there, it's not -. So, anyway, I think we have a legal problem. I think trying to deal with 83 amendments wrapped up in one little bundle with a bow on it and try to pretend you're dealing with 83 different parts or 83 different things, you can pick and choose what you're going to support or not, is a little bit confusing to us. We see this as one bill, it is a rewriting of the CDP, it is being put forward to that purpose. We agree that amendments are needed. We have Friends of Puna's Future concurrently taking two other steps now, one of which was what we felt was the, a simple and elegant and mission purpose, suitable amendment, was our Village Center Steering Committee amendment. We presented this appropriately to the Planning Department who took it to the Action Committee. Our proposal was simple. While the CDP in all of its working groups dealt with the district as a whole in a big broad way, the village centers required more input from the people who live in those village centers. We felt that it would be logical and completely consistent with the mission statement of the CDP and Action Committee to call for steering committees to be formed, if the areas want to, with existing community groups to review the plans for their subdivisions. And I applaud you all for supporting Orchidland. Orchidland's community might have further things to say about, you know, their subdivision's village center. I believe that somebody like myself who lives in Puna or Pahoa should have some input in Pahoa's Plan, but somebody like me should stay completely away from HPP's Plan. HPP's Plan is HPP's Plan. Volcano is Volcano. Mt. View, each of these areas deserves their own say. Now when we first presented this to the Planning Director in her office her initial reaction was, well, this is really doable, this doesn't cost any money. You're talking about working with existing community groups. And we thought we had a supportive moment. We're a little puzzled about why now suddenly it's a little too costly to deal with. But the mission statement 11 of the Puna Community Development Plan is to not just take the community input that came in in 2006 and 2007, it's to have it be an on -going continuing effort that involves as many people expanding over time as possible. And our village center community, village center steering committee's proposal is extremely effective in doing that cheaply. Now when the Puna Community Development Plan cost $360,000 for a consultant, you know, that was a chunk of change. Now, right now Kona I believe is doing $600,000 for a consultant. We're not asking for this kind of stuff. We have community groups, we have Main Street Pahoa Association, we have the Volcano Community Association, we have village areas and subdivisions and boards of directors that can look at these village centers and study them, and give the County the benefit of more local participation. Now there are people in fl PP who did not have the time and the energy in their life to step out and deal with the CDP as a whole broad issue, you know. But when it comes to their neighborhood, believe me, they will be there and they will have good input for this. But we are concerned about Bill 194 as a single bill as a bundle. It's kind of like looking at Congress going through an appropriations bill and at the same time wrapping in somebody's pork from somewhere else to stuff it through and make it all one big, you know, political moment. Now as we dealt with 194 and looked at it, and we looked at Jay Yoshimoto office's method of dealing with these amendments, which are largely not Jay's amendments, they were Chris Yuen's amendments talking to Bill Walter. Cause Jay isn't all that conversant with them, to tell you the truth; and I've sat down and talked with him about it. Now we felt that the best way we could communicate with the Council and with the Planning Department and with the AC from Friends of Puna's Future, feels like months of work on these amendment studies, was to take Bill 194 and redraft it; and we did so. And it took us a lot of time. We went through 150 pages. The stuff that we approved of and we left alone which, are stated in black ink. The things that we thought that we would remove, we removed it in red ink. And the things that we added in, we put in blue ink. So you could kind of chart where things were going through there. We submitted this formally to the Planning Department and AC, and we haven't seen or heard from it since. It seems to have been a submission that was ignored, or that it was pushed aside; and it is not on your table right now for consideration. Now whether it is fair or not, I don't know. We did not create a moment where a 150 -page amendment of an 89- page document, you know, was to be dealt with in one big basket and bundle. We did not create that moment. Now I will agree with Jon Olson. And I would suggest that the Planning Commission in its due diligence really should take a look at this and send this Bill 194 with a negative recommendation to the Council, and say that if you want to amend this plan in its parts and pieces, you should separate these issues -- be they waste water in this area, be they village center steering committees in that area, be it floating zones like changes of language, be it editing of commas and quotes and non - substantive things -- in a manner in which the public can give you full and comprehensive input, and in which you yourselves as Planning Commissioners can understand these issues one by one. Cause as it stands right now I believe you are asked to look at this recommendation on this item but you really have one basket bill. Bill 194 is one bill. It's not 83 bills, it's not 12 bills, it's not 20 bills. It's one bill. And you either approve it, Council will. 12 Council is not going to sit there and, they're going to, well, we have a motion to approve Bill 194. Now they can do all kinds of, they can try to amend the amendments of the amendments if they want. But they have a motion to approve Bill 194, and it's parts and pieces. 1 mean that's our view. Nobody has been able to show us any other facts that counter that. So I would ask the Commission to reject Bill 194 as an unwieldy and almost impossible method of dealing with amending the Puna Community Development Plan. Friends of Puna's Future is in support of many of these amendments. They are in support of amendments within Bill 194, which we agree with. There are some that we don't. There are some that we think the community deserves full time and intent to look at and understand. The Action Committee has labored hard and long on their points. And they were, I think, entrapped in the same moment of Bill 194 being such a large bundle that they can't deal with it in the whole, they have to deal with it piece by piece. But as a legal fact at Council it is one bill. Thank you very much. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Tucker? Okay, thank you, sir. TUCKER: Sure. WOODWARD: You may be seated. Commissioner Kern. KERN: I have more of a, I guess, legal question probably. Is it possible to ask for it to be bifurcated, or is it basically yes or no, we either support it or don't support it? Director? LEITHEAD TODD: You can do a number of things. You can send a recommendation to approve it as is, you can send a recommendation to not approve it, to have the Council vote it down, or you can send a recommendation to approve it with changes that, as long as they're not substantive changes. You could also, if you agree with the recommendation letter submitted by me, you could vote to support the recommendations of the Planning Director in regards to Bill 194 and send that up to the County Council, or you could come up with your own separate recommendation as long as they're not substantive. KERN: Right. And so if we support the letter, that in turn actually is supporting, that is kind of giving it a favorable recommendation to all of 194? LEITHEAD TODD: Pretty much. KERN: Pretty much, yeah. Okay. WOODWARD: Any other questions? KERN: I'm just kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. There's a lot of beef there. I was part of the CDP process early on. I disagreed with a lot of parts of it, I agreed with a lot of other parts of it. I'm glad to see that the folks we had some disagreement with at times are at least showing up and trying to push the whole process through. I would personally 13 like to see it come in a little bit more piecemeal. It's a lot of information in one bill, myself. But I'm just going to throw that out there. I'm not making any motion then. WOODWARD: All right. Let me ask the Planning Director, what was the genesis of this bill in the first place that they decided that they had to have one all encompassing bill to have 83 different amendments? LEITHEAD TODD: I don't know what the genesis of the bill, other than the fact that Council Chair Yoshimoto felt that certain amount of time had lapsed from 2008, and he thought that the better way to do it was in one comprehensive bill. Because then it's one cohesive document as opposed to multiple different ones, and then you're trying to see, you know, what changes. So my understanding is he kind of went through what had been proposed earlier and tried to incorporate it into one bill. But it is what it is. It's the way it came from the County Council. It didn't come piecemeal. And so you have to make your recommendation on the bill as it is in front of you. What I'm choosing to do with the other recommendations that came from the Action Committee is I will introduce separate amendments to implement the different recommendations because, rather than throwing all of them into one bill. But that, you know, is going to be my decision in terms of how I initiate it. But Bill 194 is what it is. It came to us from the Council; and that's you either go pretty much up or down on it or make your recommendations to those sections that you don't like or those sections that you do like. WOODWARD: Okay. Any further questions? Well, I have one other further, one other question. And that is apart from the genesis who, where did the input come from to get this bill? I mean who crafted it. Obviously Councilmen didn't. LEITHEAD TODD: Actually the Council Member staff put it together. The table that compares the different provisions was voluntarily done by Steve Lim. It came forward because he thought it was difficult to understand without having kind of a table that showed you where the amendments occurred. But I talked to Council Chair Yoshimoto, and he said that this is the work product that came out of his staff. WOODWARD: All right. Anything further? Okay, well, we have lost Commissioner Domingo. I mean not permanently, just temporarily. He had to leave. So we have four of us, which means if we're going to act it's going to have to be unanimous. But would anybody like to make a motion? KERN: Would it be adversely negative to defer this decision to the next meeting when we have more Commissioners possibly present? WOODWARD: We are probably running up against some time constraint. I'm not sure, generally these things have to be sent to Council with a recommendation in a certain number of days, and I'm not sure where we are on that timetable. And if we don't -. 14 LEITHEAD TODD: I think it's 60 days after you receive it from me you have to have a recommendation. But that was the other problem with this, is that we were under very tight timeframes. WOODWARD: Okay. Well, the date of this was May l 1 So 60 days from that time would put us right about the time of our next July meeting. Let's see what Jeff has got here. GONZALEZ: It was May 18 It was transmitted on the 18 WOODWARD: Okay. DARROW: July 18 It would make the July meeting, I think. GONZALEZ: July is -. COTTLE: July 23 DARROW: No, not that one LEITHEAD TODD: The meeting is the 23' WOODWARD: No, that's Leeward. Windward is -. DARROW: July 8 is the Windward meeting. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, we can take a short recess, Mr. Chair, so they can check on the dates. Cause I know there was an amended calendar that I just signed off on. WOODWARD: All right. Why don't we just take five minutes, and then we'll decide what we want to do for the rest of this. We've got, in addition to a few other minor items on the agenda we also have this workshop that Brandon is going to be doing. So we need to decide if we want to just keep going or what. But let's take five minutes and we'll get all of our ducks in row. RECESSED - The Chair called a recess at 12:34 p.m. RECONVENED -The meeting reconvened at 12:47 p.m. WOODWARD: Will the meeting come to order, please. What we'll do is we will make a decision one way or the other about what we want to do with this issue. Then we have Mr. Rees that wanted to testify with regard to the workshop that Mr. Gonzalez is going to give us. So we'll get that done. And then once those two things are done we will go to lunch. So, does anybody have a motion? KERN: I have still the same question of timeframe. 