Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-06-06 TPUNAcdp PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I MINUTES/HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 6, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN was called to order at 11:07 a.m. and at 4:12 p.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahia Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita C. Kimo Alameda Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Alvin Rho Shelly Ogata René Siracusa Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Staff Planner Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Larry Brown, Staff Planner And approximately 40 people at 11:07 a.m. and 28 people at 4:12 p.m. from the public in attendance PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Review of the draft Puna Community Development Plan submitted by the Puna Community Development Plan Steering Committee and its Consultant, PlanPacific, Inc. WATANABE: Today the third agenda item really is, the applicant is Canor Sumida. However, we do have a special request in place by the Kanaka Council. They have a prior engagement that is scheduled for 2 o’clock with the Sustainability that they need to attend, and I’ve already gotten permission from the representative of Mr. Sumida to allow seven of these individuals to testify for the Puna Community Development Plan. This is really a special condition, a special accommodation. So we’re going to ask everyone to cooperate in this. And I’ve already talked to Kale Gumapac and they’ve agreed that they will limit their testimony two minutes at the maximum. I understand some of them probably will take only 30 seconds. By the same token, I’d also like to ask the Commissioners for their cooperation in this; and this is really a time for the public to be heard, so it’s not a time for us to be deliberating about the Puna Community Development Plan. If you have questions so that you can fully understand the testifier’s EXHIBIT B 1 concerns, those would be legitimate questions to ask. But this is not a time to make your position statements on the Puna Community Development Plan. In addition, the Sumida’s have a number of testifiers that also have schedules, so when we’re done with the testifying from the Kanaka Council we’re going to have Jeff Darrow do the presentation on the Sumida application and allow the testifiers to then proceed with their testimony so that they can return to work. And, Sandra has graciously agreed to provide this additional time. Yes, Ms. -? SIRACUSA: I was wondering if the Kanaka Council will be leaving at least one of their members here so that afterwards, after we hear the Sumida application, if any of us do have questions we can hold them for that person. WATANABE: No, they’re going to be in attendance at the meeting. You would ask your questions now when they testify. SIRACUSA: I’m seeing one, a finger go up that they will leave someone here to answer. WATANABE: Okay. SIRACUSA: So then we don’t have to ask questions ahead of time and we can shorten the process and move it along. WATANABE: Okay. Now the other thing is today we just received some additional material from Sandra Song regarding the Sumida deal. So what we’re planning to do is break for lunch at 12:30, yeah, we’ll take these testimonies, break for lunch at 12:30, probably reconvene at about 1:45 in the afternoon to address the Sumida issue, once all the testimonies have been gotten out of the way, yeah. And that hopefully will provide us with some time to review the material that we just received today, yeah, and also have lunch. Cause it’s going to be a long day. So we’re going to ask everyone, Commissioners included, for your cooperation, yeah, so that we move this along. So with that, again, this is the Kanaka Council. And may I call up the first four which would be Kale Gumapac, Nohea Crutcher, Jim Medeiros, and Jeffrey Delaney. Would you all raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Kale, shall we begin with you. So name and address please, and then you may begin your testimony. GUMAPAC: My name is Kale Gumapac with the Kanaka Council; and I live in Paradise Park, HCR 2, Box 9607, Keaau 96749. Mahalo, Mr. Chair and Planning Commissioners, for allowing us to come before you and to give testimony on the Puna CDP. And this is in response to the last Planning Commission meeting that I attended in EXHIBIT B 2 Kona in order to provide an amendment to the Puna CDP. First off, the Kanaka Council supports the Puna CDP in form, and that we would like to add to the Puna CDP an amendment that I think is being passed to you, that the Kanaka Council met and put together this amendment so that we could try, well, in the Puna CDP it refers a lot to Hawaiian Resources, the culture, the tradition, the customs. And at that time what I testified to was that the Hawaiian or the Kanaka presence was missing from the Puna CDP. And so we put together this proposal, this amendment that states and provides in the opening paragraph, it lays the foundation. It provides all of the constitution laws, the Supreme Court decisions, the HRS Statutes that provides for the Kanaka to be inclusive in all of these decisions, especially with some of the Supreme Court cases that came before us with Palikapu Dedman, with Wao Kele O Puna, and the access and the protection of the resources, and with Kohana‘iki that was won by Angel Pilago, as well as the Ka Pa‘akai case, and also with Jimmy Medeiros in his law suit that he brought on with Hokulia. And so we laid the foundation in this amendment to make sure that this gives us our right to have the input, and also gives the direction into the protection of the cultural resources from mauka to makai as well as all of the traditions and customs. And you will see in this amendment all of the things that we have put forth; and we made it to form to fit into the Puna CDP. And so I look forward to your approval of this amendment. Mahalo. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Kale? No? Okay, then, thank you, Kale. Nohea? CRUTCHER: Hi. My name is Luela Nohea Chang Crutcher. I’m a resident of the Wa‘awa‘a area. WATANABE: Could you speak into the mike, Ma’am. CRUTCHER: My name is Lela Nohea Chang Crutcher. I’m a resident of Wa‘awa‘a and my post office box is 928 in Pahoa. I support the recommendation that this amendment be added, the reason being that I think it adds more clarity to what has already been stated in a very well written CDP. The accountability to me is very important. What I see missing in government today is accountability. Things get done, areas get graded out; and this adds some accountability. It’s asking for a Commission. It’s asking for a Commission. And I support that the Commission be put in place so that there is some accountability that things get protected. It’s nice to state that we want protection, but we want to see accountability regarding that protection. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. It doesn’t seem like anyone has any questions, so -. Your name was Jeff? DELANEY: Yes, Jeff. WATANABE: Yes, right. Name and address, please. EXHIBIT B 3 DELANEY: My name is Jeffrey John Delaney and I’m a resident of Pahoa, Hawaii. And I’d just like to say that I support the Puna Community Development Plan in its entirety as is, and I also support the intent of the Kanaka Council amendment. And I would also like to mention that I would also support seeing the plan pass as an ordinance, not as a resolution. Once again, I’m just here to show my support for the plan and for the amendment. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Medeiros. MEDEIROS: Aloha, Mr. Chairman and ladies and gentlemen of the Commission. Thank you. Thank you to the Sumidas who gave us this time. You want name and address? WATANABE: Yes, please. MEDEIROS: Jim Medeiros, Sr., Honaunau, PO Box 166, 96726. I’m here in support of the Puna Community Development Plan in its entirety; and I’m here to ask for your support in the amendment brought forward by us, because I know many of you through litigating many of these issues. And we’re coming forward right now, the Hawaiians are coming forward to participate in the government and participating on these issues that keep coming up that we keep end up litigating. And in the litigating stage as Ivan knows we always tie ‘em, the community gets divided, everything suffers from the economy all the way down to the Hawaiians and to the endangered things on the lands, whether it be plants, animals, sites. So supporting this amendment will help, I totally believe it will help stop a lot of the issues that’s going to keep coming up. If we don’t do something we’re going to keep on going the same route; and that’s eating all of us up, the County government and us, too, the people and the Hawaiians. So please take a good look at this amendment, support this amendment, so we can move forward together. Cause we’re the best who know our culture, we’re the best who know what’s going to get impacted, and we’re already quite up to speed on all the legal pieces of all this puzzle. So now if we could get involved I think we’ll save all of us a lot of time, and we can do a lot of good for our communities. WATANABE: Okay, thank you, Mr. Medeiros. Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Medeiros, so I take it that you will also try to include this amendment in the Kona CDP? MEDEIROS: Yes, I think we need it all around. We need to be like continuity right around this island on the cultural issues and how we work together. I think this is really good for our island. DOMINGO: Okay. Kale, Mr. Gumapac, what I gather is that all the resolvents [sic], all the statements and policies made in the past in favor with regard to the Hawaiian culture and their practices, and all of that, would be a reference in the Puna Development EXHIBIT B 4 Plan so that it will be a basis upon which you folks can, well, effectuate and amplify your needs and your demands in the public. Is that what it will do? GUMAPAC: Well, the amendment that you have before you is structured so that the resources that are there from mauka to makai, because the Kanaka Council is made up of all of the different organizations throughout the island. It’s not just over in Puna. Jimmy is from Kona. We have representatives from Kohala; and we also have Palikapu down in Ka‘u. And so we’re bringing all points of the island to the Kanaka Council. And so the Kanaka Council has been involved for the last two plus years in involving ourselves in the protection of the resources from mauka to makai. And so when we saw this Puna CDP program, we said this is perfect because now we would be able to have a say in protection of that prior to any kind of, like Jimmy said, having to litigate. Because we have litigated, we’re still in litigation on some of the issues now. And so rather than doing that, wouldn’t it be better for us to be in this process so that we can make sure that our resources and culture are protected? And meeting with the people up at Volcano Community Association last week, they kako‘o the Kanaka Council’s input; and they were very, very glad to see the Kanaka coming out and stepping up and taking this position. DOMINGO: One question. During the course of the review and the formulation of the Community Development Plan have you folks really participated and let your feelings be known to the entire community? GUMAPAC: At the outset, at the very outset of the CDP process, we gave our mana‘o in that first couple of meetings. And so from that point we felt that all of our feelings for the Kanaka and for the Hawaiians were going to be taken up. And from what happened in the Puna CDP, it has, because they’re really, really looking at the resources and the traditions and protecting the iwi and the inadvertent finds on the burial caves and so forth. And so they looked at and considered that all in the Puna CDP. And the only thing like I said that was missing was to be able to, who’s going to oversee that. Because in talking with some of the members they said that some of the issues that they had, especially in the pin-to-pin grading, okay, that was a big issue; and so they, because they weren’t sure how that was going to be enforced, you know, they decided maybe they might pull some of the sections out of this thing. And then when I brought our portion in -- of which this is our culture and we’re going to protect our forest, we’re going to protect all of the resources that are out there according to the laws and according to all of the Supreme Court cases that we won -- including what’s protected under the Sate Constitution under XII, Section 7, when I presented that to them that put a different light as to how much more enforceable this Puna CDP can be. And this is the direction that we’re coming into from the Kanaka Council. And we believe that we got standing. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Very brief, I want to thank the Kanaka Council, you know, for coming forward and offering to help us with the implementation. It’s quite obvious that there are a lot of good points made in the plan about the protection of the cultural EXHIBIT B 5 resources and we did not have an implementation committee for that particular thing. And thank you for stepping up to the bat and offering your energies to put into that. And I am hoping that one of you will stay behind afterwards so if anyone has questions we can ask them. GUMAPAC: Mahalo. WATANABE: Okay. Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Just a, I too appreciate your mana‘o and your concern. The Council is made up of, in all districts? I mean how does one become a member? Maybe if we could have more background information on the Council -- I’m just concerned that all the districts are represented, I mean, if this is part of all the CDPs. And I’m not doubting your concern, I’m just trying to see, you know, that it be representative of all our people. Thank you. GUMAPAC: Well, the Kanaka Council has held meetings in Hilo, Ka‘u, Kona, and Waimea. And when we go into those areas we let people know that the Kanaka Council is there and if they have any kind of issues, if they need any help from the Kanaka Council that they come to the Kanaka Council. And we’ve been able to step up and help them. And, in addition, to that, just the mere fact that you come to the meeting you’re part of the Kanaka Council. You know, we welcome everybody and we welcome everybody’s mana‘o on their stuff. And this is why we’ve been able to be so effective, is because we have been out in the community. And people are stepping up and telling us what is happening in Miloli‘i, they’re telling us what’s happening in Honaunau, Honomalino, what’s going on right here in Hilo with the koa forest harvesting, and also what’s going on in Hamakua. And so when we find those things out as the illegal buoys that took place from Kona down to Ka‘u, we’re finding out all these things, and so now we’re starting to intervene; and we’ve been very effective, very effective. So the community at large is welcome, we welcome everybody to the Kanaka Council and their mana‘o. