COM 0369.001 2010-2012 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

Honorable Dominic Yagong, Council Chair Hawai`i County Council August 10, 2011 Page 2 Response: The action statement provided in Part"e" of Section 4.2.3 is to `provide express bus service for commuters from Pahoa to Hilo and Volcano to Hilo. " This exact same action is already expressed in Section 4.2.3b.3. The additional statement in Part"e"regarding "local bus and paratransit services feeding into selected stops in order to service broader areas"is not properly stated as an action although inclusion of this comment within the action statement clearly indicates such local bus and paratransit services are to be an integral part of the Action and is consistent with the goals and objectives stated in Section 4.2—Mass Transit. Therefore, we believe the added language to Section 4.2.3b.3 provided in Bill 101 is completely consistent with the original Actions of Section 4.2.3b and e regarding measures to improve transit service operations. 3. Pg. 13 relating to Section 2.4.3b of the Implementation Table: There was some question by the Planning Committee about adding "in the coastal zone"to the description of Action Item "b"in the Action Item description of the Implementation Table being limited to the coastal zone. Response: The added language provides clarification to the Action Item description in the Implementation table that is clearly consistent with the corresponding Action Item 2.4.3b in the narrative section of the PCDP, which reads as follows: "Retrieve and record information on trails and historic resources in the coastal zone, including the research of old survey and plat maps and various records of the Mahele, Land Commission and Royal Patents. " (Emphasis added) With regards to the observation that the Puna CDP, and this action does in particular, does not include any action to retrieve and record information on trails and historic resources in mountain or mauka areas of Puna, amending the PCDP to be more inclusive of areas outside the coastal zone would be substantive and should be submitted separately from Bill 101. 4. Pg. 14 relating to Section 3.1.3h of the Implementation Table: Members of the Planning Committee expressed concern that the proposed language change for this Action in the Implementation Table is a substantive change to what the PCDP currently says. Response: The revised language proposed in Bill 101 for the description of Action Item"h"in the Implementation Table is considered necessary to eliminate the possibility of confusing the narrative in the PCDP with the summary statement in the Table. The narrative statement is located for the corresponding Action Item on Page 3-7, Section 3.1.3h of the PCDP, and which states: "Propose reduction of property tax assessments and payments to token amounts for properties whose development right have been removed or significantly and