15 GONZALEZ: Your options are these, essentially: You can make a motion to forward to the Council with a favorable recommendation as stated by the Director. You can make a motion to forward to the Council with a negative recommendation. Or you can make a motion to defer action until the next meeting; and you're going to have to state the reasons why you want to defer the action. Ultimately those are the three main options. There are permutations and variations of the favorable recommendation. The one is that you can make a favorable recommendation and come up with your own reasons that are different from the Director's. So, but the three main options are what I stated earlier. KERN: I move to defer action until the next meeting due to the complexity of this issue and the public testimony that was received today, to take the time to really go through it in more greater detail and make a decision on the next one. WOODWARD: All right. Do we have a second? Well, sorry, but that one is shot out of the sky. The motion dies for lack of a second. Somebody else would like to take a shot at this? We have two other choices, approve or deny, or defer. We've shot down one. ISHIBASHI: I'll make a motion. WOODWARD: Okay, Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: In regards to Bill 194, proposed amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan, I make a motion that we approve based on the Planning Director's recommendations. GONZALEZ: Send a favorable recommendation. WOODWARD: Send a favorable recommendation. ISHIBASHI: Favorable. Yeah, favorable. WOODWARD: Okay. Do we have a second for that? AU: Second. WOODWARD: Okay. Discussion? Of course, if we end up with a split vote it's deferred anyway. So -. LEITHEAD TODD: No. WOODWARD: No? LEITHEAD TODD: It goes up with a -. WOODWARD: Negative? 16 LEITHEAD TODD: Negative. WOODWARD: Oh, does it? LEITHEAD TODD: yes. WOODWARD: Okay. All right. So discussion? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Yes. ISHIBASHI: Well, I believe the Council already went through this with a fine tooth comb and they're corning back with a recommendation to us to, you know, make changes where we see appropriate. So, yeah, I can understand putting everything in one basket, and there are a lot of issues in the basket that are not to the likings of the community. But I think the Council already is sending it back to us for our input and see where we go from there. So that's why I'm in favor of the Planning Director's recommendation. WOODWARD: Any other discussion? Well, I'll put in my two cents worth. I have a few concerns about this bill. One is why is it an emergency? And why are we forced into an arbitrary time limit? Who is it that actually put this together and why doesn't the community support it, and people who put together the CDP in the first place? I haven't had good answers to any of those questions to be honest with you. You know, the law says that within ten years they have to address amending the CDP. It has only been two. And now we're dealing with this mish -mesh of unrelated 83 amendments. The whole thing is longer than the original CDP that we have to act on immediately. And it just doesn't feel right, smell right. And I'm not really sure what I would be voting for if I was voting for it. So I'm afraid I can't support it. That's my two cents worth. Anybody else? Okay, let's take a vote. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawai`i County Council for the amendments to the Puna CDP. With that I'll take the roll. Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: No. DARROW: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Kanalua. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? 17 WOODWARD: No. DARROW: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Kanalua. DARROW: The motion does not pass, two to two. LEITHEAD TODD: So, Mr. Darrow, I believe this goes up to the Council with a negative recommendation because there's neither four votes against nor four votes in favor. But when we don't have four votes in favor it goes up as negative. Correct? We might check with Mr. Gonzalez. DARROW: Yeah. GONZALEZ: Yeah -. DARROW: I believe that -. Do we have to wait for the timeframe to exhaust, the 60 days? LEITHEAD TODD: No. DARROW: Okay. The discussion ended at 1:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, pe Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 18 • .'J $ •.• • William P. Kenoi � � BJ Leithead Todd Mayor ;,. Director - r+e Margaret Masunaga r� f uF'H► N Deputy Director County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ACTION COMMITTEE Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961 -8288 • Fax (808) 961 -8742 April 16, 2010 Bobby Jean Leithead Todd, Director County of Hawai`i - Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Dear Director Leithead Todd, Subject: BILL 194 — PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE PUNA CDP RECOMMENDATIONS OF THE PUNA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE The Puna CDP Action Committee has reviewed the amendments to the PCDP proposed in County Council Bill 194. During its review process, the AC accepted considerable public testimony and considered comments from residents, subdivision associations and organizations in the Puna CDP project area on the amendments proposed in Bill 194 as well as those offered by other sources in the community, including, but not limited to, Friends of Puna's Future (FoPF), Hawaiian Shores Community Association, Kalapana Seaview Estates Community Association, All Landowners of Hawaiian Acres (ALOHA,) and Foster Kern, LLC, developers of Ulupono Center in Kea'au. Discussion and recommendations by the Action Committee pertaining to these additional amendment requests follow our comments and recommendations on the amendments proposed in B ill 194. AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY COUNTY COUNCIL IN BILL #194 The Action Committee finds many of the proposed amendments appropriate without substantially affecting the tone and intent of the PCDP, and as such should be adopted. These include numerous editorial corrections, some additions, some omissions, and some deletions. We find, however, a number of topic areas in Bill 194 that we consider inimical to the context and spirit of the PCDP, and recommend modification or withdrawal of these from the B ill . These are, as follows: 1. Diminish the substance of action items. Appearing mostly in the action sections of the PCDP, we see a disturbing pattern that would substitute original action words with conditional words. For example "Initiate," is substituted with "Propose;" "Amend," is Hawai`i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 2 April 16, 2010 substituted with "Propose amendments to..." "Re- zone" is substituted with "Propose re- zoning," "Establish..." is substituted with "Propose the establishment of...," etc. The PCDP intends to promote action in numerous areas. A development plan is an action document that promotes educated and worthy decisions about roads and other infrastructure, settlement patterns, conservation of natural and cultural resources, landscape design, land use zoning, town and village center design, and others. The amendments proposed in Bill 194 suggest there may be some confusion or misunderstanding as to the role of the Action Committee, whose purpose it is to "recommend," "propose," "advise," and otherwise provide guidance to planning officials. It is Council's purpose to enable implementation of items by allocating funds and otherwise write supporting legislation. It is the Mayor's purpose, through the Planning Director, to enact the Plan. Therefore, the action words that appear in the original PCDP are appropriate and necessary to support the Planning Director's responsibility to implement. The Action Committee recommends maintaining the original action -word syntax in the PCDP. The Action Committee urges that the Planning Director not support any proposed words and phrases that would de- emphasize implementation of the PCDP. 2. Deleting establishment of a County historic preservation commission. [Ref. Ch.2, Sec. 2.1.3.a & d.] We recognize that the Ordinance 08 -42 establishes a Hawaii County Cultural Resource Commission. However, due to budget constraints, the appointment of commission members and providing staffing support appears to be on indefinite hold. The residents of Puna expressed substantial concern over the frequent loss and destruction of historical and culturally significant features, artifacts and trails because of frequently ineffective oversight of development activities at the state level and a general failure to educate landowners and developers on how to identify cultural and historical artifacts and features. The adoption of Ordinance 08 -42 is an important first step in fulfilling the goals and objectives of the PCDP related to the creation of a county entity for adopting a process for identifying historic and cultural sites and advocating for their preservation and/or restoration. Retaining the related implementation actions provided in the PCDP is important to support the actual implementation of Hawai`i County Cultural Resources Commission and to provide additional guidance on its purpose. The Action Committee recommends retaining all of Sec. 2.1.3.a. & d. as originally provided in the PCDP. 3. Failure to protect the quality of the entire aquifer between Kea'au and Kapoho. [Ref: Ch. 2, Sec. 2.3.3.d.] The original language in the PCDP mentions the abundance and high quality of underground water in Puna, and refers to measures that can be taken to reduce the impact of human settlement on water quality. However, the PCDP selects only a two - mile wide corridor for extra protection, that being the aquifer stretching from Wao Kele 0 Puna Forest Reserve to the sea, between Maku'u and Keonepoko. Bill 194 proposes to diminish the area by eliminating from this protection the area between Hwy. 130 and the sea. The Action Committee finds recognition among most residents that water quality in lowland settlements might be diminished by sewage and industrial contamination as Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 3 April 16, 2010 settlement density increases. There are no municipal sewage treatment facilities in Puna, so residents dispose of sewage in cesspools, septic tanks, or other local catchment. We contend that there must be a limit to the amount of contaminants the aquifer can absorb before the continued release of untreated sewage pollutes domestic wells and sea water in near -shore areas. It is inevitable that settlement density will continue to increase due to the extensive number of available building sites throughout the district, and we believe it would be prudent for local, state, and federal governments to undertake the studies needed to accurately understand aquifer dynamics and to begin the very expensive job of building proper sewage collection and treatment and water delivery systems. There are numerous methods available. Aquifer studies should reveal best appropriate technology for disposal and delivery systems. Such studies might also reveal the wisdom to extend extra protection for the entire aquifer. The Action Committee recognizes that the DHHL developments in the Maku`u area are already in existence or have State Department of Health approvals for private waste water disposal systems and, therefore, are not subject to the requirements proposed in Sec. 2.3.3.d of the original PCDP. It is further understood that follow -up studies to determine what additional actions are needed to ensure that the Puna aquifer is adequately protected from contamination due to continued development. The Action Committee recommends extra protection of the aquifer makai of Hwy. 130, as in lands mauka. Therefore, retain original PCDP wording in Ch. 2, Sec. 2.3.3.d. 4. Remove flexible planning strategies in development of town and village centers. [Ref: Ch. 3, Sec. 3.1.2.a. & f.; Sec 3.1.3.a, b, e, & I.; and Ch. 5, Sec. 5.2.1] Appearing mostly in Chapter 3, Managing Growth, we notice the proposal to remove references to "Transfer of Development Rights" (TDR) and "Floating Zone." We notice, as well, proposals to delete these terms in other Chapters wherever they are mentioned. Transfer of Development Rights —The transfer of allowable dwelling units or other