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. It doesn’t seem like we have additional questions. Thank you for your cooperation. You guys were concise. GUMAPAC: Mahalo. WATANABE: Thank you. So let me call up, and I lied earlier. I said seven testifiers but I guess we have eight, actually. Let me call up the last four. Palikapu Dedman, Sara Gilmore, Noe Kamahele and T. Carlson. T. Carlson, Sara, oh, it looks like Sara is coming up. Noe Kamahele? KAMAHELE: Here I am. PUBLIC: Sara had to leave. EXHIBIT B 6 WATANABE: Oh, Sara had to leave. Okay. Let’s see. Would you all raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Thank you. And I had a request that Palikapu be last, so why don’t we start with Mr. Carlson. CARLSON: My name is T. Carlson. SIRACUSA: Use the mike, please. CARLSON: My name is T. Carlson. I live in Wa‘awa‘a. I live at 14-3720 Government Beach Road. And I’m here, to keep it very brief, I’m here to support approval of this amendment to the Puna CDP which I also support. I would like to see it passed as an ordinance rather than a resolution; and I would also like the Puna CDP to be considered prior to the other CDPs. WATANABE: Is that it? CARLSON: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions? It doesn’t seem like it. Thank you. KAMAHELE: Aloha. My name is Noelani Kamahele. I live Opihikao, Puna. I support the CDP with its amendments because we all need our resources, my kids need it. That’s it. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes. DEDMAN: Palikapu Dedman from Ka‘u, Wailau. I have my coffee farm there. I’m surprised that this wasn’t part of policy from the very beginning, looking out for native rights. Our Planning Director knows all about native rights and how it should have been part of policy, that you really could not do any planning without concerns of the Hawaiians. You have Corporate Counsel, I didn’t see them give any input about how policies and plans should be made. You folks sit around and address EIS that’s being reviewed by the Planning Commission, so you do have a responsibility and you do have an obligation to look at native people’s rights and our uses of traditional things. The resources in Hawai‘i belongs to traditional practice. You deplete the resource, you stop practice. How come it’s not policy? And it should always have been policy. I’m disappointed that I have to come at this time after over 20 something years, some of you folks know, that we were raising these issues way back then. And never was it part of policy. Why is it that you pick State to take over certain things that you don’t want to address and the County address certain things? EXHIBIT B 7 I heard Mr. Domingo talk about, worrying about zoning of people’s property. Did you worry about that when geothermal subzones came? Never said a word. These people bought their property for ag lots and then it turned to geothermal subzones by the State, nothing by the County. So I’m saying that if this is going to be a precedent setting of all community development plans, Hawaiians and these issues should be a policy that’s inside of a requirement to all your community plans on this island. Let’s be more strong about home rule and where we live, and our responsibility to the resources that we’re from this island and still part of this island before Statehood in 1959. What were you before 1959? The trees were still here, the resources were still here, the Hawaiians were still here. So it should always be looked at and be policy for you to address the concerns of Hawaiians. And it’s said that we have this Commission appointed by the Mayor. How come he’s not here giving a report card on how well you perform and how bad you perform, and get rid of some of you not doing the proper job.I never elected you to be in this position. But you’re looking out for my future and neglecting me as a Hawaiian in that process? I think you’re wrong. And I’m here to tell you you’re wrong. And it’s said that the Director of Planning and your Corporate Counsel is not on top of these things. So that when I sit here I would listen to how you plan your plans, addressing what’s in it. Should not be me have to come from work to come here and address you people who I pay as my taxes and probably as a Hawaiian was taxed way before you immigrant persons came and took my land before that and still being neglected today -. Now enough already of this crap you guys pull; and always remember you live in Hawaii, get Hawaiian people, and this is where I come from. Remember those people. So always think about planning with them in mind, especially the protection. That’s what I’m saying. What, ready for lunch, Chris? That’s all you worry about, is food? WATANABE: Well, we’re providing you with the opportunity to speak, yeah? And, you know, we’re trying to respect your rights also. Maybe you should provide equal respect, yeah? DEDMAN: Hey, I don’t, bruddah, you in the position to do that automatic. You no need wait for me to come tell you. Where you live? Guam? This is Hawai'i man. A Hawaiian does not have to come and tell you how to think Hawaiian. WATANABE: Very well -. Okay, is that the end of your testimony? DEDMAN: That’s the end of my testimony. I hope you folks take it in, that I’m pretty serious about what I’m saying. You know, it’s really racist how you guys treat the Hawaiian people. Stop it already. WATANABE: Okay? Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I want to thank you for bringing up the geothermal resource subzones because that’s an issue that’s very close to my heart. Because I’m one of the people who was forcibly put into a subzone, and I’ve been trying ever since to get out of it. EXHIBIT B 8 DEDMAN: Well, I’m a Hawaiian and they’ve been zoning my beaches and my property, rezone, rezone, resort zone. I mean, what else? I mean you can make your face because you’re not Hawaiian. You’ve got nothing to worry about. Just continue ripping us all. So you’re pretty happy. But I’m here to tell you that I know you’re ripping us off, okay? So look as disgusted as you like, I’m not impressed. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. It’s noted on the record. Well, with that, now I did indicate that we’d move back to Agenda Item No. 3. Agenda Item No. 3 is Carnor J. Sumida, Special Permit Application SPP 08-000053. At this time, 11:34 a.m., the Commission took up the application of Carnor J. Sumida, Special Permit Application SPP 08-000053. At 4:12 p.m., the Commission again took up the subject application. WATANABE: Will the Planning Commission meeting come back in to order, please. We are on Agenda Item No. 4 which apparently a lot of you have been patiently awaiting for us to address; and that would be the Puna Community Development Plan. This Plan had its first reading in Kea‘au last month, I believe it was, and we had a subsequent reading of it in Kona; and so this is the last time we will be addressing it. And what we’re supposed to do is send it up to the Council with a decision. But before I do I think I’d want to have Mr. Torigoe explain to you what the rules are on this CDP as far as approval and if we can’t reach a decision or whatever. Yeah, so with that, you know, can I have you -. TORIGOE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Basically you’re looking at the recently enacted Section 2-28(a) of the Hawaii County Code. If the Commission is unable to act on getting a recommendation by five votes, such inaction shall be considered as an unfavorable recommendation by the Planning Commission. And the plan draft then gets sent to the County Council with that default unfavorable recommendation. WATANABE: Thank you, thank you. Now I do have a list here of a number of people who had signed up to testify. But that list is much shorter than the amount of people that are in attendance now. And I recognize some of the faces that had testified previously when we had this in Kea‘au. But as a reminder to the public if any of you wish to testify then you do need to sign up on the sheet with Sharon there, yeah. Okay, and with that maybe what we can do is call up Larry Brown. And would that be Mr. Whalen also, no? BROWN: Jon Olson. WATANABE: Jon Olson, yeah. And I thought Mr. Whalen was going to -. Just you and Mr. Olson are here -? EXHIBIT B 9 BROWN: Correct. WATANABE: To do the presenting? BROWN: Well, there won’t be any formal presentation from the Department or the Steering Committee at this hearing. We’re here to answer any questions by the Commissioners or provide any clarification that we can on what the plan does or does not say. So we want to make all the time available for the public that want to provide testimony to do so, and for the Commissioners to go ahead and go into their deliberations. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. So since there’s no formal presentation, do the Commissioners have anything they’d like to clear up with Mr. Brown or Mr. Olson? Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I guess I might as well get started. I was a little bit, I just found it interesting, you know, when we had the Chairperson come up from the Committee and then we had the question on the Paradise Park, you know, and kind of your guys’ thoughts on that. And I was just, you know, I was a little bit disappointed that somehow the whole Community Development Plan didn’t consider that area as Light Industrial. I mean we just never had an answer. And kind of like, like all the work that was being done, has been done previously, you know, like say, again, Hawaiian Paradise Park they came up with a plan; they said that, hey, that area could be Light Industrial -. And so I thought guarantee you guys would say, oh, yeah, you know, we endorse that plan that must have taken a lot of time, and so if they said that’s what they like, that’s good with us. But you guys never really took a position on that. So now I’m little bit concerned that, well, what about all the other plans. You know, you guys, I mean that’s hard work went into those little plans. So you guys considering them, or you’re not considering them, or what’s up? BROWN: Actually it was considered by the Planning Consultant, John Whalen with PlanPacific, as were all of the other subdivisions’ plans, like the Volcano 2020 Plan. And, I did consult with John on this after, especially in light of the special permit coming up, and he did reaffirm or reconfirm with me that he did consider the Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan as it had been revised in 2005, and he concluded that Light Industrial uses in that area would not necessarily be very compatible with the existing and future residential development that’s going on there - and that some Light Industrial Uses would be consistent or compatible with the Village Center Concept, but not all of the ones that are listed in the list of permitted uses in the Zoning Code for the Light Industrial Zoning designation. So, and it would really be up to the master planning effort for a particular, especially the regional town centers - the three big ones, for those communities to decide which of the Light Industrial uses would be compatible with their village center - and that the general, or the Light Industrial uses under the Zoning Code would be more suitable for Kea‘au in the Light Industrial or General Industrial zoning designations that are already in existence there or may be rezoned that way, as well as in EXHIBIT B 10 Pahoa where there is anticipated to be some areas of Pahoa that might be designated for at least Light Industrial zoning. OLSON: If I could add that, you know, we also saw, as the Steering Committee, we also saw those maps; and, you know, we chose to focus on going forward as opposed to trying to unwind, you know, the failure of not having an earlier planning process accepted. In other words, you’re in the point of the dog chasing its tail, as you just found out, you know. You just went through three hours of trying to unscramble this gunshot process of trying to provide infrastructure where no infrastructure was ever intended to be put. In other words, the people who laid out the subdivision made no accommodation for any of the infrastructure that would be required for the subdivision to actually exist. So we could have, we all agreed that we could have spent a lot of time trying to unscramble that and how productive would it be. You know, we had bigger fish to fry. WATANABE: Okay. So then based on what you’ve just described all those are in rd excess of 4 miles from the present location, 33 Avenue, am I correct? OLSON: No. No, the town center which we identified in the plan is basically, more or less, central to the subdivision. And Light Industrial would be -. WATANABE: Oh, you’re talking about the Watamull and the 40 acres there? OLSON: Yeah. WATANABE: Yeah, the one that they testified to, it’s three miles down the road with no water and no road? OLSON: Well, actually the one on Paradise does have, the town center does have water. There is a waterline that goes down Paradise.It doesn’t go, I think, quite far enough, but it is -. BROWN: I’m going to have to stop you, Jon. OLSON: Go ahead. BROWN: Actually the regional town center for Hawaiian Paradise Park is thth proposed to be down Kaloli Drive between 25 and 27. There are two 40-acre parcels. One owned by the Hawaiian Paradise Park Association, and the other one is owned by the Watamull Investment LLC, I think that’s what their official name is. And there would need to be water brought down to that site. There’s no County water down to there at this time. The Industrial designated node further down Kaloli is down in the vicinity of the existing J&J Self Storage Facility. I thought that was actually allowed by Special Permit. Right? Chris confirms. EXHIBIT B 11 WATANABE: Okay, thank you. So do we have any further questions of the presenters? No? I think the three hours wore us out. SIRACUSA: Just one question. WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Sorry. We’ve gotten an assortment of comments, some of which asked us to go back to the drawing board and use the Kona Plan as a model, some of which asked us to only pass this as a resolution instead of an ordinance, and some of which asked us to rewrite the whole thing; and I would like to hear your comments on those. BROWN: I’ll start. I’ve heard the same thing, obviously, and from my perspective the Puna conditions and the Kona conditions are very different. We have similar problems but the existing situation is the elephant in the room for Puna. As we’ve all heard many times is we have over 50,000 plus building sites in the district already with no planned infrastructure, no water, very limited public roadway system - almost all of the roads are private. As has been said a number of times before, most of the lots in Puna were really never intended to be built and lived on. They were intended to just be sold and resold over and over and over again. But as we’re finding out now, more and more people are finding that for one reason or another that’s a good place to live, or what they can afford, you know, to go build on and to live there; and some of us really like it. Kona is in a situation where they can do a more detailed planning effort based on their transient-oriented districts or developments. These pods are on a mid-level corridor that they’ve identified; and they can do that in coordination with future subdivisions in that district, and they have the room to do that. In Puna, Hawaiian Paradise Park covers from Highway 130 all the way to the sea. So, and if you go mauka of there you’d have the other subdivisions. And, so how do you get any alternate roadway to Highway 130 to service the people of, especially in Puna Makai, you know, the lower Puna area? So we have a very different situation there. And within the context of the CDP it didn’t seem quite practical to try to go, do the level of detailed planning necessary for each one of the village or town centers that is being criticized. And we didn’t do that, as it is that is being done in Kona. I agree with some of the critics of that failure in the plan to do that, that that needs to be done at those local community levels; and that is what the plan needs to probably say more clearly. But that is the intention in the plan, is that there will be these local planning efforts to do a master plan for Pahoa town, for Kea‘au town, and for Hawaiian Paradise Park. The other subdivision village centers or neighborhood centers may not need extensive community planning efforts like the big ones. They may just need to agree and make it possible to happen on a certain piece of land and adopt a zoning designation that’s appropriate for their particular village center or neighborhood center. SIRACUSA: Mr. Chairman? EXHIBIT B 12 WATANABE: Yes, Ms Siracusa. SIRACUSA: When you said that this, maybe it should have been spelled out more clearly in the plan. Would it be found in the working group papers then? BROWN: That’s exactly right. And the plan does make reference. There is a sentence or two in there that says in the lack of clarity or understanding as to what the plan’s intent is, is to refer you directly to the working papers. I personally have come to realize that maybe I was a little bit too close to the development of this thing; and the areas of confusion that a lot of people are experiencing with this didn’t hit me until we started going through this adoption process.And we are working with the consultant to maybe provide some clarification language that will be actually forwarded on to the County Council because they’re the ones that -. It’s too late to get it to you folks here, but we’re going to get something to them that will enhance the intent and clarify exactly what the plan is calling for. I mean -. OLSON: I’d like to address your question as to whether this should be adopted by ordinance or by resolution. SIRACUSA: Before you do, could I just address the last comment that Larry made, if you don’t mind. OLSON: Certainly. WATANABE: Okay. SIRACUSA: And that is if our recommendation to the Council included asking that the working group papers be included as an appendix for the purposes of information, establishing intent and establishing guidance on how to interpret it, would you feel that that would do the job of making those clear? BROWN: The plan already says it. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Olson? Go ahead. OLSON: Okay. I mean, the short answer is that if it is only adopted by resolution then you’re going to go on here at the Planning Commission with these special use permits trying to fix Puna one acre at a time. That’s what’s going to happen. Because a resolution will not have the force of law, and they will just continue to inundate you with the special use permits; and there will be no oversight, I mean, you know, I’m amazed at the time you people put in already. I mean, and this is just -. I mean that was one acre. So we’re going to have to do something. We’re going to have to grab on somewhere and start the process and, get out there. Believe me we struggled greatly with, you know, what to put in and what to leave out, the things that we felt needed to be addressed before other things.And those are the kinds of decisions that we made and you’ll see in the document. There’s much, much more to it. EXHIBIT B 13 WATANABE: Correction. We struggled with it not because it was one acre. OLSON: No, we struggled with it. WATANABE: Yeah. You indicated we struggled with it for three hours and that was only one acre. We struggled with it because we were looking for something that was hopefully a little more permanent. Right? OLSON: Yeah, yes. WATANABE: And, you know, I think too Mr. Alameda’s pointed out we had hoped that the CDP would have provided some of that cause it’s clear from the record that that community in particular wanted it there, yeah. So we didn’t struggle over it for just one acre. We struggled with it because repeatedly we talked about the four or five more special permits that will be coming up very shortly and what would we do and how could we be consistent in the future. It wasn’t just trying to solve for this one acre here. OLSON: No, I’m appreciative of that. And it is, I mean, you’re attempting to provide needed services within a subdivision, you know, that is in desperate need of them. And, you know, your decision was not a bad one. I mean, from my perspective and I would have gone the way you’ve gone. But to further expand it at this point, but you’re going to end up having, as the discussion here stated, you’re going to have to expand it because you’ve started down that track. But we focused on what’s going to happen further on down the line. I mean we could go through this process in every subdivision looking at every single one of these special use permits and try to figure out some way to bring that into conformity with the broader plan; and we would be at that forever. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I’m going to put the table before you folks. This morning there was a proposed amendment that it be included in the Community Development Plan. What are your feelings? OLSON: About the Kanaka Council? DOMINGO: Yes. OLSON: My feeling is somebody has got to do it. And to the point that this group clearly has the legal standing -- I mean, the Courts have recognized their legal right to represent the indigenous population here and their cultural practices -- I’m very comfortable with it. I mean that’s not a decision of the committee but that’s my personal view. DOMINGO: Your personal view. EXHIBIT B 14 OLSON: Yeah, that -. I mean we haven’t met over this, obviously. But, I mean, if you’re asking me personally what I think, these are the appropriate people to deal with these issues. DOMINGO: I’m glad you feel that way; and I think it’s due time that they’re given the recognition. Every year in every instance I can recall, and every time that we look around we witness these people striving and trying hard to obtain the recognition and the rights that they desire. They want it to be heard; and you know, to that effect even in our schools today there are programs which teach, and hopefully the kids would emulate, what is Hawaiian. And I’ve witnessed that this past week at the Honoka‘a School at the Ho‘olaulea. You know, the school has in itself hired a young man to teach every grade school student some Hawaiian, whether it be performance, or by word and by action; and they’ve done that. And when we discussed, I was at the meeting when we discussed the consolidation and the proposed study to consider closing schools, this young man came forward and just told us how important it is that we consider these things. And what he was talking about was, you know, the ability for young children to learn of these things and that they’re an umbilical chord that goes out to the community and strengthens the community, and even at the maturity. And that’s why I think -. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: That should be considered by this plan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I know. But one more comment, and I think that should be emphasized also in the General Plan in the future when it is considered for amendment. BROWN: I agree. I’d just like to add that it has been our contention from the beginning of this that communities are going to need to take a very active role in implementing all of the CDPs in the County of Hawai'i, and in Puna probably more so than all of the others because the Puna community has had to be self reliant for so many years now. And to have the Kanaka Council step forward and be willing to accept responsibility for this action in the Puna CDP I find to be an easy win that we can just about chalk up, you know, on the action table.And as one who anticipates working as the Planning Department’s liaison to the community in implementing this plan in the years to come, I look forward to working with them. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I’d like to remind the Commissioners that any position statements are what we go after during deliberations, yeah. And, you know, at our first meeting, I think most of you were there, we spent four hours taking testimony, only testimony, not deliberating at all. And so, you know, I’m hoping that we can make this a little more concise than that, because we do want to afford some time for position statements when we do finally deliberate, yeah. So if we can keep that in mind, I think that would be real good. It looks like you have a question, Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: Yes, I do. Your regional centers, I’m just curious and maybe this was answered before and I apologize for it -. So you have this floating district and all EXHIBIT B 15 uses are, according to your plan, kind of going to be included in this, I mean, commercial, industrial, in these regional centers? BROWN: That was the intent, yeah. BOWMAN: Do the working committees look at the area and what may be needed? So those are in those working group papers? BROWN: Group papers. BOWMAN: I mean in light of our last permit, you know, and I’m looking at what industrial zoning allows, I’m just a little concern with floating, you know. I know it wouldn’t happen but having a yoga studio next to the trucking guys that are leaving -. BROWN: Yeah. BOWMAN: So, okay. BROWN: Well, perhaps the use of the term floating zone is, it might not have been the wisest way to try to describe how this process is supposed to occur. BOWMAN: I never let my kids float, you know. It’s like -. BROWN: Yeah. BOWMAN: So, thank you. BROWN: And that has created some confusion and -. But the idea was, is that a zoning designation would be created for each of the three different types of, or at least the regional town center, okay, designation. And then at a later date once that starts to try to happen on the ground and you bring all the stakeholders involved, whether they be the individual lot owners of that project area, the subdivision, the homeowners association, the developer, all of these kinds of stakeholders get involved, then you define what area of land you’re going to apply that zoning designation to. And that’s where the term floating zone apparently comes from. We found out that we may not necessarily need to quite do it that way because it really all happens within the context of a master planning effort, primarily like I said before the regional town centers, the three big ones. WATANABE: Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: May I, quick question because I’m not familiar with these big subdivisions. So if I was a landowner in this regional area my land would be worth more, right? BROWN: That’s the idea. The creation of a commercial center in Hawaiian Paradise Park where you’re going to be asking people who have their nice one-acre lot EXHIBIT B 16 and they’ve got their house and blah, blah, blah, in to say, well, do you want to be part of this commercial development? But it’s not just commercial. It includes things like some light industrial uses perhaps, maybe like auto repair. It also includes some high density mixed use, residential development, a lot of community facilities whether it be a park, a school, a community building, you know, a gathering place, town square type, smart growth, that’s the whole concept that’s going on there. It’s doing, you would play on the individual lot owners’ economic motivation to participate because their land values would increase. BOWMAN: And this is feasible? BROWN: It has been done before. And we had a consultant come out from Florida who actually presented this whole concept of land pooling and how to create these kinds of developments; and he has done it before. It has been done in Florida. For example, another Sate where we had large scale subdivision of, you know, land out in the middle of nowhere, virtually, that was just creating lots for a commodity to sell and resell, but nobody ever figured they’d live there, but then people started to develop some of these areas. So there’s still more research we need to do and that the community when they come to do their master plan would have to decide on what tools are going to be most effective for the creation of the center, say, in Hawaiian Paradise Park, for example. In Pahoa or in Kea‘au, you wouldn’t necessarily need to use the same techniques at all. Because they really have a commercial center already, you’d just want to create a plan for, so that the development of those areas is done in a systematic planned way rather that haphazard strip mall development all over the place. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. rd WATANABE: Okay. So building on that then and referring back to 33 Avenue, if they wanted, theoretically based on the logic that you just presented, the values there should increase. And so they should all be jumping to create a Light Industrial area there, right? rd BROWN: I can see the lot owners on 33 might see an increase on their nd property values. The guy on 32 might have just the exact opposite effect. WATANABE: I guess where I’m struggling with that is we have designated certain areas, intersections within Pahoa, Kea‘au, etc., as places that we identified as we would be open to more commercial developments, specific intersections, and that has not occurred. And that’s why we still have the issue of not enough commerce there that you and Ms. Naeole have been complaining about, and I think it’s largely because the land is individually owned. And so everyone wants to exercise their own dream on that particular parcel, and I think that’s where the problem lies, yeah. OLSON: You hit it right on the head. I mean unlike planning in Kona where you are bringing about new subdivisions usually adjacent to other subdivisions, your EXHIBIT B 17 discussion at the Kona meeting was about access to roads or the need to create new roads for a subdivision of land that had not been subdivided. In Puna we have these 55,000 lots, half of which are small lot subdivisions, one acre or less; and they exist and they made no accommodations for services. Hawaiian Paradise Park some day 27,000, 30,000 people are going to live on those almost 9,000 lots at least; and there’s not a place for a gas station, a supermarket, an auto repair store, a hardware store, nothing. There was no planning that went into this at all. And now we’re having to fix it and the process creates winners and losers, which is always a bad thing. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have any further questions for the -? BOWMAN: I just -. WATANABE: Yes. BOWMAN: I just have a comment. You said no planning at all. But, again, going back to some of these community associations that put a lot of time and energy into planning, I think that they address some of the issues, not all. But -. OLSON: I mean, again, and that takes us back to this business of whether this should be done by resolution or by ordinance. The Paradise Park Plan was adopted by resolution, well, the revision was not. But, I mean, the original plan was adopted by resolution. But, I mean, how much consideration has any of the previous planning commissions given to that in handing out these special permits? Because it didn’t carry the force of law and it was substantially ignored by previous Planning Commissions and previous Administrations. So, yeah, they made the effort but the effort was ignored. And the same thing will happen if we don’t get a document that is adopted by ordinance. WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: You know with respect to that Light Industrial use, and we’re looking at the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association, I don’t think their plan was totally ignored. With respect to that special permit, Jon, you noticed that there is a cluster of special permits in one particular area, and that only happened because of the plan that Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association came up with. So, you know, it’s something that has some impact upon the decision that the Commission had made. OLSON: But we also have a larger number of special permits scattered throughout Puna and all of the subdivisions for all kinds of activities which creates a helter-skelter, no planned whatsoever, way of spot zoning the particular uses, you know. The special permit restricts it to that one activity, and it’s not a very good way to have a community grow and try to develop. DOMINGO: But you agree that because of that plan there has not been a helter- skelter of special permits being awarded to individuals around and throughout the EXHIBIT B 18 Hawaiian Paradise Park, and you noticed that it’s only concentrated in that particular area, would you? OLSON: In recent time. BROWN: I don’t believe that was a result of the Hawaiian Paradise Park Master Plan because most of those special permits were issued before that designation was even made by the Hawaiian Paradise Park Association in their master plan revision in 2005. DOMINGO: Okay. Then if not the Hawaiian Paradise Park Owners Association then the Planning Department had made that decision, followed up by the Commission’s action. And that’s the only reason I can look at -. WATANABE: Well, I might add to that. It hasn’t always occurred the way we’d like it to and certainly special permits are not the route to go in general. On the other hand we have turned down some subdivisions that even the community wanted, such as the Yamada Subdivision because it wasn’t in one of these planned commercial nodes. And that was not a reflection of how we felt that project would be developed. In fact, it was actually against the community’s wishes. Many people came out to testify in favor of it cause they wanted a store somewhere near there. So, you know, maybe, that’s a little broad statement when you’re saying that with no regard for any planning. With that, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. Just for Commissioner Bowman’s information, by the time that Hawaiian Paradise Park did their original master plan it was many years after the development of the subdivision itself. So when Jon was talking on, or it was Larry, about they had to get a plan, for a long time there wasn’t any plan at all. The Watamull family which was the developer had established certain parcels, but they had never done anything to make implementation of those designations possible so, as we know about the waterline and, you know, utility services to those parcels. So those parcels sit there, a potential for the kind of village center things that we’re talking about but the infrastructure isn’t there. And the Watamulls haven’t seen any need to work with the community or anyone else, even, you know, developers who have approached them to make that happen; and no one can force them to do it. So that when the Paradise Park finally did make their plan they were limited in what they could do because of the way the subdivision had come down in the first place. I just wanted to clarify that for you. WATANABE: Okay. Can we get on to the testimony then? WOODWARD: Please. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Let’s see. I’m going to now call these people up as they’re signed up. I have Bill Walter, Pamela Sullivan, Zendo Kern and Robin Stetson. Would you all raise your right hand, please. And do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? EXHIBIT B 19 TESTIFIERS: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. And I guess we can begin with you, sir. We would need your name and address prior to your testimony and -. WALTER: My name is Bill Walter. I live in Kea‘au, Hawaii. I want to thank you again for the opportunity to meet with you and address you. At the last time I met with you I was requested to submit some suggested changes to or amendments to the plan. I’ve done that; and I think you have that before you. So I’d like not to go over that. I’m pleased to have the opportunity to have given it to you. Our overarching concerns continue, and that is the broader community in general was not at the, seated at the steering committee table where the decisions were made. That’s important because as you’ve heard today, and it was a little bit between the lines, the working groups worked very hard, and we were on the working groups. People told us to just cut out of the process once we were told we could not be on the steering committee. Well, we said, no, we’re not going to do that, that’s not responsible, and that’s not being part of the community. So we worked hard on the working groups. The working groups’ reports were completed in February of ’07. John Whalen the consultant from Oahu then worked on those and submitted them directly to the Steering Committee. He made very substantial changes to those working group reports; and at that point you can in many respects say that the community’s input and the depth and the quality of the discussions that occurred and the energy that was there was lost. And that’s a shame. And you heard people who were angry that they weren’t included in the Steering Committee from the very beginning. I think that many of us who worked on the working groups and felt that our input was lost have similar feelings. But in any case the problem is that this is the most culturally diverse district on the island of Hawai'i , and probably in the State, and it needed a well rounded and well represented Steering Committee which ultimately is where the decisions were made. This process had the ability to either bring together our community or to divide it. And the implementation of this and many of the regulations are going to tell us, you know, which ones occurred. The second issue is that we really needed more data. The Department of Transportation now projects that Puna will grow to a population of 86,000 persons by 2025. That is more than a doubling in about 15 years. We need, if we’re going to maintain the raw beauty of Puna, then we need to know that, and we need to know how many jobs we need to create, we need to know how much services and retail facilities. The issue that you struggle with all day on the Industrial area in Paradise Park is a prime example of the situation of not planning properly for the growth that is occurring and will continue to occur. The plan really needed that data if they were going to plan properly. It wasn’t there. And that’s a problem because many of the families who have been here, as mine have, and have maintained the raw beauty of this area for four or five and uncountable generations would like to continue to do that. We’re committed to it. It can’t happen if we don’t have the data plan with it. EXHIBIT B 20 WATANABE: Thank you. I failed to ask for cooperation from all the testifiers. And I don’t know if this is a complete list because maybe some others of you have, you know, signed up to testify. But can we please limit your testimony to three minutes. We tried five minutes the last time around and, like I said, we went four hours. We still have to deliberate, okay? So, but before you pass the mike around, Mr. Walter, there may be some other Commissioners that would like to ask questions of you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes, just one, a brief question. You raised a concern which others have raised as well about certain recommendations that came from the working groups got lost in the Steering Committee process. Therefore, what I would like to know is if you would consider that this, a solution, that the working group papers be included as an appendix to the Puna Community Development Plan so that they could provide to planners or decision makers in the future, the information, the intent that went behind the thinking, and a guidance for how to interpret what’s in the plan itself? Would you consider that a possible solution to that instead of going back and rewriting everything and crossing all the “t’s” and dotting all the “i’s”? WALTER: It wouldn’t be my first solution, but I think that would helpful. But the problem we have, Ms. Siracusa, is that the consultant effectively overwrote and added things that the working groups never would have added and wouldn’t have agreed to if they had seen them. And you’ll hear later on, I think, from some people on the committee. So then at that point a later regulator, a later someone in your seats, someone on the County Council may look at here’s the CDP, yes, here’s the working papers but this is in conflict with what was finally passed, which is it? And it ends up being, you know, what was finally passed. So that would be my concern. I understand that, you know, what you’re trying to do, and I appreciate that though. SIRACUSA: What I’m thinking is that having those working papers available would then give a clue to the decision makers as to what the real intent of the community was -. WALTER: Yeah, and I think that’s the problem. SIRACUSA: As something that had not been tweaked. WALTER: I think that’s a problem. You’re identifying a very good problem; and that is that what the community said and what finally was written are not in sync. I think that if I’m on County Council and I have both of those in front of me then at some point, and this one the CDP has been adopted as ordinance and this one is merely a working paper, I’m in a really tough spot. So that’s my concern. I’m not saying that doesn’t help. I’m just saying I don’t think it’s a full solution. SIRACUSA: Well, what I’m saying is that it be integrated as an appendix so that it would, when it’s approved as an ordinance all those working papers are approved along with it is what I’m saying basically. EXHIBIT B 21 WALTER: I appreciate that. Let me say I think it’s helpful, I’m not sure it’s enough. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you. I’d just like, if you don’t mind, one example where, you know, if you can give me one example of the unrepresentation of -. WALTER: Yeah, the land use working group as they addressed how urbanization and the addition of services should occur within the region basically came to the conclusion that said, yeah, you know, this is going to grow at a rate that may be beyond our ability to project and deal with, so we’re going to make a pretty broad statement, but a statement that we think will help us to guide and control that growth. And that statement is that further urbanization should occur primarily around the current villages that we have, Kea‘au, Pahoa, Mt. View, Volcano and so on. And I might add that although I think that working group would have no problem with village centers also being in Paradise Park, the consultant came in and he added to that by saying, well, they can grow but I’m going to grab a few numbers out of the air, they can’t grow any more than this. And those numbers out of the air are such that I can tell you from the perspective of someone who is working very hard to create some of those nodes, they’re not economically feasible. They cannot be created, the sizes are wrong. He also when he looked at maps, and there’s a group of maps, for instance for Kea‘au that I can mention, the map shows here’s what Kea‘au should be, he began to eliminate areas already zoned; or if not zoned with some entitlements status in them, he eliminated some of those areas, which seems pretty odd given the rapid growth that’s expected. And he did that to the extent that, for instance, Ms. Siracusa asked at the last meeting a very good question, and that is “Hey, I’m looking at Pahoa, where is the industrial park for Pahoa?” And I might say that people think Shipman tries to monopolize everything but I have on several occasions talked to the Councilperson from Pahoa and said, “You know, I think you guys need about 100 acres of industrial park down there to get your business together.” That’s my competition, but it’s needed. But having said that, the remainder of our industrial park, which is fully zoned, the zoning in that park was by the map eliminated. So we’re going to double the size and there’s going to be no more industrial park? Now that I think that was in error. But the point of it is it would pose one heck of a problem if not corrected. So those are, those are a couple of examples. ALAMEDA: Thank you. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA: The question of those maps came up at the last meeting and you will recall, and it was when I raised that question about I see the purple color coding which stands for Industrial but I don’t seen any purple in the Puna map, in the Pahoa map. And it was brought out to me, and this question was raised also by the lady EXHIBIT B 22 representing Ulupono, those were not the recommended zonings. John Whalen had put them in and those were the current zonings. And I got confused by that, and you got confused by that, and a lot of other people did. And I had already recommended that we either take those maps out, replace them with something that is, represents what is recommended, or put a caption under each of those maps saying current zoning, so that it is clear and no one gets all bent out of shape thinking “Oh, my God, look at this nightmare,” when that is not what is being projected. So that we should all be on the same page, maybe? WALTER: I agree with what you’re saying. The problem with the statement is, and the problem with whoever told you that, is that our industrial park is fully zoned and was not fully colored. The remainder that is not subdivided was shown as losing the zoning it currently has. And, furthermore, if you read the description of those maps, it would lead one to make the conclusion exactly that you made, Ms. Siracusa, and that is that this is what the community wants, where the community wants activities to be. So the lack of an industrial area around Pahoa, lack of showing one, is in fact problematic. What you see for Kea‘au is roughly a 175-acre industrial park colored out. You’ll see next to it a blank area, but with an outline, dotted line around it that indicates SLU, State Land Use Commission, or some such. The fact is that entire area is fully zoned Industrial. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, I don’t want to get hung up too much on any individual points. I appreciate your testimony. I think though we need to kind of move on. WALTER: Yeah, I would point out that that would be a major problem to us though in the future if it weren’t fixed. WATANABE: I understand. Yes, Mr. Yuen. It seems like you want -. YUEN: I did want to jump in on this and say that, without getting into a lot of detail, about why the map of the Shipman Business Park is drawn that way. I agree that it looks like it is intended to take away existing zoning, and it was not intended to do so. And as I discussed with Mr. Walter yesterday, that’s something that should be fixed. I don’t have an amendment pending for the Commission to look at it. I certainly will have something for Council. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, Pamela Sullivan, right? SULLIVAN: Pamela Sullivan. WATANABE: And you have commercial area also, yeah, that you represent? SULLIVAN: Yes. WATANABE: So, name and address. EXHIBIT B 23 SULLIVAN: Pamela Sullivan, 15-2759 Aweoweo, Pahoa. Thank you Commission, again, for allowing us to testify today. I think that we probably are in alignment with a lot of people here, as well as Mr. Walter. I’d also, before I forget, like to ask that our existing commercial area also be included as well. Thank you. I’ve already discussed and gave you a little bit of an update on or summary on our project in the past meeting so I won’t go into that. Basically I just want to say that Foster Kern supports the PCDP in general and its focus but acknowledges that it does still need work, specifically in the Implementation Section; Section 5.2 Village Town Center Formation is a prime example. The plan states that the maps for the proposed village/town centers are only meant to be suggestions of where the boundaries for these centers should be. This section is too vague and open to interpretation. Although criteria were set for village/town center locations, not all existing and potential properties with appropriate location and zoning were included, as we just discussed. The Ulupono Center project, which we have presented at past meetings, has not been included within the “suggested” boundaries, despite meeting the criteria outlined in the plan. We contend that this serves as a good example of why this plan is not well-developed enough to be passed without further consideration and changes. Our prime real estate with appropriate zoning and infrastructure, as well as the potential for donated land to the county for community use, was not considered as a suggested location even though it meets the criteria as specified in Section 5.2.2 of the Puna Community Development Plan. Others have testified that the language in Table 5-1 was not based on community input. We are in agreement with past testimony that has been presented on the following points: Section 5.2 of the plan does not adequately reflect the desires of the community and all stakeholders. More time and input from the community is needed to develop more specific plans on the village town centers and their designated locations and boundaries. It has been suggested that each village have their own steering committees, to help discuss issues and find solutions on a more local level. We think this is an excellent idea, as the plan tends to speak to district-wide solutions. What’s good and works in one area will not necessarily work in another, as each village has its own unique needs and circumstances. Although no specific timeframe has been set for implementation of the Puna CDP, and much work will be needed to gain broad support from the community, Ulupono Center is EXHIBIT B 24 positioned to be a part of the solution immediately, so should at least be considered as an option for village center inclusion. If the County insists on approval of the current draft of the Puna CDP, adoption of the plan by resolution would be a viable resolution that recognizes the hard work of so many, while still providing the opportunity to make future changes for a more well-rounded and widely accepted plan. And I wanted to add to that that if we do include something like the working papers I think that there should be some kind of specific language in the plan, something, something needs to be revised because it’s too open right now. And when you say these things are suggestions, like Mr. Walter had said, when this goes up before you guys again or to the Council, once this thing is passed and you say, oh, sorry, you’re not in our boundaries so you don’t get to develop there, oh, well, those boundaries weren’t really based on community input, and then there’s a whole discussion. So I’m not saying you have to rework the whole plan but I think that we need to fine tune these things cause we don’t want to find ourselves back here again and doing all this. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I believe Mr.Yuen you were about to acknowledge something when she brought that up. Was I correct in my assumption? YUEN: Yes, just to make the statement that again it wasn’t the intent, as I understand it, to imply taking away the existing MCX zoning at the Ulupono Center, and that we’ll have some kind of an amendment that makes that clear. WATANABE: Yeah, so at least if nothing else you’ve accomplished at least that. Do we have any further questions for Pamela? Okay, sir, your name and address, please. KERN: Zendo Kern, A Road, Paradise Park. I was born in North Kohala and moved to Puna when I was two, lived in Puna my whole life, struggle economically, you know, parents and I went on welfare when I was seven. I remember it very clearly. I went to Pahoa School and got a decent education, began to realize that there was some opportunity out there to actually do something good in the community, make some money, help out my family. And that’s what we’re doing now. I just wanted to give you a little background of where I come from so you’ll get a little understanding that local boy trying to do good. All right? I hear couple of words like confusion, lack of community inputs. Those words, those comments that were made earlier by multiple people are disconcerting. Cause we’re talking about passing an ordinance and my limited knowledge on ordinances is pretty darn serious.Correct, right? An ordinance is serious. And if we have confusion and it’s unclear and we’re lacking community input, how can we bring that to law? How can we put that into an ordinance if we don’t have the community input, just like we saw with the Paradise Park issue that we dealt with earlier? It just does not seem right. So my recommendation is to not pass it as an ordinance and to have it as a resolution, cause it needs a lot more work and I agree with everything that Mr. Walter said as well. That’s about it. EXHIBIT B 25 WATANABE: Thank you. Thank you for being concise. Do we have any questions? Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Well, I wish that Alex Frost was here with the documentation that he had that showed the kind of massive community input that did go in. Just because someone says there isn’t enough community input doesn’t make it so, okay, even if that person is under oath, because that could also be considered a value judgment. So I attended a lot of those meetings. I attended the large community meetings. The entire humongous cafeteria of Kamehameha Schools was jammed packed with people and each one of them went out like a phone tree, a branching and did, you know, other smaller group meetings. So people, a lot of people who did not take part later on complained that they didn’t have a voice in the project. Actually if they didn’t take part it’s because they chose not to at the time. But it’s still happening. This is the third Planning Commission meeting and then it will go up to the Council; and there will be more opportunities there. The door has not closed. Thank you. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: I appreciate the fact that all of you have taken part in the drafting of the plan or have at one time did that, and I appreciate your coming before the Commission to express your feelings. Regardless of how your participation in the process were, I think each one of you in Puna has a personal stake in the plan because it will affect you. Whether you’re a businessman or a homeowner or a person representing a business, it’s vital to you folks if you feel that it is important, that you come and voice your opinion and let us know. Because it does have a great impact on how I will vote and how I visualize the process to have been. You know, I express my feelings with regards to the issue of the zoning, you know. And that, it’s a very serious chord with me because it’s something that has been given you, it’s your rightful ownership of -. WATANABE: Mr. -. DOMINGO: Property that you have, and that zoning permits you to develop as you see fit based on the zoning.Okay, I’ll keep quiet and -. WATANABE: Position statement again, yeah? DOMINGO: Yeah. WATANABE: Yeah, okay. You know, we all have our own feelings and we’re all going to have opportunity to express our opinion when we get into deliberation. So let’s contain it to the questions again. Now I believe we have Robin Stetson, right? STETSON: Stetson. WATANABE: Okay, name and address, please. EXHIBIT B 26 STETSON: My name is Robin Stetson, I reside on Hawai‘i Road in Pahoa. And I support the Puna Community Development Plan with the amendments. I would like to say that timing is everything. We have all, all of us here have witnessed special places on the other islands and on the planet that have been overrun by development, by rapid unplanned growth. Typically the communities involved underestimate the force and the speed of the approaching wave and they are caught unprepared. But I see, I perceive that Puna does not follow this model. They have come forth and put a plan in place. I believe this is a guide that intelligently addresses the problems of how to manage the growth and preserve the natural and the cultural resources of this area. But I do think that time is of the essence. And I would urge this group to not only recommend approval of this plan but to do everything possible within the context of government, of course, to expedite it. We need the plan now. The plan was really needed yesterday. Whatever you can do would be appreciated; and I appreciate your time. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions of Ms. Stetson? No? Okay, thank you for your testimony. You all may be seated. KERN: Could I clear something up real quick? WATANABE: Yes. KERN: When I said there was enough community input, there have been a lot of community input, that’s correct. I don’t think the community input is reflected in the plan is what I meant to say. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any further testifiers that signed up? I realize I have several here. I was just wondering if I had more than this, but I guess not. So I have Jessie Sheppard, Kim Tavares and Stephanie Bath. So would those three individuals come up, please. I called up three. Jessie Sheppard? TAVARES: Oh, they had to go. He submitted something written. WATANABE: Oh, he submitted written, okay, thank you. Okay, so we have Kim and Stephanie. Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Okay. We’ll start with your name and address, please. TAVARES: Okay. My name is Kim Tavares, address PO Box 338, Volcano. I actually live in Fern Forest. And I’ll make mine brief. I just wanted to reiterate that I still support the plan. I’m still on the Steering Committee and I still want to see this go through. I agree with the last testifier that I think we should expedite it. As far as the questions go with regards to some ambiguity, and on clarity, and what not, there were actually three sets of documents; and the one that you have is the plan, the draft plan or EXHIBIT B 27 the final draft plan. And prior to that we had the working papers that Ms. Siracusa was talking about, and those were all kind of a culmination of everything that happened prior to that. One step before that is where a lot more detail is, and those are in the working group recommendations. There were ten working groups. And those recommendations got boiled down into three working papers. So there is a lot of detail there. And, yeah, it’s not all perfect and it does need to be worked out. But I’m advocating that we do pass this along to Council and we work out what hasn’t been worked out to this point in the implementation stages. And I’m also really happy to hear from the Kanaka Council. I do also, I’m really ecstatic. But somebody has come up to say, yeah, we want to support these things, because I was the Steering Committee person for the Cultural Resources Group and it was kind of sparse at the time. So if there are more people that want to support that, I’m happy for that, too. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Kim? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just have a quick question. You were on the Steering Committee and the working groups. You were on what working group? TAVARES: Well, I was the liaison for the Natural Resources Working Group and also for the Culture and Historic Working Group. BOWMAN: Do you have any comments on Mr. Walter’s concern about some of the working group’s concerns not being addressed in the plan, or in the draft plan, I should say. TAVARES: There was a person in the Natural Resources Working Group, I believe, that was from Shipman or from Bill Walter’s office, he was very quiet, he didn’t say a word. He just sat there and listened to everybody; and I guess, you know -. So they had the opportunity to participate, that wasn’t denied. BOWMAN: I’m not talking specifically about Mr. Walter. I’m just talking about the working groups, any of their recommendations as you could see from the Steering Committee person not being included TAVARES: Yeah, yeah, there were some real specific recommendations that weren’t included. But we were instructed to stay away from the details, we’re not writing legislation, we just want to get a plan together that is going to be, you know, kind of generic but at the same time a guiding document. I’m really looking forward to the next step refining the details. And I’d like that to be an implementation. I don’t really want to see the CDP plan extended another year so that we could do that. BOWMAN: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? EXHIBIT B 28 WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I know you mentioned the idea of the plan being a guideline and still wanting to work out the specifics and all. So are you in favor of making it a resolution or ordinance? Cause if you make one ordinance you no can work out the fine details. You know what I mean? TAVARES: Well, we’ll work with the County, with the Council to do the legislative, you know, the wording and all the text and stuff like that. We were instructed not to do that but, yeah, we want it to be an ordinance. But we don’t, I don’t particularly see how this document can become an ordinance without some changes; but I think we’ll work with the Council at that level -. ALAMEDA: Thank you. TAVARES: I will for sure. WATANABE: Any further questions? No? Thank you, Kim. TAVARES: You’re welcome. WATANABE: Stephanie Bath. BATH: I’m Stephanie Bath. I’ve been before you. I live in Hawaiian Acres in Kurtistown. I was appointed as a member of the Steering Committee and served as the liaison for transportation. I apologize for not giving you something in writing. I came here to listen today. I didn’t intend to testify but I’ve decided to do so. The footwear that I chose to wear today are not ruby slippers. I intentionally chose local slippers. They say that there’s no place like home, there’s no place like Puna. They reflect the diversity of our culture. The implementation phase of the Puna Community Development would benefit, it would benefit the implementation phase of the Puna Community Development if Bill 297 is adopted. Pete Hoffman put it in. I think that that will help to address establishing a framework for the community development plan, establishing the community development plan action committee where the community will have further input. I rd wanted to address the 33 Street issue that was extensively discussed today. It’s not just about the industrial use. As you’ve read, in the Puna Community Development Plan you have seen the three overarching themes identified, Malama I Ka Aina, Managing Growth, and Transportation. Each theme overlaps each other. It’s hard to take one out of the other because the way that the community dealt with the issues was that they overlapped. It might be a transportation issue but they wanted to insure the aesthetics of the corridor would be kept intact. One is Malama Aina, one is Malama I Ka Aina and one is Transportation. So to isolate different issues doesn’t really do justice to the whole plan, so keep that in mind. It was disconcerting to me today that there was discussion about rd whether or not 33 Street should be zoned Industrial.This issue might best be referred EXHIBIT B 29 back to the Hawaiian Paradise Park and affected communities in a situation where more people know about it. Cause I wouldn’t have known that that discussion was going to be here today. Let’s see what else. Oh, homeowner and community associations do not always accurately reflect the voice of community. Some people prefer to engage in the process individually, so that’s something to consider. And then also, let’s see what else do I have here, we’ve been talking about the working papers and working group reports. I want to thank Kim for clarifying that. René, you had mentioned including the working papers. If you would refer to Chapter 5, the Implementation of this plan, 5-17, the last paragraph there, you’ll read where that actually in fact the working group and working papers shall be referred to as part of this plan. So it has already been covered. I’d like to suggest that in the implementation phase as we go back into the communities as the implementation, and the steering committee understood it was going to happen, that we use charettes so that when there’s a village center being planned within the community everybody, all the players, Public Works, Planning, the community, the communication associations, everybody who has anything to do with those village centers, can be part of the process. I think that’s it. Yeah, I think that’s it for now. I’d be happy to answer any questions. And I do like the Kanaka Council coming out. I came here initially thinking that I wanted to have an extension and more time for the CDP. Having had that experience today with special use permits and things, it really emphasized the need to have a Community Development Plan. We can’t wait. This was totally ridiculous, I mean it wasn’t ridiculous but we need to move on and let people have a vision of what they’re going to do so in fact they can plan, so people like this fellow here can plan for the future. That’s it. Oh, I do want it adopted by ordinance. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the testifier? Yes, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you. So your endorsement of the Kanaka Council, I was just wondering if you also would endorse the proposed, you know, the document that they shared with us. Cause there’s some actions that I don’t, cause like you’re the fifth person that said you endorse the Kanaka Council, and I think that has good intentions and I see where they’re coming from. I’m just wondering if when you say you endorse them you’re endorsing the whole document that was given to us. BATH: I can’t say that I do cause I just got it today. I have talked with Uncle Sam and some of the other people that are involved in the Kanaka Council and I think that their work is good and that they represent, and they legally can -. The Federal government has said that they can, so they’d be the right people to do it. I think the details, as a Steering Committee member, when I wanted to go for more details in this document that’s before you, we were encouraged to not go for the details and assured that the implementation phase was where we were going to do that. If anything needs to be tightened up in this document, it’s really ensuring that the implementation phase be accurately and cleanly, without confusion, stated. That would be the one input that I EXHIBIT B 30 would give. It’s a good document. I was not only a Steering Committee member but I also facilitated the small group meetings beforehand; and people did have an opportunity. I do want to say in my executive report for transportation that there were weak links, people without Internet, single moms and dads with small children, people that don’t have cars. There’s a diverse population. They were in a sense excluded from the process because of situations; but life is not perfect and we did, at least I went out and I talked to people in KTA, the health food store, the laundromats, and tried to bring them in. It wasn’t a perfect process, far from perfect, but we did what we could; and it’s better than what we had before. Let’s adopt it. WATANABE: Thank you. Shelly. OGATA: I have a question. You along with several other people have stated that we should adopt this plan yesterday; and, you know, when we were discussing that rd 33 Avenue situation earlier I was trying to use this document as I thought a Commissioner should use the document. So I was looking through it. And can you help rd me figure out how I should have made my decision on the 33 Avenue? Cause I don’t see that reflected in here. BATH: I’m not a planner, well, I probably could be now after all that I’ve been through. But special use permits are one thing, and the purpose is a special use for a limit amount of time so that somebody can do something for a limited amount of time. What I see this document doing is making it so special use permits wouldn’t be required or necessary anymore, cause people would be clear on where zoning was. And if needed to make, if the community decided that, yeah, we’ll need a village center here or a light industrial here or a park here, well, a park I guess wouldn’t need zoning changes in Ag land, futuristically people could actually plan, that’s what a plan is for. So that if you buy here you will know that this is Industrial, that if you buy here you’ll know the chances are it’s going to be Agricultural, that you know there’s going to be a corridor here. I’m a bee keeper. I can’t have an apiary within 1,000 feet of a major public road. To have a plan when I purchased my land and know I can do this and not have to move or affect somebody down the line is a helpful tool. That’s why we have plans, that’s what I understood. And so to answer your question, I’m not sure that this document could have helped you other than to look and see if it in fact that was zoned, if it was included as Industrial, cause in my process it never was. I could talk to you specifically about that area from the transportation and the Malama I Ka Aina perspective, less than a growth management. But they all overlap and that’s what’s missing a lot of times, people will see one issue and not overlap the other two, which is what the people of Puna want. They want a balance. It’s a real exciting thing that’s happening here. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: It took approximately 18 months of hard work by people in the Puna community; and they entered into this because they were informed at the very beginning, and I remember that because I was one of them, that upon completion it would EXHIBIT B 31 be adopted as ordinance. Would you have put in all that time and energy and money if you had thought that it would only be a resolution? BATH: Would I, knowing and having had the experience that I did and the networking with the community and seeing how the people came together and made the sacrifices in their personal life and the growth personally that I have had during this process and the potential for Puna, I would have to say I wouldn’t have invested my time in this process. It will be a big disappointment I think to a lot of people and I think there will be people that may be very sad, possibly frustrated, turning into anger, if their efforts were not taken seriously and if they were told in the beginning this is going to be adopted as an ordinance and then they say, well, folks, you know, the rules and the things have changed. I think consistency right now is important, especially with the idea that we have gotten the trust of community back and we’re building upon that. And if things shift, where’s that trust going to be? We’re trying to bring more people in, not isolate people. SIRACUSA: Thank you. I would like to hear Kim’s response to that same question. KIM: I would scream if this just became a resolution and not an ordinance. I mean it was more than 18 months. It was probably going past two years; and we’re still going, and we need to go some more. So, you know, I want this to be in the law. We need to do things immediately to stop the destruction, stop any further destruction. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Okay. Yes. ALAMEDA: And that’s just the point, a little bit concerning about that we need to go some more. So if you need to go some more, then how come you like make it an ordinance if in your head you need to go some more? TAVARES: The process that we had prior to this was the Community Development Plan process. I want to move into the implementation stage which would do things like what Larry Brown described, going into communities hopefully and like what we were saying charettesand develop it more at a local level. I mean we’re really gearing towards, you know, people in communities need to come together and plan out their own stuff. I don’t want to do it. I come from Volcano. I don’t want to plan HPP, you know, I want them to do that. WATANABE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Kim. EXHIBIT B 32 WATANABE: But, you know, right here what’s happening is typically we don’t go backwards, yeah, you know, once you’re done testifying. You know, I allowed some latitude because I believe we’re about done with the testifiers; but, you know, generally we don’t do that, yeah. It’s not a recognized practice. Yeah, Mr.Yuen. YUEN: I know it’s late and I wonder if, Commissioners, I could just address a few of the points that have come up and just spend a very, maybe couple of minutes? WATANABE: Sure. Can I, you know, I noted one name that I didn’t cross off yet and I’m wondering if I called that person. And just to be sure I want to make sure that I’ve already covered anyone who wanted to testify. So, is there anyone else here present that would like to testify? Oh, are you Rob Tucker? MERMEL: No. I’m Jeffrey Mermel. I’m coming on the floor now. WATANABE: Oh, okay, Jeffrey. Is there a Rob Tucker here? PUBLIC: He had to leave. SIRACUSA: He left already. PUBLIC: He left about 5 minutes ago. WATANABE: Oh, I’m sorry. KIM: He was the gentleman that you talked to from the Land Use Working Group on your last case. He came up to testify about what the PCDP had said about -. WATANABE: Yeah, but so then in a sense he has testified then, yeah? TAVARES: It was a different item. But -. ALAMEDA: Also, Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: I would recommend if that if you don’t want us to go backwards then when they finish their testimony just have them sit down. WATANABE: Yeah. ALAMEDA: But another thing too is we may have questions about the Kanaka Council, yeah. You remember Commissioner Siracusa mentioned if we have questions that somebody would stay here to answer -. EXHIBIT B 33 WATANABE: Right. ALAMEDA: So I don’t know if you like entertain that, too, maybe after the Chairman -. WATANABE: Maybe we could do after. ALAMEDA: Sure. WATANABE: So I believe we’re done with the questions so you may be seated. And maybe we can provide Mr. Yuen with an opportunity to address some of the concerns that have been raised. YUEN: Just a few overall things that have come up in both the testimony and in the questions of the Commissioners. Resolution versus ordinance, the General Plan, Chapter 25 says that the community development plans shall be adopted by ordinance. It says you shall adopt them by ordinance. So you either adopt them by ordinance or you don’t adopt it. Now there are some fine points to this. And I don’t, I had written a letter on what is the legal affect of adopting the community development plan by ordinance; and I had sent this out about a month ago and I guess it didn’t get sent out to the Commissioners, I thought it was supposed to be sent to the Commissioners. It was distributed to you today. And you just have to realize that for a lot of things in the plan it doesn’t make a difference because things are not, it depends on whether things are worded in a mandatory and legally binding way. And let me just give you an example. I’m just picking out something, and one of the objectives is improve data collection and analysis related to present and historic changes in shoreline conditions and resources. That’s an objective. Now what if you didn’t do that? It would not be a good thing, but nobody would go to jail for not doing it. Then somebody could say you didn’t do this and, yes, you’re supposed to do things in the plan, but this doesn’t make a difference if this portion, that sentence in the plan is part of an ordinance or is part of a resolution. The General Plan is adopted by ordinance. There are many things in the General Plan which are statements of overall goals and objectives that you were supposed to strive for, that you’re supposed to follow, that’s a framework for decision making; but it’s not legally mandatory, all right, so that point. And if you read the letter it goes into this in a lot more detail. So one technique of things where if you don’t want things being stated in a mandatory way you don’t state them in a mandatory way. The plan is basically a guide for future action. How specific that guide is depends on how confident you are of the action that you’re trying to take. All right. The second thing has to do with the question of community input and was the voice of the community heard. I’m really comfortable that the people we had working on the Community Development Plan, we had an unprecedented level of community input involvement in the plan. Never perfect, there are gaps in this.We could do it again and EXHIBIT B 34 there would still be gaps in all of this.What happens though, and we always strive for consensus and we try to hear people out as best you can. But at the end of the day sometimes we say, well, the voice of the community and what does the community want. The community consists of people and people disagree, very often; and we’ve seen it here in the Planning Commission. We sit here and disagree with one another. So somebody at a working group may say something, the working group may say something and not everybody is going to agree with that.And it’s important to really recognize that, especially if you’re trying to create a plan that is not just a bunch of platitudes or motherhood-and-apple pie statements that you’re going to wind up with things that people disagree with. I mean people will all agree we should have better transportation. But when you get into should Highway 130 be widened to four lanes, should you have signalized intersections or roundabouts, should have you an alternate makai route, should you have better bus transportation, people are going to disagree about that; and there’s no way to avoid it. I really did want to mention that there are, as far as the recommendations of the Planning Department, we do have a few specific recommendations and changes that we’d like the Commission to suggest. And the final point that I’d like to make, and I know this is not going to make a number of people in the audience happy here, is that I would recommend against recognizing any specific group as being the official group that has some kind of official role here, any specific private group. Because there are many Hawaiian organizations, there are many environmental organizations. There has been a statement about standing being recognized. You can go into a lawsuit and have the Judge recognize that you have standing to carry out a lawsuit. That’s very different than being recognized as the official spokesperson or official body by a government agency. