2008-05-08 TPUNAcdp - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

only 10 to 30 acres. That is smaller, 10 to 30 acres is smaller than what DOE considers for a high school. DOE requires 50 acres for a public high school right now. And the shopping centers you guys are calling for are going to be smaller than a high school. Anyway, fifth issue, major stakeholders should be added to the Steering Committee, and their input should be sought.You know, I know it has been talked about before. I wasn’t involved in the process. But if the selection criteria were used we’d like to see it. I would like to make, and I’ll write a letter, a 92F information request for the selection criteria, the selection score sheets and how the selections were done. We feel that it’s very, very questionable on how major landowners were excluded from the process. I’m sure there are others than can testify as to that issue. So we’ll be making that request. Number six, the Puna CDP should include a more detailed analysis of the issue of Important Agricultural Lands and the related incentives, and the new legislation passed on May 1, 2008, and also include any County efforts to establish laws, regulations and incentives to support the agricultural industry in Puna. Seven, incentives, private-public partnerships and the synergy between government, landowners, and community and land uses should be addressed. We believe that creative and meaningful incentives and private-public partnerships can encourage the successful implementation of the Puna CDP. Thus, we respectfully recommend that the County, Steering Committee, community and key stakeholders obtain more information on, and seriously discuss, the potential forms and types of incentives and public-private partnerships prior to adopting this Puna CDP. Again, just in closing, I’m not from here, I’m not from Puna, I’m not from the Big Island. But observing this process two things stick out, and I think you folks might hear it again and again. No. 1, what’s with the selection process for that Steering Committee? Why were no major landowners on it? I cannot say it’s fishy but it sure is very questionable. So I think that’s something that we really need to look into. The second issue is more of a legal issue; and that is the consistency with the Hawaii County General Plan. The General Plan talks about, and the General Plan is law, talks about the fact that the implementation of the, I guess, the works proposed in the community development plan must be consistent with the General Plan. That’s the law. This community development plan is not consistent with the General Plan. And, lastly, outside observer, outside observer observing this process, it seems like there’s a huge, huge rush to get this done before December. I don’t understand necessarily why, but it seems like everything that is being done in this process and recent law that was passed earlier this week is meant to tie the hands of people like the Planning Commission, not give you folks adequate time to review or enough time that you would need to review the plan and just rush things through before December. So I question what the rush is. I think there are a lot information out there that needs to be considered to make Puna the type of place that the residents want to live in. So, Mrs. Nakamura, is that okay? 15