development unit from one parcel of land to another, in exchange for open space. - -Puna Community Development Plan (glossary) Floating Zone. — An indeterminate zone designation that is affixed to a qualifying parcel of land, either upon the application of the parcel's owner or upon the initiative of the local legislature. Upon approval, the parcel is rezoned to reflect the new use and becomes a small zoning district; its development is governed by the use, dimensions, and other provisions of the floating zone. - -J.R. Nolan: Well Grounded: Using Local Land Use Authority to Achieve Smart Growth, Environmental Law Institute, 2001. TDR and Floating Zone are nothing more than strategies that intend to provide flexibility in the development of town and village centers. These would be especially useful for areas that may not yet be ready for commercial development, present unique in -fill or redevelopment opportunities, have a history and/or sense of place that should be preserved, or where long range planning has not yet occurred. fr fr Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 4 April 16, 2010 Pursuant to §46 -163, Hawaii Revised Statues (HRS) counties are authorized to transfer and regulate the transfer of development rights for three specified purposes: • Protect the natural, scenic, and agricultural qualities of open lands • Enhance sites and areas of special character or special historical, cultural, aesthetic, or economic interest or value, ® Enable and encourage flexibility of design and careful management of land in recognition of land as a basic and valuable natural resource We believe the County should adopt appropriate legislation that would enable TDR programs in Hawai'i County. In addition to preserving open space and concentrating development into smaller areas that might more easily be serviced with appropriate infrastructure, a TDR tool could also provide a means for transferring development rights from unsuitable areas, such as subdivisions in high hazard risk areas, that are not suitable for urban uses. While it has been suggested that the discussion, goals, objectives and actions in the adopted PCDP regarding the use of TDR as a potential tool for creating village centers could be interpreted as a requirement, the plan's language (Sec. 5.2.1, pg. 5 -3 & 4) clearly states that the use of TDR "may be allowed" and nowhere states that TDR shall be required. A "Floating Zone" strategy enables an area designated for development into a town or village center to manage growth that is compatible with the vision and needs of the local community. This strategy varies only slightly from conventional zoning, in that its outcome is not designated on a zoning map until a parcel is proposed for development and a change of zone ordinance is adopted. Typically, the ordinance would incorporate a required master development plan that specifies conditions, design standards, and guidelines unique to each village center. The Floatin Zone concept is also useful for development in communities that have special needs or prefer to restrict certain types of land uses. For example, site planning for a commercial area in subdivisions where the precise location of a village center might not yet be determined. Another example, where the precise location and size of a village center remains undefined and where infrastructure development requires investments that might not have matured. In these cases, planners need flexibility, along with time, to an land uses and determine functions. The Action Committee recommends maintaining TDR and Floating Zone as optional concepts in the PCDP. 5. Weaken proposed agricultural zoning classification that would keep large land parcels intact. [Ref: Ch. 3, p. 3 -1, par. 4; Sec. 3.2.2.k; and Sec. 3.2.3.a, b & c.] Some of the amending language proposed in Bill 194 appears to go beyond the tempering of "action" oriented wording and proposes to remove specific actions and guidelines designed to address problematic policies and practices that have continued to contribute to the increasing inventory of lots in Puna that are not serviced with water and roadway infrastructure meeting minimum standards. For example, in Sec. 3.2.2.a, the removal of the sentence stating that "no further variances to permit re- subdivision of lots created by" water or road standard variances leaves the door open to the continued urbanization of 1 Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 5 April 16, 2010 Puna agricultural lands without providing the appropriate infrastructure necessary to support an urban environment. Also, in Sec. 3.2.3.b, "Downzone all Agricultural -zoned parcels in the State Agricultural District in Puna, as follows..." becomes, "Recommend reviewing the rezoning of all Agricultural -zoned parcels...to a zoning that would be consistent with the goals and policies of the PCDP." The original text includes a formula for enabling larger parcels to be subdivided only into lots of 20 acres, 15 acres, or 2 acres, and to not allow subdividing parcels smaller than 5 ac. The proposed amendments strike out the formula with: "...reviewing the rezoning of all Agricultural -zoned parcels to a zoning...consistent with PCDP." We believe it is important to remember that retaining the rural character of Puna and protecting natural and cultural resources has consistently been a paramount concern for Puna residents. The corrective actions and guidelines provided in Sec. 3.2 are critical to addressing continued loss of open space, availability of potentially productive agricultural lands and uncontrolled urban sprawl throughout the Puna district. The Action Committee recommends the following for Sec. 3.2.3: • Sec. 3.2.3.a: Retain the following original second sentence: "There shall be no further variances to permit re- subdivision of lots created by such variances." • Sec. 3.2.3.b: Replace the original text with the following: "Downzone all Agricultural (A) zoned parcels in the State Agricultural District in Puna to a zoning that would allow subdivision to no more than nine additional Lots per lot of record. Existing lots greater than 100 acres in size shall be down -zoned to A -10a. This does not apply to property already zoned to allow fewer lots." • Sec. 3.2.3.c: Amend the original text as follows: "Rescind the Urban Expansion Area designations in the County of Hawai'i General Plan LUPAG, except where they correspond to the recommended Preliminary Regional Town Center boundaries and existing urban type zoning for Kea'au and Pahoa as illustrated in Chapter 5." 6. Relocate the Kea'au and Pahoa Transfer Stations. [Ref. Ch. 3, Sec. 3.4.3.g] Concern over existing and anticipated traffic issues as a by- product of the current locations for the Kea'au and Pahoa Transfer Stations has been clarified to be the primary reason for the action calling for their relocation. Some residents of Pahoa Town and other areas south of the village appear to use the Ka`ohe Homestead Road that passes through the Pahoa public school campus to access the Pahoa Transfer Station. The only other means of access is from Apaa Road off of Pahoa Village Road, which is also the access road for a number of residences along its south side. Also, the driveway access off Hwy. 130 to the Kea'au Transfer Station has become increasingly dangerous and without significant intersection safety improvements, it is likely to become even more dangerous. Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 6 April 16, 2010 easily implementable, and probably much less costly, can effectively address the traffic issues and safety concerns that prompted this action. The Action Committee recommends replacing the text in Sec. 3.4.3.g with the following: "Future development plans, including any roadway creation or improvement projects, within the vicinity of the Kea'au and Pahoa Transfer Stations shall include modification to access routes and intersections as may be reasonable and necessary to minimize transfer station traffic on streets adjacent to any school or residential uses and to maximize access and egress safety at intersections with connecting roadways." 7. Convert Pahoa Regional Park's existing fire station to a one -stop community center... [Ref: Ch. 3, Sec. 3.5.3.c.] Two separate amendments to this section were initially proposed at the time the PCDP was being considered by the Council for adoption. According to written testimony submitted to the Planning Commission by the members of the Social Services Working Group during the PCDP adoption process, the recommendation for use of the old fire station focused on establishing a "one- stop" services center that did not include a senior center with certified kitchen. However, the inclusion of facilities for senior services within the old fire station may be worth serious consideration provided broad consensus within the P.hoa community can be reached in support of such use. The Action Committee recommends amending the text in Sec. 3.5.3.c. 2" bullet item with the following: "(1) Convert the existing fire station into a senior center with certified kitchen for congregate meals program and activities /dining room as well as a one -stop center providing other services such as, support and advocacy for affordable housing, employment, home bound access, child care, teen pregnancy, substance abuse and domestic violence intervention;" 8. Identification of traffic calming features. [Ref. Ch. 4, Sec. 4.4.3.a. 3' bullet item] While highway widening might be considered in the proposed study to have some potential as a traffic calming feature, it is generally a feature designed to improve roadway capacity (generally through higher speeds) and safety. The Action Committee notices there is no reference to roundabouts in this section. We consider this to be an important alternative, and that roundabouts should be specifically referred to in the text as a consideration for traffic calming measures. The Action Committee recommends amending the text in Sec. 4.4.3.a. 3r bullet item as follows: "Conduct a study to determine the most efficacious way to create greater highway safety for all travel modes, including a cost benefit analysis for each studied method, and consideration of a wide range of traffic calming features, the use of frontage roads, roundabouts, and various types of intersection controls;" Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 7 April 16, 2010 9. Proposed amendments related to Village /Town Center Formation. [Ref: Ch. 5, Sec. 5.2.1: Zoning Designations & 5.2.3: Use and Design Standards] The revised language offered in Bill 194 combined with the proposed amendments to the Regional Town and Village Center maps (Fig. 5 -1 through 5 -11), where the word "preliminary" is removed from the legend identifying village center boundaries, appears to be an attempt to absolutely fix these boundaries within the PCDP. This would add an unnecessary obstacle to the potential development of any village center by requiring an amendment to the Puna CDP to include any lands outside the fixed boundaries. It might also be interpreted to restrict development in accordance with existing zoning or to even downzone some existing urban type zoning designations within the boundaries. Having viIIage center "floating zone" designations adopted into the Zoning Code allows for the flexibility needed to expedite development of village centers as the local need, opportunities, resources, and community consensus mature. The ideas expressed in the revised Language in this section are generally consistent with some of the provisions that should be incorporated in each "floating zone" designation. Additionally, Bill 194 proposes the deletion of entire sections from the four- column matrix (Table 5 -1) that describes General Use and Design Guidelines for regional, community, and neighborhood village centers. This would remove specific criteria intended to define size and appearance guidelines in a generalized matrix that allows appropriate flexibility for each village center to reflect the individual character and vision of their respective communities. For example, vernacular architecture is a term used to categorize methods of construction which use locally available resources to address local needs. Vernacular architecture tends to evolve over time to reflect the environmental, cultural and historical context in which it exists. It has often been dismissed as crude and unrefined, but also has proponents who highlight its importance in current design. - -Holm, Ivar (2006). Ideas and Beliefs in Architecture and Industrial design How attitudes, orientations, and underlying assumptions shape the built environment. Oslo School of Architecture and Design. ISBN 8254701741. Previous objections to the content in Table 5 -1 appear to have been primarily focused on the limitations imposed on commercial space square footage pertaining to the Regional Town Center criteria, specifically Kea'au Regional Town Center. We suggest that further study may be necessary to identify appropriate limitations on the combined total and individual commercial floor space area that may be necessary to determine an appropriate balance that facilitates economic viability for implementing the village plan concept without compromising the economic viability of their development. This could be accomplished, and the findings incorporated, in the drafting and adoption of the "floating zone" designations. However, it is important to understand what is contemplated when talking about a "regional service area." The three Regional Town Centers proposed in the PCDP are identified not only by the logical locations of the existing Kea'au and Palma commercial centers, but also by the likely increases in population due to the existing availability of relatively inexpensive lots and historical growth patterns since these Lots were created. No one of the proposed Regional Town Centers can effectively serve as the primary Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 8 April 16, 2010 objectives of the PCDP. It is also important to remember that no provision of the PCDP prohibits or restricts the residential, commercial or industrial development of any lands in Puna under those existing zoning designations. While areas of WH Shipman, Ltd. (WHS) lands mauka of Hwy. 11 are preliminarily designated for development as the Kea`au Regional Town Center, the PCDP does not obligate WHS to include the existing MCX and MG zoned areas in the Town Center. Only requests for zoning changes for commercial or light industrial uses not within designated village /town centers would require conformance with the general use and design criteria provided in Table 5 -1 as they may be adopted in a "floating zone" designation. Of separate concern is the possible emergence of very large, "super -size" commercial outlets in a Regional Town Center. Although these are popular in the major urban areas of Hilo and Kailua -Kona, many residents oppose the possibility that such stores will appear in Kea'au or P.hoa. There are legitimate concerns about traffic congestion, loss of open space in the commercial zone, general deterioration of the ruraUurban' landscape, and especially the economic impact such stores might have on local merchants that might be located in the smaller village and neighborhood centers throughout Puna. Ironically, many people have no objection travelling long distances to Hilo or Kailua -Kona in order to visit the several "super- size" stores that have developed there. The Kea'au Town Conceptual Master Plan (KTCMP) clearly embraces many of the Principles of Smart Growth that actually lie at the heart of the village center concept. This is especially so for the Kea'au Waena, or "Old Town ", planning area makai of Hwy. 11 where significant opportunities for in -fill and redevelopment exist. With possible refinements through a more broad -based community process and a clearer level of consensus within the Kea'au Village community, the KTCMP could serve well as the master plan in an application for assigning the "floating zone" to proposed project areas. Bill 194 further proposes to amend the Preliminary Village Center Boundaries for Kea'au Regional Town Center and the Volcano Community Village Center as depicted in Figures 5 -1 and 5 -4 respectively. The proposed boundary revision for Kea'au expands the boundary to include the undeveloped industrial zoned lands immediately adjacent to Shipman Industrial Park. For the reasons discussed above, it does not appear that this proposed boundary adjustment is of any particular consequence unless WHS or a subsequent landowner seeks to change the zoning or these lands. However, the boundary revision proposed for the Volcano Community Village Center expands the preliminary village center area for the existing Volcano Village portion to include the A -20a zoned parcels between Old Volcano Road and Hwy. 11 and Wright Road and Hale `O `hia Road. Out of deference to the Volcano Long -Range Plan (Revision 2007), which specifically amended its predecessor Volcano Vision 2020 Plan by removing lands makai of Old Volcano Road from the village corrunercial zone, the PCDP also excluded these lands from the Preliminary Community Village Center. The Action Committee recommends: ® Retaining Table 5 -1 as originally adopted. • Amending Sec. 5.2.3, 1S` par., 2°`' sentence as follows: • Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 9 April 16, 2010 "Table 5 - suggests guidance on the scale, uses, and general site and design characteristics for three types of town /village centers that may be defined in the town/village center "floating zone" designations to be adopted." . Retaining the original wording of Ch. 5, Sec. 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and 5.2.3, except as otherwise noted in these recommendations. ® Retain the original Preliminary Village Center Boundary for each Village Center map as shown in Figures 5 -1 through 5 -7, and 5 -9. Also retain use of the word "Preliminary" in the legend of all village center maps indicating the village center boundaries, and the text for each Regional Town Center, Community Village Center and Neighborhood Village Center, except as otherwise noted in these recommendations. 10. Proposed amendment to add a new Section 5.2.4 Industrial Zoning. The Action Committee supports this amendment as presented in Bill 194. The Action Committee recommends that in the event this amendment is adopted Fig. 5 -3 should be amended to add a Preliminary Village Center Boundary for the additional industrial area along 33 Ave. on the Kea'au side of Maku`u Dr. 11. The Action Committee has no objections to all other amendment proposals in Bill 194. We commend Council for its thorough and thoughtful review of the PCDP, and thank Council for the opportunity to comment. ADDITIONAL NON - SUBSTANTIVE & FORMATTING AMENDMENTS Puna CDP Community Planning Assistant, Rachelle Ley, submitted a table (Exhibit A) of additional non - substantive amendments to the Puna CDP that are not addressed in B ill 194. These amendments consist primarily of spelling and punctuation corrections, a few granunatical changes to improve clarity, and formatting changes that replace dash bullet listings with item numbering throughout the plan. The Action Committee recommends approving all of the amendments listed in Exhibit A. AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY FRIENDS OFPUNA'S FUTURE The Friends of Puna's Future (FoPF) amendment proposes the addition of a new Action item (I) to Sec. 3.1.3 as follows with corresponding additions to the appropriate sections of the Implementation Table: 1. Create Village/Town Center Steering Committees to serve as conduits of community -based input with responsibilities that will include: Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 10 April 16, 2010 - Interfacing directly with residents and other stakeholders in the community, the Planning Department and the PCDP Action Committee on Village/Town Center planning and zoning proposals. - Determining community residents' general desire or lack of desire concerning proposed Village /Town Center designation in their community. - Refining proposed boundaries of the Village/Town Center to reflect community input and revising map(s) accordingly for submittal to the Action Committee and inclusion into the PCDP. - Reviewing site specific land use and design control proposals for Village/Town Centers and making recommendations in support of community input. The purpose of the proposed Village Center Steering Committees (VCSC) is to ensure local community participation in the development of master plans for their respective town and village center. It is presumed that local management of town and village centers would engage the residents who are most affected by such developments. Such empowerment of local communities is certainly consistent with the spirit and design of the PCDP, and might do much to neutralize a perception that county government does not properly serve their interests The Action Committee recommends approval of the FoPF proposed amendment regarding the creation of Village/Town Center Steering Committees. AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY HAWAIIAN SHORES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION The Board of Directors of Hawaiian Shores Community Association (HSCA) has requested that their 12 -acre "Stables" parcel not be designated as the potential site of a Neighborhood Village Center in their community. [Ref: Ch. 5, p. 5 -14] HSCA objects to a presumption by PCDP planners that such a center might be located at the site where they intend to carry out major improvements to their private centralized water delivery system. Furthermore, they consider that they were not properly consulted when the decision was made to indicate a village center there. They believe their commercial and social needs are adequately met in Pahoa Town, an additional 4 miles distant. Additionally, we believe a more proper name for any village center within the vicinity of the Hawaiian Beaches, Hawaiian Shores and Hawaiian Parks subdivision should be called the Hawaiian Beaches and Shores Neighborhood Village Center until such time as the local affected communities agree on a more permanent name[Ref: Ch. 5, p. 5 -14] The Action Committee recommends deleting the "Hawaiian Beaches Neighborhood Village Center portion, including Figure 5 -8, of Section 5.2.3 and amending Figure 3 -2 by replacing the Neighborhood Village Center symbol at the Hawaiian Beaches, Parks and Shores location with a Future Location Subject to Community Review symbol. Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Pagel l April 16, 2010 AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY KALAPANA SEAVIEW ESTATES COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION [Ref: Ch. 4, p. 4 -10, Sec. 4.5.3.f, 9 bullet] The Kalapana Seaview Estates Connnunity Association (KSECA) oppose the suggestion for placing a restroom and public telephone "below Seaview before Kehena Beach." They suggest an alternative site for these facilities: Kehena Beach or the bluff in front of Puna Palisades. The Action Committee recommends the following replacement language for Sec. 4.5.31, 9 bullet: "Develop at least one scenic turnout near Kehena Beach that includes restroom facilities and an emergency phone" AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY HAWAIIAN PARADISE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION The Hawaiian Paradise Park Homeowners Association (HPPOA) requested the following amendments to the Puna CDP. 1) Amend the first sentence on Pg. 5 -10 by replacing the figure "8,804" with "8,835" which the HPPOA states is the total number of lots in the subdivision. 2) Include reference to the fact that HPP contains 137 miles of private roads that are open to the public. The 8,804 parcels referenced in the PCDP represents the total number of Tax Map Key parcels according to Real Property Tax Office records at the time the PCDP was adopted. The 8,835 figure represents the total number of lots that were originally created by the various subdivision increments creating Hawaiian Paradise Park. Over the years a number of the original lots have been consolidated, thus reducing the total number of parcels and building sites, thus accounting for the discrepancy. While there is no dispute about the number of miles of private roads within HPP, or the fact that the public is allowed unrestricted access over these roads, this condition exists among the many subdivisions in Puna serviced by private roadways and is not unique to HPP. The Action Committee recommends retaining the original text on Pg. 5 -10 in the Puna CDP. AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY ALL LAND OWNERS OF HAWAIIAN ACRES (ALOHA) The subcommittee understands this group represents only a fraction of the land owners in Hawaiian Acres. However, they have been persistent and attentive to Action Committee activities, in the absence of more formal representation from HACA. This group proposes three resolutions: Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 12 April 16, 2010 1) Maintain present zoning in order to prevent establishing Community Parks where they are proposed in PCDP [3.5.3.c.] 2) Delete reference to Hawaiian Acres in PCDP 4.3.3.a, which proposes connectivity among Fern Acres, Nanawale, and Orchidland, and hence to most other subdivision in the District. 3) Establish a protected forest within the Community. The ALOHA request cites several concerns over Community Parks and connector roads, such as redundancy of Park area, harm to native plants and animals from road construction, disturbance of affected land owners, harmful topographic consequences of road construction or improvement, and failure of county and state officials to properly evaluate environmental and social impacts. In addition to concerns over community parks and connector roads, ALOHA proposes to delineate an area of protected forest within the community, presumably between C and D Roads, 1 -11 streets. Ownership and status of this area is not noted, nor is any reference to the biological or cultural values of the proposed forest. The location of this subdivision among many in the center of the Puna District requires road connectivity, at the very least in order to provide alternative routings into, out of, and among all subdivisions. It should be noted that the PCDP is deliberately vague about the exact locations for inter - subdivision points of connectivity as it was considered by the Steering Committee a detail that should be worked out with all appropriate stakeholders, especially local residents and homeowner /conununity associations. The Action Committee recommends: • Amending Sec. 3.5.3.c, 1s` bullet item, ls` sub- bullet item as follows: "Hawaiian Acres subdivision at three sites to be determined later through a community involvement process." • Retaining reference to Hawaiian Acres in Ch. 4, Sec. 4.3.3.a. • Deferring support for a protected forest in Hawaiian Acres until the community produces a credible biological survey, along with accurate maps, assessment of property ownership in the subject area, and a certifiable statement that the area is worthy of special protection. At that time, HACA might apply for proper re- zoning of the proposed area. AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY FOSTER KERN, LLC Foster Kern, LLC, owner and developer of the proposed Ulupono commercial center, seeks to enlarge the Kea'au Regional Town Center preliminary boundary to include 28 additional acres. This area would be south of the Kea'au By -pass (Hwy 130) in the area of Milo St, the old Kea'au sugar mill, and other developing commercial sites nearby. Some parcels in the MCX zoned initial phase have already been sold and Foster Kern g4� Ms. Bobby Jean Leithead Todd Planning Director Page 13 April 16, 2010 wants to secure similar zoning for their adjacent parcels totaling approximately an additional 17 acres. The Action Committee feels that the existing industrial and mixed commercial- industrial zoning in the Ulupono area, combined with the existing similar zoning inauka of Hwy. 11 already provides adequate commercial and industrial zoning to serve the Kea'au regional population. It is also noted that the Ulupono area is particularly less suitable for preferred town center mixed use type development due to its physical separation from the heart of the existing Kea`au Village by the Kea'au By -pass and its close proximity to the existing General Industrial zoning and HELCO's Kea'au power plant. The Action Committee recommends rejecting this request to amend the preliminary boundary of Kea'au Regional Town Center as shown in Figure 5 -1 at this time. A proposal to include additional areas outside the preliminary boundary should be addressed in the Kea'au Regional Master Planning effort. AMENDMENT PROPOSED BY TOBY HAZEL TO EXPAND HELE -ON BUS SERVICE The Hele -On transit system currently does not provide bus service to either of the two major airports in Hawai`i County. The Action Committee recommends adding the new Action item "1" to Sec. 4.2.3 and to the corresponding section of the Implementation Table as follows: "Expand Hele -On transit service to include regular service to both the Hilo and Keahole International Airports from all existing and future service routes." Implementation Table: Add "Expand MTA to provide bus service to Hilo and Keahole Airports." The Puna CDP Action Committee wishes to express its thanks and appreciation to the Planning Director and County Council for providing the residents of Puna with this opportunity to comment on the amendments proposed in Bill 194 and to provide our considered recommendations to those amendments as well as those offered by various interests within the Puna community. We remain available to respond to any questions or concerns that you, the Planning Commission or the County Council may have regarding the content of this report. Sincerely, euM-11\61\44 Frank Commendador, Vice -Chair Puna CDP Action Committee Encl: Exhibit A a, ,---, ,---, 0 0 0 cu cu > > > > > > • > > c o > > cC C E U 0. • 0 r � � O .� Q V., ��-+ © O Z ,0 -0 U 0 0 N S] 0 >✓ _") t � V) V) V) V) 1.Y -' rn C� LA v) If C p 0 as O O O od o O O 0 .0,.._°, c. a) .- a) N N c 0 0 0 0 0 0 lu .a.., - o -a c-a -� •� .y Q y o 0 0 o • o 0 0 0 0 o ;� 0 2 u o y -� 0 -0 a a a) 0 0 �.► L 3 n i T.: s U ° LL M 2 -. 2-. 2-. X) i Ct In 0 v 0 U � 11 j : . � U 0 U U U V ] N Q c 4 U U U 3 H U U w 0 ' �I -� ^� 0 p N ^ ._ o ct Q a) pq . o = ■ f a) o 2 .. p.. a. c O up -0 +' +U N O c I �� O rn V) 0 ,� r c4 - 4= yF�+ XI .51 3 • U v, cn • � • V w 2 . E ti, 7 > b 0 p r y a) a! o > ° , > . -- 3 ° ° w o o .x oa a y 0 0M a0 �.� 0 O ti 0 • ++ m NI O UI v = as a 0 . '- up o 0 0. > £ - a Z ° 0 '-O ,, • . o o › Ca C Cd . ,,„..%"' O • ...4 = ' Q a) v �. CD N cd N o ° cn 3-4 W Z 0 N O o 0 Qr U �+ "O = E � � •.-' O '_, N " d M N : to 117 o N U ^ Q >> �, b A 0) i. 0 0 ,.., W O U q i.. W 0 U a) a) 6' 0 o ... O x - _ a) • d 'CL N -5 u- 0 c 9 —' 73 a) 4- > a) >r O -0 ''''-24 U a) as s. th 0 al d..6 g Q �v) ig ZUQ a> . q Up s �. 0 O z .... _ G. i ._ - a) "I Cd .0 M M M C U -T. ccY S'� U U >. M M •--. kr; kr; N M M M M M M C7 N M cn M M M N N N M M M M _, N N N 0 0 0 0 4 4 4 d' 4 ct 'cP 00 0 0 O O O O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 di al 0 0 0 0 '0 ' *c.'). '+._+ 'ice �, •0 • • c:.. R o i v a) a) a) a) U U U 0 U U a) a) a) Cr C/) CID C.,) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) to G. V) V) V) ' `--' `•-., `•-, V) C/) V) C/] V) V) C/) V'1 0 OP, -� N M 1 VD N N N M M M M A- 4 7r 4 7 a) a) ° a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) a) cct cc cc cc cc cC c� CI cc cc cc cc cc cc A, a a. a, a a s a s a a A, a a. # --- N M •f Vl \O t� 0O C O ^ N M N N N N p 0 0 > > > > .� Q i cct cd c' U 4 N C- VI�� � � x 0 ..o , ..0 ,D ,0 "Q w fa 4 c c �� 0 a o 0 0 0 zs > ; ? a zzzz z o � 0 + _ t o 0 0 0 c a �y ++ s ,..., " -0 -O up 4 E ' C UUU UQQC� o UU 0 "C X E a, d a4 4A 0 - 5 C C -0 0 CO ao 0 a 0 O 0 i o U. an � 3 C U 0 0 •� O v > -O o o �- Cyr — U U U m - a {Q C U En > 4) x o a) O E 0 0 O O 4) r p 0 z, 1—.) 0 t 0 N cd ct C c+-4 at y Z N tA W Z.. M ?C Q o C) x 3 u. ,--, NI O N bA C C CD ON '� •� x C O= •4-4, O co : 4. gox N E mt N • 13' U O z -4- O O Cn cn "0 ', cn 0 4 U cn U V Lao ^ U O O O x N 0 b ti) L 0 UU U.-aC� v) vp`..0 0,, d ..o .0 >. M M 43' *t 0 0 O O 0 40 ..c: , bp U U CO nr CU CU cti 0. ' '- t- s CC 00 00 ,-- 1 1 1 1 1 4 'Cr Ill kn cn cn X X 1 . 3-4 b0 b0 b4 bA b0 b0 ct 0 cci aaa (TS a It kr r DO D\ O ---, M N N N N in ° U . O 17 ; 0 Li tos 1 O M W X O N CV n co th X X X N E N iz N c X X X X X X X X X X X O N CC Ct Z › a a O O O O a a o_ U (_.) U U 0 Z a la V) OU CI a ti LLI O c 0... O o C1 N a) C co O aaaa OI O O O O O W 01 U U U U U ~O CI on c N Q c O .§ . @ U C7) _` c O C7 ia CC{ •• N C C O ") 0 C1 p c CO co = N a) O h X 0 _[/, = N O r•I ..c -Q c c 0 U O N • p C N W - • , t . E 0 0 U c ° co w a1 " 0 c :4---• Cn N a .14 w . � rt ° °— a o o p 5 ,- °° c 3 c w ca E °' - ° m m 3 0 3 it 0 • 0) f► a�i CD m > U' o in C- is 6 r t ° N o c oa 0 - a0 c c D 0 a> 0 0 " n. cm_ i 4 1 0 4- .2 8 0 --•=• - 2 c T1 4 .1 1_:,) :6 r-1 0 • v N io c rt in 5 o . _ rn c am D o m U - " o O m c -- Z .0 6 0 -t - 0 .0 N O is r l co c >- o m o 0 a1 _U o v CJ 7 U co N . c 7 0 al 2 N c c D w c - a. E 41 m Eh CL a) ° m E 0 -CS m m a m m 0 0 a> > c 0 c _ o i4 U U v' x - x E 0 3 0 o m CS) o o rn o U O N o � m o m '1'1 t Cll m 3 3 a m a> "-' B 4I m c o m e° 0 CO O N �„, - - 2 4 1 " FI CO N U a> w o a? c c '•1 0 ° c m 0 0 - 0) - a> CO 5 0 0. n E a> o a> > a� 1 14 La Si a9 ca s m o .c 0 ''-r.. a _- a .o c')i 1i N 0 CZ ° . 0 > ° • a N a) -`-� ► o 0 d o ■ 03 m 5' E 'E E - m 4 0 c 0 c» o CO ( 1) a) > U w w 5 m > Q Y Y Q -0 Q 3 a Z Eta al w o n- 2 � o_ s a w m c M iv) in CD N N N n} N CV CV co CV CV CV CO M M M o C.) N . O N O W G by O M O N d n Z2 ca M >< X d E N H N c X X X X X X X X X c) N 0 W CD W C cm cc D Z D LL LL LL J O D S D m a D pp N D = D D c 0 = _ 0 D D D O_ v7 a) ce z Et = L (9 D D z J z D a O _ J W 0 J LL LL J D J J LL 0 0 D W D V CL LL Q 2 o a) c a? en 2 w ;L ra d c ± _ + cn o Z -° in m c , o 0 4 ) o E c c ca as ° = o a) cn o o S ° o ° CD cn X ° a) a CO ° N G) iu v > ? ay) m co > �c co = - 0 a - a? cu 3 w a ' c m E F) �j co = as C a) o = O N E '' a) ' C a) ° o . N •O 2 2 a) a ° `n 3 c w— w • a`� o Z v f° a) U tr c as _ 2 E LL v O '° as > 03 iv c �' m 0 o a -2 ° a) o ° c o- = a) aa)) . _ c ..=. s a) a) Q o ° a) n. w OU > a). c m R O CU -0 - - 0 co U = .--• p . � d CD .. ...._. Y 7 @ J .. N 0 0 m e C O 0 L R = .Z O O o N CO ° m c 3 c o 0 cn a m cn c .6 0 m - ,c2 cn LE Q c cn d 1 o a a) E CO 0 0 � ' ° 3 ., c ® a) a) -o m ° a a) 0 a m ° .) Z .. d� as E cn v - 0 = v c a) + m t- > • 5 o o c a > >` v) cv E ' NI -° < -t ca a) 0 -° ` a) o C a) 4 `O O u CO CO O C N Y az (tl N 04 ca ca a) o > c a) U v) 3 N V ca c U U c G) N 3 8 !D E o U "E O p (a N N O a) ° ca > C) is ° c o .— .,.4 c > m .E ° a .`_" c 0 co E •° ° m m O a) U a) U cn ? c — o ° N o ° r 1 m a) c a) E 0 •° `o ° co 0 c o C v) N �a y " 2 C m -° ` C a = io in O ) a 03 2 as ° o 0)) i- ° c 0 m = a) .4 Xa 0 a) C/) 0 .c ° c a) a) • o E ca - o ) c a n ) cn LL as W E o LL o_o to W U LL U v) cn ° F 0 (n o Y A Q .° -0I I I I • ctiI _6I I I I i • ail N V LO CO i� 00 as C) N M CO CO M M M M d d d V V to ° O N U . o -• o w ° 4 +.e 0 M ° X X X X X O N G n ▪ '-- co M X X X X X .) E N F- N c X X X X X X X X X X 0 N Q' CI d C . :::: cn a ¢ Z 0 vS 0 U U a 0 d = Z L_ 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 c- a a a a O O O U (d C a a a) C O Q °c a as a3 (c0 m ° " 3 o aci m m a) co o a) a) a ° X a _ a) d C (f) t v a E > O o 0 a) a> = 3 -> >-, a i m ° (n X c > ` C7) 0 0 C U ° L w C - +E" - ° ° 3 C a ^° CU O U LLJ a) I c a 0 0 V) L73 o 3 0 .c a) o) a) L) E E It 3 a. 3 U c - a) 0 0 c .0) o c > . C v m 0 N Q m( 3 a) o a) E 3 = (a -5 .o E c- ;a o aa)) __ _ C L O O U N N ° ° c m -CS c R C a ) iv a c_ 92 c U 2 E a Q) a_ a N ° N CO !..F- O " O O) - V Q) C O a3 >•. C aS .> (O O a . 0 -- `) E ( n C a) O) 0 CD C X a c a3 C 7 � a) = U C a c a oo _c °) J m e (n as ° a E "w 3 F----- m o) o a w U o c a a) c) o 0 E °) m o 0) c 0 (n `o N 2 C c0 -o c E O' = "m Eo E cis a c v a E m C.) `o Cr) s 0 o in Q O - d . a) ° -y ET) O m _ U a) .l� N . � L N N N cu (O co as ° N N a O -O co a to a7 - C U a) - "C "> O C a) a -p a U Q cU S'S C (O _Q d (Q O C a) Cl) ` = a ) 3 N CO C 0 .� N ( O v°) ° _°c) m E E a = c c' c ° cu = aa) h a) -N m ° c N c rn - ( tea ° (n �u c a E L O° CO n S a a) 0 is a) ,. a a) -F, o o o a) U i 0 c = w 0 CIS 7 O N �' m 0 U, � CL) O d a) [n C C 0) O a 0 O C C @ O N N 7 C U U > @ a 3 C (O (/) a' - r C O E Q) 'U 0 a) w O U N - a1 Q) C C (O a) a 0 a) E as 0 S S o =) ° c_ ) a) a �) v o — > C a) c m o c rn a a) a _ __ " > a) (a is L ) c .�c a a) a3 c — a) U CU ` O E A -- •- a) a) .c.,-; > O a) E (? o c, `) u) ai 3 a w X m CO 3 . CO a ) Q CL E a c ( ° a CD m o N E _ D a a d m U ° ° CO 8 C.0 ° W .a W .2 ti 'o (n Q c ° ) 0 o tL a U (.) d a3 Q ° a7 Q' V) . - ):_1 :_1 . >1 >1 . -1 :_i ._1 :_I O 0 U cv ; 0 w ° AA 0 CO O r- 0 N d n ea A X X E N H N r- OE X X X X X X X X X X X O N S Z O n D D Z 0 CL 0 o O O O a 0 a Z J a V) C Z 73 C 0 G. N W C7 21 c, C7 0 CI J 0 0 d d 0 CL 0 J J c Q .5 LU J Ct 0 a ) a x a) x c Q .. 0 . d O o C 0 d V 0 C 0 0 o (v E - N a l0 t CL o c) _CI `n .-i o f c m °� a _ x N - ca 0 X a D o ca c° ^' "' Q > N O a m °' ' c a . 0 3- .N fn m c N o a a) > d) 0 O a a) (o w J O c A - m 0 -C 3 O 0 o 0) — „6 U) O CD L 0 a) o a - N c J � _ V ° a) x o o co E o • tr o> o a .�? _ N w> ` m a ° 0 E W a Y o_ E _ o ` ) ' . Q c 0 CO ( rn5 c a 0 ) o o .0 m 0 c CO c a) ° E E p m 0 a -0 - a o 0 L a 1 !=] = = a ` ) U v E o c co O) T a) O 0 a .. ° c S 0, U h o-a `n N o a a) U a o m P. cu 0 ez (1.) c .- W - . c `) Q a ) o o _ m 3 O E o w • = o . c a a) o o ( �° - c o •- O m () -o 3 v) `n S' c o a .. E > o N Z3 - o w .. y . 0 o 0 E 0 O 0 rn .c) C = 0) a) C a C 0) c E o o o 0 o OS N .• T U {� CO U C CO a 0 O O p C � C O N 0 f C U -N (6 E 0 a L c O a (a 0 O W N a) a Q) 0 0 ' (n N V To o) c . o c o is c a) o Tn x r (u c c t m C w o 0 (d a) (d C T 0 0 T 0 0 C O •0) -6 - � CO a) .5 .0-. Oa O d ID - • ul ---• -. a (a -I O y C a 2 0 0 en N .�-. a) a V (O a) T N 0 a) o c E U ' as > u e7) -0 0 t m d m :o m o c CIS 0 0 0 a) 0 • a) a) a C . " a N '0 V a) - -E - a) c a) - 0- aS D. U CO O - E M v , cn a U a en E i in a t a) m a) o o d a 0 c° a . a t V 2 4 u) = 0 Q 3 0) V (n Q ` C - a "5 CO o 0 0 ■ a N M V- N M LO CO N- co O O N Lf) L.() LC) L.0 L!) (f) 1.0 L.() 10 CO CO CO C) O N C..) �- 0 y O W C of O M m X X X X X X O N CL) r ca ▪ M X X X X X X X X X X a) E N H N c X X X X X X X X X X X O N 01 cb_ = 0.5 [T O O a 1- a 1 0 0 Ct O W 1- .6 W .6 z z 0 21 2 2 �I L f o W CO W Q L L .L L Cj CD 0 _ m o _W� J O ? =I o Q [ z 0 U o_ a 0 CC U o o z =� o o 0 .6 � 0 U J C D 0 = CC Q' 0 = z z 0 J O a ° `6 m rn Q m C -C U- C m C m 6' 0 O -0 ( 0) U CO cfl N a 0 - O. N _ • 6 O) 0 O c O) 10- O ..O O - C Y w N. t a w m 'm m f6 E y= ° m x °' _ cu C - o S a) C U y m W a m o m ca 0 to 0 c c E c L O - • � Cn -0 a as - o O N -o Y a' -�. U °� ° c a) • � °' m m �' m o o CO c as a`� c -0 0 -- a w - N U - TO O 0 -= O T C .Z' a) c 0 " 0 ' � U c00 >-• a) Q 0 0 E c) CO ° o : c a o °) _ ai 22 = m L > o in o c U a E U a Ti ` " U y o a U m m a c X iO m a 0 _ a) � 0 c 0 ) o o cu ` o ? > Y o " c -= m ° a) a 0) L N - 0 a) = Z COO ° (D En CD C m .c c GO CI) CO m a°i -c o - _ a i 0 in ' O) = U a) m E m m = o 3 °) o a) c -- c a) a c = - �) $ ..._ c U ' o `n a) - ?) c o " N O U U 0 C O o N 0 0 c N ✓ (a L1 O N cn cn U m c • N U v) a - o - a a- co m c c c• - 0 c c a) = ti n i o o w m - m o cu o c o cu = > a ) V/ ) m _ a) c a) a) U r17, = = mi a) 0 3 VI c c iO a) c ° c O t d O C m CO m ` U m U C 0 a) 0 U -6 fl_ 'ES c 0 7 ° Q. . � m �p a) a) a m c t w U 7 c cu t` us as a N m C O C O O c C m c-- a) a) O m ., O _ y = Q .= O CO c 0 i > E W a a ' 0 0 m> a) c a i0 U co o m Ly m m c o a a) „ v) °i C a. 0 c n ° . c D .a D o o) 0 m U m U ° w = CO p. w> m 0 -0 Cr) L 0 it C PI N ti) co V to CD N- CO 0) O CO CO CD CO C0 CO CO f` r- r - r- ^ r- r- o u n LC) N C O U nI O H O W O O M el X X X X X X X X X O N 61 1� .G cc 1") X X X X X X X X X X X X X X N ° E CV i= N c • X X X X X X X X O N V a_ C _ L D D D N D U 2 CC D ° 2 4 CO 0 2 O w D D D D 0 F =I Z D U of W 0 D 0 d . .1) 0 D 0 0 0 W 0 D J 0 W 0 W 0 D Z a_ O SI 00 U -j U = 0 D _I U D 0 _I D 0 0 cn cc) ^ a) ° a) O O > — y c U CU }1 U co 3 a) >. O •a to U XI o) c "' O u) p) O N c 0 O U > c L U u) -0 u, = O O 00 Q. °) ' in k a) a) N a ) w Y C 0 X co 1.11 1.11 L 7 s a fii c oo > o E c c c U Y m co a`� o 0 0 > ri m Y - co ci) Z o CO U N t ca � c to c o 40 w i0 ED 0 CO ° v ° N m 0 a c c O 4') (6 a. _ c u) U (06 a) [n fi m O 'a O ¢ o c a) . F3 c) 0 c 0) c a) 3 m CL) 0 .O in E c s •C > 0 _ >. ¢ 0 m a) ( 1 ) 3 .0 o o °' —° c m o a s -.4 E V' m U i a) C o 0 0 o E v o ° L. ai = o ' . N U a 8 C = a p y CO ` m c rn o U c c %c6 CO Q N o 0 0 co Tn c N 3 a . c E W a_ i0 a m_c a U o >, o a U >4 `._• ca o c u) rn a o "0 0 '� m ` U .C3 -a - co in O c0 _ c 43 c 2 0 a) U 0 E c c 41 c c (O E a) E a c a3 ° »c-- o c vi a � E c c s R: =a a d a) c c �' a) . a{ c 0 o a) s E m c0 c m x s N w ' c) _ O N to in E O 3 a> c O CO = . cam 'Ct Q a a) OS a: E c 3 m a a) N m^ a) m - a) _m c6 Y O c 0 a) a)° a a) 3 0> U U. ° > co m . ._ E co a 0 > a E c am ` o ° a) c ° a to) w -e ., ri Q- 5 a) a) a a) p :? N ° a La a a) ' -, o a o coat o c a) ja, 44 j m o U a o U o o co o aa) 2 a) > —a k ro Y o m a 3 GJ a) m c a) ° ° c E o ° ° c`a ° ( T:., 0 o ` m ° t CO 0 CL '> a_ co < a D P1- (0 D m cO 0 _o 0_ a_ W 2 m _c) CY G C.) CL a W 0 a. .- ¢ N Lo in re) I� 00 O) O N C) L!) (0 1` 00 0) O N N- h- � c0 co co co c0 00 00 00 00 oO 0) 0) 0) L p p 0 p p c 0 C) - LC) LO p. CO CO CO m m CO LW o C) ao eo CO in p 1- F- H F- 1- co V 1- o N M M Os; . O H O W C O M a s X X X X X X X O N a) 1� d 7 as M X X X X X X X X X X X d E N F- N 1 c X X X X X X O N a) O co Z r Z O p o_ O > >> > D p 00 N °o_ w a 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 = 0 Z 0 -- 0 Z U U U U U U U 0 0 Z N 0 p p y 0 O a d ce CL a 0 o co Z Z 0 p Z p CC CC a' CC o_ a' CC a' z W CI p z 0 p z p 0 p p p 0 p 0 c 0 0 —J a O 0 p as d T Q c c E a s_ C Y E a a) c c a) a3 O O a5 C ` N N a a3 a a E O ` = c J aS T . 0 fa �i C w E a - _ O T a) a) o a = a N C c CO 0 0 N O N Ql N N N O= C U 7_c ?� t. a3 o o O C 0 • f` 3 a) O ' O) O ` a Q) it W _ o c s o Q a ca a w C j E a a n L_c c c = 1.) a N m co o a m m 0 -o > = E N - a c ) 3 ° o o m o ca N ' a c c o o 0 E O o a) c o c a Y c a .rn Y o 0 > m c a) a' m-c „,0 o as Q E ki E 0 c m E o ° E o a= . � N i C a c 0 O� y en fl m ca o a o o a) a) w - -1 N as E -- ° aa ° m ° Y O C a CO (a >_ L ) U C) L O E O 0 d a 7 i C a ° L a e o E am a up .o as - c m ° m a3 a N ° E > � TA O n a) o o a3 °) ,, o c a c i E ° a N Y C C w a) U C C O co > O f6 a) O N E .T. c Q) c t 0) ° ° a} @ . LL c .a en a d io U a) .. ° 'C c 1 , 2 _ c t O c U a. C E a3 :- C C C c= C Cl.) 0 - V U O o ) a) Y - o a as o m E 3 3 E E Y o c E >> o a - 1° E 3 > ' 0 0 C Y a _y N-0 a) X O C a3 N a a3 O a) C7 p N > C N E 4) ` O Q 0 a) ° a o a a) a) ° as = > > a a" E > o o c a 0 rzC N O U 6 a s a > i Z - D O O` ca O V E `O N CO C 'm .— U 0 N E E > G N 7 y C a) C a a c a N ° Cl_ O C a ) a) N c6 is C a Zt Y a c is U N on CO C - o a3 E, E o U E ° as = > E o c ,d N ° u) a ° 0 > O O N N N N a° a ) a a a7 N N ' N C d - N O a) = 3 w 7 O a O C -O c ° a a) to a) ' > CD CO 0 c y i - C a> O > N � ) ' 0 ' � >i 0 cti > U cts > O C Q N O [a - L CD Q• _c) L. O N 7 N O fa a) N N a3 m N CZ a) U U 0 =0 U Y 1=11.1.1 0 0 W>> Z a 0> a ca W a 0 a "> co 0 co N 0 : =I :-1 . > I - r>I : =i : =1 .>I > -51 :>1 " > I 'X1 X1 XI c O d U t!q () co Q) 0 LO O) 0 0 0 0 m m o ° o CO H c F- O N U •• Co • CO w ° 0 M W X X X X O N a) n • M X X X X X X X X d E N H N c X : :::: 7 6 n ix cc O O a > U v 0 0 0 o J J o o U o U n ° w 1E N m 7 0 c O 0. CC O H LL CO _ CL 0 o z z z z z z ° m m o n CL CI 0 0 Z O C Y Q ° To" a) E ° L a3 co U Ti) o p RS a °' . E v p 0 Y o -O a ° y Y _ C c U E 3 E o . _C o m -- li E D c. 2-) U - a C _C Y E - N v1 LL O to U = °'� M O .° I ` E U N c 7 ° c N 0 1 r (° 0 N L in is _E v ° a a ) a - m c6 =a a ° • c .� ` • O ' N U �^ aI il ! as C c° p y o a ° c • O c c o n 'O O Y ° c O ■ as N w ` Y U = a) •..4 -- • 0) 0 N O >. .— L a) O 0_ a) ) L r4 0) [) 3 in .� O L O > d C 01 2 y ° )O J 0 rn N •r1 0_ O y = a) cn a) O O -= Y a a3 O Y 0 O @ C O d Y ` p U >. Q) w. W al E p as c m aQ) m C 3 U a a _ a) i `� ° co R ` m a c i L a) m m 0 d 'r! , .o a) rn> E c a ° c `a ° c o o ti a3 c n s 3 a) Q o t o E U a) ° f g co ' c o w a ) c a' 61) o = E ° > is a� c ' N O o 0 T 0 . a rn 5 is c 0 m a m o c E a) = o a) 0 a 5 0 c_1 - E ° o U a a Y a) as to a , a) o E ' T= 0 C 6 L = . = o U 0 U �O 11 0 co C 0_ L c 0_ 0 U _m V) L y O ,����'{1 0 > a) c a) 0 CC) W .� O U N .m a) u' O a3 13 a) a) _ 0- a) a ai O1 W O a 3 4) L L _ Cl) _ J _ Q) N c 3 . c)- 0_ - -c31 -=, ca cm "-• 4 c ° a) m 2 rn ` -° c co 14 >, o = •- a _ t cc, > o E -0 a 3 c m t a) m= m° 0_ c JM c 3 m CL a ) 0 0 a) a -a ° a C U a a1 > H p u a) C . _ 0 _ > 0 U U ca Q c o.. • c Q a U Q v U t U a= .W Q rn E C o CO W - _I : =1 : =1 .>I 51 ._1 : -1: =1 . >1 >1 G M N M CO CO Q) 0 CT) C7) ) 0 0 0 CI p O p p p p •-• r-- CO CO N F— F— F— CO 0 N U 0 -, o W O 0 M ao X X X X X O N CD 1-- co M X X X X X X X X X X d E N F- N 0 X X X X X XI X 0 N CI p 0 Cl .-+ CC Ct a a `0 0 o � CI F p w W a w W W Cl W W W W o — F- p W w W W W W W W W . - • �' w CI C3 CO w m p D W W 1.1 L.L U_ U.- l.L W W 72 N U p CZ) Cl Ct 0 c 0 O. a> CC CC D 2 0 w -o 0 a 0 0 O 0 F- p _J Q Q Q Q Q Q Q ca � 0 0' U a a 12 Et 0 0 0 w 0 U 2 o c o a u) E o _ as _ CO a> 0 0 _ -CI a3 t 3 - a) - a • •Q t W L • m W ai o Q rn a � ' i E 0 > d y c 2 c- E o O F— c o c S E a) 3 o ` > m a c = > co >.... ti 0 }1 CO ° CO o N° E m a . a a> m a a> 0 0 o co c o a> > cu co c ; Q N m • a) c m >. E c> u ) — • E c R E fl . c = o° N c m c 0 __ r5 Z co c' '' t i 0 ` 1) m a as o °: a) a fx bT . co m c c OS Cr) y 3 c c o o c> O E .-• cn c o o w co O m c U N N °. V N 7 • • O - - O a 'q) N (B c (a 4 Q c rn 1 c c T m m t _0 m a> ° • 'cn co a> a> m N o a> ` a> m a> c Z c Y c 0) F- o ci c o m p s L co > 0, a) a) O 3 Q ' [f - O •E E a> a> ., a 0 a -8 a> n. 47 a> _Z ` c > 2 0 c 3 a a . C.) Z c N x r co m 0 v > E aci > ( = m c2 rn ,„ m a c E J-> 3 Z y t m m 0 c - co _ 0 - E S ,, a) m 0 c as CO a a N O • a> u) E to v> Y c S 13 _c S 5.5 O C CO cn _Cr .--• C. U c _o co o f > ,-" o co m o ° ' i > c a E E 0 in as F, (./) a3 - a> _o a> c a a cu as o 01 a> E 0 c L m - • CD - c a> m 0 a E a> o c L = .� > n 0 f y m m e -° c co cB ... 0_ O .3. (B O O C a3 O .. O O E a c- L V L L i g c >, a> as 0 a> 7/3 = .N a) c a a 4)) 7 O) •.= sq. O CL a) 7 03 10 - 4 ` O `O . ' V O.. i aa) co co c N N a a cu _c z co a u d a a te . a m L e i a m a E ti . X a g c 2 w o o w c S '• q N U q N N co Lt) c0 ti c0 6> O O O O O O O O O 0 0 r� O c) N O N _ V O N O V U . o O En w °- ss 0 M X X O N O n M X X X X X X X X X X d E N F-• N r c X X X X X X X X X X X X X O N co 0 c Z 0) F- V) V) U) Z 0 o W W W W W O 0 W L� 0 0 d O O 0 p Z _T 3 u u u LL U J 0 O z L.L p p p Z Z Z CC Z CZ — :G N W 0 L.L. c 0 Z 0 p 0. N CU Cd ID a a a ¢ a a a a n a a p y H H F-- f- 1- 1- H H O 1- F- 0 d d d a d 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 U 2 2 p o p p p p o Q Q N U co . O _ N c 6 O .-. T co a3 d - C3 CO Y C O O ca cr) • 0- n' c c E m w CT) m CO .-i X S o a d- o 0 cu le d c. c 02 6 W -o c m Cr) w c 0 al `1 `n g - a c c6 a) a) x c o a) 2 o o " c cn a) _a a) o c_) a _� m E> Y 3 Q. w EO = y > N Q N :••-• a O c -o O E cr 3 a) N E ° rn t m o a c a �- m 3 3 c = b o E 0, a rn �°-) E_ a) c v) 2 as cn - = — a ) N a E c a) c cq c c .0 c .o CO (Q O N Q) o +N.. U O U a) o) ' w U O N ' C Z = -o O N O °- a) c O_ O .Y C x N U 0 0 c „Al N cts 0 2 c a) cn 2 a) - w C/1 a iu N - o • . 9 o o 0 m -o = m > cn m U w $ c; a) U a) N c - CO a o ca c 43 „, d cn c c as y o. co U U CO a ° - � - ' c O a) in 3 a s a Cn > as x> m o o ~ m a) p >t a o aa) a s c c a) o = CO CO c Q a) a w Q ) c 0 (6 p . =, c6 0 , - _ c t Q o .N H U U c "ca a) a) c o U L a) m o ° t ' 3 E 3 i_ c E .o v_) o o E o E c o c C 'O -° al O U U . > c O - O o ( 6 - in V VD co in z . d > as O U O .- '> a) O c Y rn - C O c =n ca Tri :as O O O O 0 a) U = N = n . x d . > O .N 0_c f6 a) - ) ' - .Z in U j O 0 a) 0 0.. > Cl_ d S p c7) -I (7) U u W o •� 5 = C4 co d CC c W E U cn .a U Y 0 CO '= 1:_I.? .i:I ig . >I >I . c :•I N CO •eh LO C.0 f- CO 0) O N N N N 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 ▪ O 0 0 LC) L0 p O N "Zr- C•) ,— N ix; c. N U 0 ▪ o w °- 0 M 0 X X X X X X O N O n ea c"> X X X X X X d E N i- CV c X X X X X X O N •.+ 0 I- 1- 1- F-- W L L L W 0 0 w 0 � a Z D C) U CJ C � C7 U U' p LLI a y J J J J J UJ W J 0 0 y C O 0_ en d -o I— I— I— 1--- I— I > m a a. a a a. O O 0 0 0 0 a_ 0 0 _1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 U O CL tO V) Q _ cn N (6 1.5 O c O O 0 Y cn L Xi QS a) co o > a o . 2 ca 0 a 2 0 E N . o m -= o a cv 3 0 0 0 0 0 O .- * o a X 0 _ 0 w c 0 a > = Y u u i °> ° c c o 2 m LJJ m - 0 d o m Y r a 3 o N U c` a) N 0 as as c N L m c> 0- >. o o . L o CO a) X E ° ° a) La > a m c m z ai Q ST) 3 v Q c (1) a> O a> a> = E E 2 _ ° c Q O CO 0 ° a> L a> .= Eo 0 c6 - o a> C > m a> 0 T C _ 2 CO - a CD _0 0 m =. c! > . W a c m 0 3 0 s v> co > c o iv c x a> , as CO i� 3 m .m c .-> 3 L c a> ti u> o a> c W 0 as -° `o ■ m a E E o E o c = a> u> • m a o m a> ca S o m ca 2 O a3 CO O> in m - O •> O N E � N N a>_ N m o Y ° a ° a ° 0 c Q c Zi p C (6 L (B °�� — U (6 - N > cn m m O O -o III co O L O E a> a) O p c c N c ri. as O L 0 LE Li, . Y O o - O p O N v ( U 6 O> a> "c .$4 _ m V ! a ° 04 s - a> 0 of •_ a> ? E E w c6 _ E a m L O ° c cv a= a s E yy E c a m m c;> a> 0 m co 0 a> 4_1 aS - c c a E i o v ca a rp a 0 i t0 a`� o - u> o c 0 a a> > c a > a> 0 o 0 ca 4 m - E E c m a> ? a) 0 c + H 0 a> a> w E w c6 N Pi in c a3 a> E N o c 0 v> '� ¢ c o s'. = y 0 c '- — "EL a> CO (, — in cu 0 " ((0 o o a : c o o a 0 �? m Q a> ° ° a> 0 o Y �' d 0 a o 0 O co co v) J O < d w = cn D E _0 0 Q O ° O Z al 2' < .,- :_I . >1 ._,1 :_i : =1 - =1 : = i : =1 .>I . - 1 .- : =1 c ch cn �' � a cv N N N N CO CV N N 0 0 0 c o n- _ O N O U . O 7 O w °- w O M o X X X r O N 6) n co c"') X X X X d C E N H N c X X X O N Q) (.D r J _ n C- d o- O L N U y c O O_ co z CC Z -o J a`) o 0 a U 0 D d Cl a> Q O c o as .n us cz cr. x m s_ o E L o W a c.> >, cC a > a m c U O a Y C t_ O O CC N _ t C E °' C °> `4 co ) O O Y C a C R ` p> RS — Id f6 o c C C a) d > '> D _ - a L v > _ _c = = Lo O O U a" a C O O C O t6 (6 0 Vi C O' C co O A ( (6 E a V > C 2 n 'O > -O C U O ,,CD C C N (6 CL s C � O a C d a >. C as a (p m > O N a E d C U in O O on O- a - ) 'C a a o C E E F 'y a S ..g Q m U m E o co o N o0 O) co, N N CO CO William P. Kenoi '' N ':!,;' F.! -" _ .... - • . - - BJ Leithead Todd Mayor . = A Director ,rgaret K. Masunaga 3 �wq . :St • f I' Deputy •r,Tf OF•N∎ County of Hawaii PLANNING DEPARTMENT Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawai`i 96720 Phone (808) 961 -8288 • Fax (808) 961 -8742 May 11,2010 Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman Windward Planning Commission 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai `i 96720 Dear Chairman Woodward and Commissioners: Subject: Bill 194 — Proposed Amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan Planning Director's Recommendations Background Bill 194 was introduced by the County Council to initiate amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan ( "CDP "). The proposed amendments contained in Bill 194 are very similar to amendments that were proposed by Councilmember J.Yoshimoto, Councilmember Emily Naeole and former Planning Director, Chris Yuen in 2008. In 2008, the then existing county council made a decision to pass the Puna CDP without any amendments indicating that they would entertain amendments after passage. Since passage of the Kona, South Kohala, North Kohala and Puna CDPs, this is the first bill to propose amendments. There has been some confusion over the process for reviewing and making recommendations on amendments, in part because CDPs are a relatively new planning tool for the County and this is the first time that the Department is processing interim amendments. The CDP Amendment Process Section 15.1 of the 2005 Hawai`i County General Plan set out a process for establishing CDPs. Section 15.1 states that "[a]fter the steering committee has recommended approval of the Community Development Plan, it shall be forwarded to the either the Windward or Leeward Planning Commission, or both meeting as a joint commission as provided for in the Hawai`i Hawai 'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 9 Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 2 May 11, 2010 County Charter, for review and recommendation to the County Council. The County Council may modify or amend the Community Development Plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the steering committee and the designated Planning Commission, or joint commission, as the case may be, an opportunity to review and comment on substantive amendments and modifications before final adoption of the plan." No specific time frame for initiation or completion of either CDPs or interim amendments is provided in Section 15.1. The County Council provided for a comprehensive review of any adopted CDPs in Section 16 -2 of the Hawai`i County Code. This section provides that comprehensive reviews "shall commence within ten years from the date of adoption." No specific provision regarding process is made for interim amendments to CDPs in Chapter 16 of the Hawai`i County Code or in the General Plan. However, Chapter 2, Section 2 -28.1 of the Hawai`i County Code, provides that "within 60 days after receipt of the planning director's recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof *, either the windward or leeward planning commission, or both meeting as a joint commission as provided for in the Charter, shall transmit the draft community development plan or any amendment with its recommendation through the mayor to the County council." While this section provides a timeline for Planning Commission action, no timeline is given for how long the Action Committee may take for its review and recommendation. In the absence of specific provisions regarding Action Committee review and consistent with the timelines envisioned for Planning Commission review and recommendation of amendments, the Planning Director made a request to the County Council to ask for additional time beyond 60 days to review and make recommendations to the Planning Director. The Council denied this request, so the Action Committee had 60 days from receipt of the proposed amendments to make its recommendations. Substantive Amendments There is no specific provision that addresses substantive amendments to interim CDP amendments that are initiated by the County Council. Interim amendments to the General Plan that are initiated by the County Council are governed by Section 16.2 of the General Plan. This section provides that the Planning Director shall have 60 days or a longer period, as may be agreed to by the County Council to submit recommendations to the Planning Commission on the interim amendments for its review and recommendation. The Planning Director's recommendation may include suggested changes consistent with the general intent of the proposed amendment *. There is no authority for either the Director or the Action Committee to recommend changes that are inconsistent with the general intent of the proposed amendments. In the absence of language specifically addressing CDP interim amendments, the language governing General Plan amendments controls the process as the CDP is subordinate to and a part of the General Plan. * (emphasis added) Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 3 May 11,2010 Guidance as to what is considered a suggested change that is consistent with the proposed amendment can be found in the provisions governing interim amendments to the General Plan. Pursuant to Section 16.2 a change to a proposed amendment which substantially changes the general intent or subject matter of the proposed amendment, such as newly adding or deleting a goal, policy or course of action, or standard, or a map amendment which changes a land use designation of a parcel, shall be considered an entirely new proposed amendment and submitted to the Planning Director and the appropriate planning commission for their review and recommendation. This would require a separate proposed bill /ordinance for approval by the respective bodies. PLANNING DIRECTOR'S RECOMMENDATIONS ON BILL 194 By letter dated April 16, 2010, the Planning Director received the recommendations of the Puna CDP Action Committee. The Director agrees in part and disagrees in part with the recommendations and has some minor additional recommendations for changes. In order to correspond and correlate these recommendations with those of the Action Committee, I will address them in the same order as the April 16` letter. No. 1. Replacing words such as "initiate" with "propose" or "amend" with "propose amendments ". The Planning Director supports the proposed amendments as initiated by the County Council. Rationale: Bill 194 proposal to amend action words such as "Initiate" with `Propose" and "Amend" with "Propose amendments ". Similarly words such as "Establish" are proposed to be amended with "Propose the establishment ". The Action Committee seems to believe that these words "support the Planning Director's responsibility to implement." However, the Committee fails to recognize that all the Director can do is propose amendments to the zoning code and it is the County Council that has the actual authority to enact amendments or rezone property. Even though enacted by ordinance, a current County Council cannot through an ordinance require future County Councils or state agencies to vote or enact regulations a particular way. No. 2. Deleting establishment of a County historic preservation committee in Section 2.1.3 Actions (page 2 -5) and accordingly renumber the remaining sections. The Planning Director supports the deletion of the relevant sections as initiated by the County Council. (Amendment originally proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole in 2008) Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 4 May 11, 2010 Rationale: Ordinance 08 -42 was adopted on April 11, 2008 and establishes a Hawai`i County Cultural Resources Commission that provides for the goals and objectives of this action item. No. 3. Amendment to the section regarding Wastewater DisposaUTreatment Systems in Section 2.3.3.d. The Planning Director supports the proposed amendment as initiated by the County Council. (Originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008) Rationale: The current action item calls for a centralized sewage treatment plant and/or self - contained pumped septic systems for any development within a two (2) mile -wide corridor between the Wao Kele 0 Puna forest preserve and the ocean. This would impact the existing Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) Maku`u Farm Lots of approximately 868 acres, containing 127 five -acre agricultural lots immediately makai of Highway 130, the proposed 640 - acre DHHL Maku`u residential subdivision planned for a total of about 758 lots mostly 20,000 square feet or less in size immediately mauka of Highway 130, the DHHL Maku`u Makai parcels consisting of approximately 500 acres primarily mauka of Beach Road and SE of Hawaiian Paradise Park, and the DHHL 100 -acre Keonepoko Nui parcel makai of Highway 130. This restriction would also impact the State's Keonepoko Farm Lots north of Kahakai Boulevard. This proposal in the CDP would significantly increase the cost of building a home in these areas because the owner could not use a cesspool or a typical septic system, which has a holding tank and a leach field. The owner would need some type of self - contained mini treatment plant. It is very unlikely that a centralized wastewater treatment system will be developed in this area, and this type of system is also very costly. The necessity of such requirements to protect drinking water is questionable. Current Department of Health (DOH) rules do not allow new cesspools and septic systems within a 1000' radius of wells used for public drinking water. Department of Water Supply (DWS) has several wells, however, dating from before these DOH rules, which are surrounded by homes on cesspools, such as a well near Gilbert Carvalho Park in Hilo. The water in these wells is regularly tested and has not shown any microbial contamination. It is possible to create a similar aquifer protection area that would protect the source of water for the current DWS wells between the 'Ainaloa subdivision and Pahoa, and more wells that might be drilled in this general area, without causing problems for homebuilders on DHHL land. The DWS wells are located just mauka of Highway 130. Immediately mauka of these wells is a 5,127 -acre State parcel that is part of the Puna Forest Reserve, and Wao Kele 0 Puna, owned by Office of Hawaiian Affairs. Under current plans, both would remain as natural areas. Mr. Re11 Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 5 May 11,2010 No. 4. Amendment regarding Village /Town Center Formation, Zoning & Design Criteria The Planning Director supports the proposed amendments which delete references to floating zones and transferred development rights as initiated by the County Council. (Originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008) Rationale: See No. 9 below. No. 5. Regarding Downsizing of Agricultural Lands section 3.2.2.k and 3.2.3 b. The Planning Director supports the proposed amendments as initiated by the County Council. Rationale for 3.2.2 k (Originally proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole in 2008): This proposed amendment would allow for community land trust(s) to be formed that would manage public lands for fanning activities, such as community gardens. It also provides a financial incentive for farmers who put fallow agricultural lands back into production. The CDP also has many other actions that protect agricultural lands without requiring purchase or lease of lands by the County. Rationale for Section 3.2.2.b (Originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008): The proposal in the Puna CDP would be too restrictive on property owners. For example, the owner of a 49 -acre property would be limited to creating one additional lot and the owner of a parcel of less than five acres could not subdivide at all. This would make it impossible in many cases for subdivisions to allow conveyances to family members, which may be the hope and expectation of many property owners. The Planning Director finds that the Action Committee's recommendation to replace original text in Section 3.2.3.b with new language is substantively different from the amendment as proposed by the County Council and therefore cannot be amended through the existing bill. The Director also does not support the proposed amendment and does not plan to initiate one. No. 6. Relocation of Kea`au and Pahoa Transfer Stations: Section 3.4.3.g Delete Action Item "g" and accordingly renumber the remaining action items The Planning Director supports the deletion of section "g" as initiated by the County Council. (Originally proposed in 2008 by Councilwoman Emily Naeole). Rationale: The Steering Committee voted to include an action item to relocate the Kea'au and Pahoa transfer stations to sites that would better serve the major population areas. Some suggestions were offered during the Steering Committee deliberations for alternate relocation Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 6 May 11,2010 sites. However, these alternatives were not included in the Draft CDP since it was recognized that relocation would require an environmental study in which alternative sites would be considered. The Pahoa transfer station is not as conveniently located to the major population centers in the Pahoa area as it might be, and its current location does expose some residential areas of Pahoa Town to traffic and other hazards that are not particularly desirable or compatible with a residential neighborhood. However, in view of the cost of the current upgrade to the Pahoa transfer station by the Department of Environmental Management, relocation within the next ten years does not appear to be warranted. The Kea'au transfer station's present location is adequate for the major population areas it is intended to serve. It is conveniently accessible to residents from 'Ainaloa to Hawaiian Paradise Park commuting to Kea'au and Hilo. It is also relatively close to Kea'au Village, yet sufficiently detached from existing residential and commercial uses. However, access and egress to and from the Kea'au transfer station is likely to become problematic when the State makes the planned shoulder lane improvements to Hwy 130 and eventually the Hwy 130 widening project is constructed. These access and egress issues for the Kea'au transfer station, as well as for neighboring properties such as the Humane Society, may be adequately addressed with appropriate intersection improvements at Opukahaia St. No. 7. Parks and Recreation The Planning Director supports the proposed amendment as initiated by the County Council instead of the language proposed by the Action Committee. The Director has concerns over this section as it pre- supposes the feasibility of the conversion of the old Pahoa Fire Station. No. 8. Section 4.4.3.a. Action Committee recommendation to include the word "roundabout" in a list of traffic calming features but delete the addition of "highway widening ". The Planning Director supports the Action Committee's recommendation and does not believe that it is a substantive amendment, so it can be included. However, the Director also agrees with the Council proposal to add "highway widening" to this section. Therefore, the Director believes the section should read: Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 7 May 11, 2010 "Conduct a study to determine the most efficacious way to create greater highway safety for all travel modes, including a cost benefit analysis for each studied method, and consideration of a wide range of traffic calming features (including roundabouts), highway widening, the use of frontage roads,. and various types of intersection controls; and" No. 9. Proposed amendment to Section 5.2.1 Zoning Designations, Section 5.2.2 and Section 5.2.3 The Planning Director supports the proposed amendments as initiated by the County Council. (Originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008) Rationale: The process for making the necessary land use changes for the village and regional centers caused some concern. Most of these areas are currently in the state land use agricultural district and are in county agricultural zoning. To become a village or regional center, these sites would need an amendment to the General Plan LUPAG map (except when they are currently consistent with the LUPAG), a state land use boundary amendment to urban, which can be done by the county council for areas of 15 acres or less, and county rezoning. The CDP does not rezone land in itself; it is a guide to future zoning. The Puna CDP proposes a "floating zone" concept, which creates additional questions because this concept currently does not exist in the zoning code, and an optional "purchase of development rights" procedure, which also does not exist in the zoning code. In order to simplify the process, the Planning Director proposes eliminating the references to "floating zone" and purchase or transfer of development rights. Table 5.1 Village /Town Center Formation, Zoning & Design Criteria — deletion of some sections, addition of new language. The Plannin• Director su. .orts the .ro.osed chan :es to Table 5.1 as initiated b the Count Council. (Originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008) Rationale: Concerns were also expressed over Table 5 -1, which gives "General Use and Design Criteria" for the various types of commercial centers. Specifically, there was an objection to the reference to a maximum of 250,000 square feet of commercial area for a regional town center, the limits on size of tenant spaces, including 50,000 square feet as the maximum in a regional town center, and the reference to "vernacular architecture." After further review, the Planning Director recommends eliminating these provisions. The ultimate extent of commercial development within a regional town center should be limited by market forces. Limits on the size of individual tenants, if desired, can be left to the master plan for a regional center for areas not currently zoned. There should not be a blanket restriction on large stores in regional centers. The consumer can make this decision, or, if desired by the Council, it can be imposed at the time of rezoning. "Vernacular architecture" is too vague a concept to provide guidance for a Mr. Re11 Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 8 May 11, 2010 developer or a basis for regulations, and again, for a town or village center, the master plan should specify design guidelines. Action Committee recommendation to retain the word "Preliminary" in the village center boundaries. The Planning Director does not support the amendment initiated by the County Council to delete the word "Preliminary ". The Director supports retention of this word as recommended by the Puna CDP Action Committee No. 10. Addition of new Section 5.2.4 regarding industrial zoning as initiated by the County Council. (Originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008) The Planning Director supports the proposed amendment as initiated by the County Council. No. 11. All other amendments. The Planning Director supports all other amendments proposed in Bill 194 as initiated by the County Council. OTHER ITEMS IN RECOMMENDATION LETTER FROM THE PUNA CDP ACTION COMMITTEE Additional non - substantive & formatting amendments in Exhibit A. The Planning Director supports the approval of these amendments as recommended by the Puna CDP Action Committee. The amendment proposed by Friends of Puna's Future regarding a new action item for creation of Village /Town Center Steering Committees As this is a substantive amendment that is not within the general substance of the proposed amendments contained within Bill 194, this will require initiation by either the Planning Director or the County Council of a new bill for an amendment. The Planning Director does not support this proposal and does not plan to initiate an interim amendment. Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 9 May 11,2010 Rationale: Any such committee created through adoption of the Puna CDP by ordinance come under the definition of a "board" under Chapter 92 of the Hawaii Revised Statutes. Therefore, such committees would be required to post notice pursuant to Section 92 -7 and comply with the six day notice requirement. The committee and Department would be required to keep written minutes of all meetings and such minutes would become public records and must be available within thirty days after each meeting. All the requirements of Chapter 92 would apply to such a committee. The Planning Department does not have the financial resources or the requisite manpower to support additional committees in addition to its existing boards and commissions for which the depailment is responsible. The department currently provides manpower and financial support for the Leeward Planning Commission, the Windward Planning Commission, the Kailua Village Design Commission, the Arborist Committee, the Board of Appeals, the Kona Action Committee, the North Kohala Action Committee, the South Kohala Action Committee, the Puna Action Committee, the Ka'u Steering Committee, the soon to be established Hamakua Steering Committee, and the Downtown Hilo Visionkeepers. When the Cultural Resources Commission is established, the department will also have to provide support to that commission. Additionally, the department is required to participate in state Land Use Commission hearings that involve proposed land use reclassifications of any land within the County, in addition to County Council committee and council meetings. The department also participates or is a member of various county and state committees, such as the Department of Transportation (DOT) Complete Streets Task Force, DOT - Highway 130 Improvement Project Advisory Group, DOT - Statewide Bicycle Master Plan, DOT - Statewide Pedestrian Master Plan, DOT - Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee, DOT- Sub Statewide Transportation Advisory Committee, Ocean Resources Management Plan (ORMP) Working Group, ORMP Policy Group, Marine and Coastal Zone Advocacy Council and frequently is called upon to appear at the meetings of various community groups. Current budget cuts will eliminate funding for community planning assistants and recorders for the action committees which will add to the workload of our existing planners. No other department in the County has to provide support and manpower to this many boards, commissions and committees while servicing multiple members of the public on a daily basis. Until such time that additional resources can be allocated it is not feasible to create additional committees that the Department must support. Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Page 10 May 11, 2010 Amendment proposed by Hawaiian Shores Community P P Y Y Association The Planning Director supports the proposed amendment. However as it is a substantive amendment, the Director will draft and initiate a separate amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and Council. Amendment proposed by Kalapana Seaview Estates Community Association The Planning Director supports the proposed amendment. However, as it is a substantive amendment, the Director will draft and initiate a separate amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and Council. Amendments proposed by Hawaiian Paradise Parks Homeowners Association The Planning Director supports the recommendation of the Action Committee that the existing language be retained. Therefore, the Director will not initiate an interim amendment. Amendments proposed by All Landowners of Hawaiian Acres (ALOHA) The Planning Director supports the Action Committee's recommended amendments. As these are substantive amendments, the Director will draft and initiate a separate amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and the Council. Amendment proposed by Foster Kern, LLC The Planning Director supports the Action Committee's recommendation to reject the request. Therefore, the Director will not be initiating an interim amendment. Amendment proposed by Toby Hazel to expand Hele -on Bus Service The Planning Director agrees in concept with expansion of mass transit service. Therefore, the Director will draft a similar amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and the Council. Mr. Rell Woodward, Chairman and Commissioners Windward Planning Commission Pagel l May 11,2010 ADDITIONAL NON - SUBSTANTIVE AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY THE DIRECTOR Page 1 -1, the words `Ohi`a, Hapu'u, Pueo, `Amakihi, and `Apapane should not be capitalized. Page 1 -1, paragraph 5, third sentence, the word "Maka'aina" should be spelled "Maka`ainana" as that is the proper word for "commoner ". Page 2 -1, "Malama Ki" should be "Malama Ki ". The County Council should also consider whether the word "`ohi`a" should be changed to "`ohi`a- lehua" to reference the tree that bears lehua blossoms as opposed to the other meanings of "`ohi`a" which include the mountain apple, a tomato, a native variety of sugar cane, and a variety of taro among other meanings. Sincerely, BJ LEITHEAD TODD Planning Director BJLT:rl P: \wpwin60\Rachelle L\Puna CDP\Amendments Attachments: 1. Bill No. 194 - 5a►vr►t aS Copy peovidtel ah % eOf:445 hDetwas , 2. Planning Committee Communication No. 664 se owe. t o.s Lopi p d.ea 0 ^'` Ake - 3. Puna CDP Action Committee Recommendation Letter hO°taS