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. We do have one more testifier, and I’m planning to take a break after this, cause I’m expecting that the deliberations will take a little while. So Jeffrey Mermel, I believe you’re from Volcano; but name and address, please. MERMEL: Good afternoon, my name is Jeffrey Mermel of Box 342, Volcano. th On May 8 the Volcano Community Association sent a letter endorsing this plan, in favor of the plan by ordinance. I’m here today actually as an individual that I think reflects the views of my neighbors and friends, having live in Volcano for 32 years. But I am speaking as an individual today. You know, it was about 18 months ago that Mayor Kim, the Planning Director, and the Planning staff came to the Volcano Community Center. The room was packed with 125 people. And we were pitched about this plan, that this plan would be by ordinance, that it would be grass roots, and we should be part of this process, we should give of our time voluntarily to be part of it; and we did, and so did Lower Puna, Upper Puna. You know, there was a massive meeting at Kamehameha School, 150 people. Other community meetings that went out the folks, you know, no, it’s not perfect. But, you know, the intention was there and I think they did the best that they could. You couldn’t do better. I’ve worked at grass roots, you know, ever since being a Peace Corp volunteer, and people will always come back and say we weren’t included. Guaranteed, right, we weren’t included? They did a terrific job. These people, people who volunteered for the small group meetings, you know, for community input, EXHIBIT B 35 you couldn’t do better. So I don’t buy it we weren’t included. We were promised that this would be by ordinance, this is what the Volcano Community Association spoke in favor of the plan, because we want it by ordinance. And this plan does include the Volcano’s long-range plan that we’ve been working on with revisions for probably over 15 years. This plan is more intentions, this plan is more the vision. You know, Puna grew from 31,000 to 43,000 in seven years, folks; and only supposedly a quarter of the available lots have been developed. In other words, there are three-quarters more that could be. Because this is just intentions, you know, the implementations could be worked out. Lastly, I was a member of the Steering Committee for Downtown Hilo where it was passed by ordinance. And what’s happening now in Downtown Hilo we have the VisionKeepers Committee whose job is to implement. And we’re getting things like recycling containers on the street, you know, pocket parks, you know, we’re at the implementation phase. I would hope as an individual you would do that for all of Puna. Thanks. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Jeffrey? No? None. Okay, let’s take a break then. Let’s take about 10. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 5:45 p.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 6:00 p.m. WATANABE: Planning Commission meeting please come back into order. We’re on the last leg here, you know, deliberation on the Puna CDP and then administrative matters. So, let’s see -. SIRACUSA: Do you want to start with a motion and then we can just go -? WATANABE: I could start with a motion, yes. And if you’d like to make that motion, you’re certainly recognized. SIRACUSA: As the Puna representative I would love to make that motion. I move that we send the draft Puna Community Development to Council with a favorable recommendation as an ordinance and with several other recommendations attached to that. And I’m wondering if I should make those as separate motions or lump them all together and then let see how it plays out with the discussion? WATANABE: Why don’t we see if we got a second first. And I know what I forgot was Mr. Yuen had indicated he already had some revisions that he wanted to apprise the Commission of, and we should provide with some time to expound on those revisions. WOODWARD: Point of order, Mr. Chairman. Shouldn’t we close the hearing? EXHIBIT B 36 WATANABE: I had asked Mr. Torigoe about that earlier and the thing about this is it really isn’t a contested case hearing so it’s not, as I understand it, very clear if we’re like can close or officially close the hearing. WOODWARD: Okay. WATANABE: Is that correct, or did I misunderstand? TORIGOE: No, no, I think basically there’s no specific legal requirement that you have a formal closing of the hearing. And you may want to call people up, you know, depends. WATANABE: Okay, okay. But let the record reflect that we did ask on several occasions whether there was anyone else who wanted to testify. So, certainly, I believe we provided the public full opportunity to testify. Yeah? And so you’ve made a motion and I believe it’s going to be subject to some revisions. SIRACUSA: Well, I had three conditions or recommendations to go with it. WATANABE: Okay, why don’t you summarize your -. Okay, okay, fine. SIRACUSA: So I just was wondering if procedurally if I should include it with the main motion. WATANABE: Yeah, why don’t you include those now. SIRACUSA: Okay. The first one is that the Working Group papers and recommendations be included as an appendix for the purposes of information, establishing intent, and guidance on interpretation for future decision making. And I want to say that although Larry Brown said that that’s in there, you know, I didn’t notice; and it’s just one little sentence. And so I want to make sure that it gets -. WATANABE: Considered? SIRACUSA: A lot of the concerns that people raised when they said certain things got lost along the way in the process, this would make sure that instead of doing a separate condition for each one of those things it would all be there together. WATANABE: Okay. You have two others? SIRACUSA: So my second recommendation is that, and I’ve mentioned this before, that those zoning maps in there that reflect the current zoning and may not even be accurate be either re-titled, well, they’re not titled at all right now, be titled to indicate that they are the current zoning and that they be corrected, or that they’d be stated that this is not what the recommended zoning is. But those have to be fixed. EXHIBIT B 37 And the third part of my recommendation is that a Native Hawaiian Implementation Committee be formed and that the Kanaka Council may serve on it, and that can go into either Section 2 or Section 5. I really don’t think that we should close the door on letting other people serve on that Implementation Committee. And I have some feeling that the people who do serve on it should be from Puna, but I know that there are enough members of the Kanaka Council who are from Puna so that shouldn’t be a problem. That’s my motion. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any second to that motion? DOMINGO: Second for discussion purpose. WATANABE: Okay, it’s second for discussion purpose. Yes, Mr. -. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, yeah, first of all I have two, I want to congratulate all the people. I think they’ve done a hell of a good job. There are two misgivings that I have that have been brought to light today.One is that the way this process has worked where you had a large group or large number of small group meetings where there were probably thousands of ideas. They were winnowed down by small group of larger meetings and then eventually the Steering Committee, which was appointed by the Mayor and approved by Council, distilled it further. But evidently the final document was prepared by a planning consultant. And it seems to me in the course of that a lot of the things kind of got, fell through the cracks, and we heard that in testimony today. We also found that out today when we looked at the Paradise Park long-term development plan that was really not included in the Puna Community Development Plan, particularly with regard to this Avenue 33 issue. So that’s one concern I have. The other is, and I would agree with Commissioner Siracusa that, and I think the way she phrased it was perfect, that there be a native Hawaiian committee and that the Kanaka Council serve on it. But I think that this amendment that they circulated to us as Director Yuen was saying is basically going to give them, essentially create an autonomous County agency paid for by the County that’s going to have full control over all Native Hawaiian activities, affairs, cultural, etc. And, I think, I’m not comfortable with that, making them a government committee or government agency. So I think the way Commissioner Siracusa phrased that was perfect. SIRACUSA: May I address -? WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Thank you. I want to say about those things falling through the cracks, that’s why my first part of my recommendation was that the working group papers and recommendations be included as an appendix, which means that when the whole thing passes as an ordinance that would pass too.Because then all of those concerns, we could deal with each one of them, you know, that were raised here one at a time and we’d be here till tomorrow at the same time. This was a sort of, I thought, a EXHIBIT B 38 lump sum way to get it all included so that all anyone would have to do if they wanted to go back they would have to delve through the pile and they would find what the intent was, what the discussions, you know, involved, and be able to figure out what Mr. Whalen threw out the door and what really came from the Community. WOODWARD: Very good. I think that’s probably the best approach. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any further comments? Yes, Ms. Ogata. OGATA: I kind of don’t know where to start. But I went through this Plan several times. It’s kind of beat up now and it has all kinds of stuff, marked and whatever. But I guess my first area that I have a question on is on Page 4-11, Figure 4-1, the proposed transportation corridor improvements. I know that the Steering Committee and the Planning Department and everyone involved has done a lot of work in trying to bring the grass roots participation into this process. But I’m wondering have you included the Hilo community in this proposed corridor? Because it looks like, to me at least, that a lot of traffic is going to still be going into Hilo and dumping into their area. So can somebody explain to me or let me know if the Hilo community was involved as heavily in this discussion? WATANABE: Well, I guess it’s a lucky thing we didn’t close the hearing. Okay, Mr. Brown, your turn. BROWN: Short answer, no. This is the Puna Development Plan. And admittedly if the Puna Makai Alternate Road does eventually go all the way into South Hilo and tie into Hilo town, then at that point the Hilo community will need to become involved on providing input on that corridor. But that would actually occur even within the context of the environmental impact statement to define that corridor. And at that time the Hilo community would be involved as well as the Puna community, more particularly the Hawaiian Paradise Park, the other stakeholders such as Shipman Lands, Shipman Limited because, you know, it’s going right through their lands as well. So all of these stakeholders, including the Hilo community, would be involved in that environmental impact statement for that particular road. YUEN: Yeah, could I -? And I agree exactly with what Larry said. I just wanted to be a little more specific about what the plan actually calls for. That’s a really terrific question because, and this is part of the issue in, you know, do a regional plan but the reality is a lot of people in Puna drive into Hilo every day. And so when you do the transportation planning for that you don’t stop at the, oops, you know, now we’re in Hilo and so we’re not going to think about this any more. There are two connections into Hilo that the plan shows in addition to the current Highway 11 connection. One of them is a mauka connection; and it’s essentially, well, it’s exactly the same as the current General Plan, and it has been a concept for quite some time. And you have to understand too that these are conceptual. In other words, they’re not meant to define exact future alignments. There are a lot of planning that would have to be done to do that. Any time you build a new road you’re going to need an environmental assessment, most likely even a full EIS. EXHIBIT B 39 So what you see, if you look at that figure to Hilo Mauka, the General Plan currently has a road that would conceptually tie in with Kupulau Street, and on the Kea‘au end would come out at the end of the Kea‘au Bypass. In other words, you’d continue, you could go straight through the Bypass and go mauka and then end up in Hilo. So we’re not changing, in that respect, not changing anything in the General Plan. The makai route is also shown in the General Plan; but in the General Plan, again, that’s a conceptual, if you actually follow the mapping in the General Plan it comes out on Railroad Avenue in Hilo. And this loops it further makai and would bring it out and would probably connect with something like Puainako Street. The Railroad Avenue connection is a very problematic thing. This map, neither this map nor the General Plan, you know, adopts this as an actual alignment. But the reason I say that, to bring an alternative route onto Railroad, is problematic, is you go through Hawaiian Home Lands where there are quite a few existing farms and homes versus coming out at the far end of Puainako Street, which is a busy, the makai end of Puainako Street which is a busy industrial and commercial street. So those are the, that’s what is conceptually shown here. To actually implement this does take further planning and study. WATANABE: Thank you. Does that sort of answer your question? OGATA: Yes. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Domingo. WATANABE: It’s getting late, my friend. It’s getting late. Time for a Crown -. WOODWARD: Turn your nameplate around so he can see it. There you go. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I look at Ms. Siracusa’s amendment and it partially addresses the concerns I have. One, the fact that there were certain maps and mentioning of that, the uses as provided by that map, the LUPAG Map, with regard to existing zoning which already gives entitlement to developers has not been included in the plan itself. And that it be included is something that I strongly recommend. And would that address the concerns of those who have expressed concerns about that, sir? WATANABE: Well -. DOMINGO: I want to make sure, you know, I want to make sure that it addresses those concerns. Because we’re in the final stages of adopting the Plan and sending it up, I want to make sure that it has been addressed. WATANABE: Yeah, I understand. But I think they did acknowledge during their testimony -. And the reason I’m a little bit hesitant is we can’t recall a nod from the audience. EXHIBIT B 40 DOMINGO: I understand. WATANABE: And I’m not exactly sure we want to call everybody back up. DOMINGO: I will yield to your wishes. WATANABE: You know, so it’s more a procedural thing. DOMINGO: Yes, I respect that, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much. The other thing is with respect to the inclusion of the amendment concerning the Kanaka Council. I think it’s, although it has never been mentioned, efforts in the past, in other forms and other actions taken by government agencies and powers that be, somewhat has not really attempted to recognize all of these matters to which they allude to in this amendment. And I just had one question, in looking at this amendment how will it be establishing another agency, is that establishing an agency within the County government? WOODWARD: Yeah. If I might point this out to Commissioner Domingo, if you look at actions, essentially they are going to be established as a semi-autonomous County agency paid for by the County and be self-governing. DOMINGO: Okay. WOODWARD: That was my concern. That was what Director Yuen mentioned is his concern; and I think, you know, certainly we want them involved but not to the exclusion of everybody else and not to create another government agency. And I think Commissioner Siracusa had stated it perfectly. I think her third amendment was absolutely perfect. I couldn’t have done it better myself. DOMINGO: You know, I had forgotten there was a page 2 and I was only looking at its main emphasis as was stated in page 1. And I think as we include this as an amendment I interpret it as in reference to the decisions that would be made and, of course, perhaps would be not in keeping of this agreement with Kanaka Council’s goals and objectives. And what usually would happen or may happen is that, you know, it may, depending on the severity of the situation, it may again then be contested through litigation; and that’s what I see eliminating by recognizing all of these things. And if such an occasion arises where there is a question of the actions and the policies drafted by the County and the proposed action taken, then they can refer to this as a means to make things right or pono as Kupuna would have suggested. I think that’s a good first step in the right direction, and I’m glad that it is being considered as an amendment. Because if you look at, you know, as you look at the draft plan itself, there have been alluded to sections of the plan, you know, in Hawaiian, in Hawaiian, an Olelo Hoakaka, the Po‘e Kahiko, you know, ‘E kuleana kakou, and, let’s see -. WATANABE: Well, I don’t think you have to mention every single one. EXHIBIT B 41 DOMINGO: No, no, I won’t, I won’t. But what I’m trying to say, Mr. Chairman, that throughout the plan those interpretations are used, you know -. WATANABE: Yeah, point well taken. DOMINGO: And then if we would not recognize an amendment such as this, I don’t think we’re doing justice to the Kanaka group or to any Kanaka when we look at this. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. DOMINGO: And another thing, another thing, another issue that was of concern was the fact that there may be a down zoning of certain parcels through the plan; and that is what I’m concerned about, you know. Okay? WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I rarely hear from Ms. Ogata so if you don’t mind, Mr. Woodward? WOODWARD: No, no. Let her go. WATANABE: Shelly. OGATA: You know, like I was mentioning earlier I spent hours and hours going through this plan and I had a really hard time reading it. I live in Puna. The amendment that René or Ms. Siracusa is talking about adding the working group papers or whatever, I haven’t seen those. I have a hard time just putting something on there that I haven’t read or looked at or -. I mean I have no idea what’s in there. I mean do we have a copy of it, or can I look at it before we just add it on? WATANABE: Unfortunately we’re out of time -. OLSON: If I can -. WATANABE: Not you but we are by Statute. And in a second -. Okay, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Couple of things. Basically I don’t, and you probably have 10,000 pages, it would take you till next year to look at it. And I’m sure that what happened was that these working papers were distilled into the final draft. The only question is if something was omitted or if there is an error made then you have a reference to go back. So I think really it’s just more a reference than anything else. As far as the amendment that the Kanaka Council has proposed, you know, I think parts of it are fine. The parts that I would object to are the actions part and also the statement that the Kanaka Council shall be designated, well, they can call themselves whatever they want, Native Hawaiian Resource Evaluation Commission. The first page, their goals and their objectives are fine. I have no problem with any of those things. And the problem that I have, and it’s EXHIBIT B 42 what Director Yuen was mentioning, is the actions part, essentially it creates an autonomous new government agency and gives them, not only are they autonomous but they are the ones that are responsible for enforcement and compliance; and I think we’re treading some dangerous waters there. So it’s a great group, but I think the way Commissioner Siracusa has stated her amendment I think that’s perfect. You know that we do value their input, certainly. We want, and I’m sure they’re going to be very actively involved; but I don’t think we want to create a new government agency. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. SIRACUSA: I -. WATANABE: Give me a second. Ms. Bowman has been waiting quite a while so -. BOWMAN: Thank you. I do also appreciate the Kanaka Council coming out. I just have a concern in just looking through the plan.And, you know, there are others, there’s a County historic preservation committee, there’s the BRBZ Advisory Council. So there are a number of committees/councils that have been recommended in this plan. And, you know, it behooves us not to just acknowledge one. I mean I’m glad they came up. But if say the Sierra Club or somebody came to say we want to be the BRBZ Council, this is what concerns me at this time to do this. My other question too is, you know, we’ve got this letter from the Hawaii Island Chamber of Commerce showing, you know, it’s a good idea. But the plan enacted as an ordinance would require extensive changes to State/County permits, so that concerns me. That’s a red flag for me. So maybe somebody else can address that. Thanks. WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I would appreciate a chance to address some of that; and then I think maybe Jon Olson and Larry Brown might want to address some of it, too. The reason I worded my third recommendation about the Kanaka Council the way I did was because I could see it possibly where you’d end up with a possibility of conflict of interest kind of situation.But also because I really didn’t feel that the Kanaka Council should be the only voice in the implementation for the Native Hawaiian Cultural Resources. I wanted to leave the door open for other Hawaiian groups and maybe even people who aren’t Hawaiian who have an interest in this to be able to come forward and help implement some of the things. And I also had some feelings that there were some people in the Kanaka Council for example who are from Kona or Ka‘u; and I felt this is the Puna Plan so the people who are in the Implementation Committees should be Puna people. And that’s why I worded it the way that I did, so that there will be a Native Hawaiian Implementation Committee which we really need -- because we have committees for everything else that’s in there but, you know, not that -- and that the Kanaka Council may serve on it, but I didn’t think it should be exclusively so. And I’m not sure anyway if Kale is allowed to come back and respond to that. I know he wants to. EXHIBIT B 43 WATANABE: Well, I know he wants to and I was about to address that. You know, on a limited basis -. SIRACUSA: And then I can mention the other thing that Commissioner Bowman raised. WATANABE: Well, let’s focus on one thing. If I’m going to go with -. SIRACUSA: One thing at a time? WATANABE: Yeah, I’m going to go with Kale to respond while it’s still fresh in th our minds. If we get to the 15 question, then we’ll forget what the first one was, yeah. Okay, and procedurally it’s not normal. So, however, because I think there is an interest in having the Kanaka Council’s input we would like you to share your views. GUMAPAC: First off, with the Kanaka Council, the Kanaka Council is not one organization. It’s made up of several organizations throughout the island that participate on the Kanaka Council. So with the amendment that Ms. Siracusa is proposing, then that means that the members of our Kanaka Council would then just represent their organizations in order to sit on this commission or this committee versus having the title Kanaka Council. The Kanaka Council has always been open to anyone and everyone to come and join and participate in any of the issues. Secondly, in regards to whether or not it should only be Puna Hawaiians or Ka‘u Hawaiians or Kona Hawaiians, you have to understand the understanding of who we are as Hawaiians and practitioners. Our right to practice is not only limited to Puna. Our right to practice is this entire, all of the kapae‘aina and all of the Oceania. We’re not limited to just Puna. So when you try to say, oh, the Hawaiians from Ka‘u no can come and practice in Puna, that’s wrong already. SIRACUSA: That’s not what -. GUMAPAC: No, no, no -. SIRACUSA: That’s not what I was saying -. GUMAPAC: I know what you’re saying but you have to understand the , Hawaiian mana‘o this is what I’m trying to get to you. And this is the problem that we have with everybody because everybody over here is starting to get uncomfortable because we’re talking about one Hawaiian issue. And all of a sudden oh, hold on, this is a Hawaiian group so let’s see if we can put them into one box, okay, in terms of doing this kind of stuff. And the Kanaka Council, we’re stepping up and saying there is no box for us because according to all of these Supreme Court rulings and all the laws that come down, it’s already set forth. We’re not asking you guys to do this. We’re telling you guys to do this. Because if not, we get guys including myself that’s going to be in your EXHIBIT B 44 faces and litigate and also file contested case hearings left and right. And I’m saying let’s not do that, let’s work together. All of these other organizations you’re talking about what do they bring to the table? I haven’t seen them step up to protect Hawaiian rights. I haven’t seen them step up to protect traditional rights. Now we’re still open. If they want to step up and they kokua and want to help out, maika‘i loa, this is fine. But when you guys start to put us into a box, then we’re going to be coming out, we’re going to be coming out. And what Chris Yuen is saying we’re making him very uncomfortable because we have been coming out a lot in regards to what is going on in planning. And what we’re saying now is we’re saying let us be part of this process instead of just saying wait, we’re going to put handcuffs on you guys, we’re going to put one handcuff in the chair and we going let the other hand go, no can. Because we’re going to be using our traditional and our cultural rights when we do this and we know how to do it. WATANABE: Okay. SIRACUSA: I would like to respond because he’s asking to -. WATANABE: No, no, no, no. SIRACUSA: About my -. WATANABE: No, no, wait, wait, wait, wait, wait. YUEN: Don’t get into a debate with him. SIRACUSA: No, it’s -. WATANABE: You know, if we’re going to get into this type of give and take then we’ll never get anywhere. Okay? So like I said that’s why I wanted to make sure that we understood that this is highly unusual. Typically we do not bring up, and I mentioned that even before you came up, Kale, yeah, typically we do not go backwards to another witnesses, we don’t, you know -. You ask question, not argue. Yeah? And, you know, I appreciate your opinion, Kale; and, you know, I’m not sure that that’s exactly what she meant. But rather than get into that discussion -. GUMAPAC: Okay, mahalo. WATANABE: I gave you the opportunity to at least say your piece, right? Okay? GUMAPAC: Mahalo. WATANABE: So, thank you. Okay, Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Now what? WATANABE: I don’t know. You stay on the Kanaka Council, too? EXHIBIT B 45 ALAMEDA: No. By the way, I appreciate it. I’m glad Kale came up to share a little bit of that, and I think that was good. It added a little bit more to my perspective. So, you know, it’s all good. At the end of the day, however it ends up, that’s how it’s supposed to be. So, it’s all maika‘i. Couple of things first, you know, when I first started at the Planning Commission I was trying to figure out what is the General Plan, you know; and I’m getting pretty good now at figuring things out. So in my eyes the General Plan, you know, it’s a general brush stroke, kind of Mr. Yuen’s concept if you will, you know, conceptual brush stroke, not real specific but just kind of like the vision, yeah. And then the Community Development Plan they little bit more confined. So maybe you brush stroke one time and you come back with the Community Development Plan, a little bit more visionary but more specific. So, and that’s what I heard today, I heard that. Countless hours were spent, trying to give it one more brush stroke but little bit more focus, more clear vision, more strategic -. And what I’m also hearing is that the Community Development planning people are not, are open to even one more brush stroke coming back with the specific areas, you know, like Paradise Park, Kaloli; and I like that. And the idea about going into an ordinance, and I’m glad that Mr.Yuen explained that as well because that was the carrot earlier, that this would be an ordinance, from what I understand. So I’m becoming again a little more comfortable with the whole process. And I know it’s not perfect and I know going to get people who feel like, gee, you know, their perspective wasn’t included. But from what I’m gathering, it sounds to me that we can go in and create, you know, little more specific brush strokes, which is making me feel a little bit more comfortable. So, you know, and what we’re making too is a recommendation to the Council; and that’s a whole different body. I mean, us we get along so, most of the time, you know -. So, you know, I no feel like I got to get real hung up on like this is one do or die because the process is going to be refined, I think, after tonight. I just like feel comfortable that everybody had the best attempt to put their mana‘o in the plan, that other special interests, you know, folks that are looking out for the aina. Like the Kanaka Council, for example, you know, it’s obvious they got the blessing from the developers and they’re articulate. And so, you know, and then Commissioner Siracusa’s point of being inclusive, I like that too. So, you know, hey, I’m ready for a vote if you guys are ready to make ‘em. That’s all. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yeah? WOODWARD: I would just reiterate exactly what Commissioner Alameda said; and that is there will be some refinement done before this goes to County Council. We only make a recommendation, and there will be hearings at the County Council, I can guarantee you. So this is not the end of the story. EXHIBIT B 46 WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any more discussion on this matter? SIRACUSA: Commissioner Bowman had a question that didn’t get addressed and that was those, the list of things on the -. BOWMAN: Yes, I did. SIRACUSA: I think Larry wanted to -. YUEN: Yeah, if I can -. Let me explain how this comes about; and it really does come about because of the grass roots nature of this, is that people come forward and they have ideas. And just to take a relatively small one, allow people to live in their homes before they have a final inspections, you know, people want to do that. Actually a lot of people do that. You have to -. PUBLIC: You’re recognizing reality. YUEN: And so that’s on the list here. It needs a change; and it’s actually against the Building Code, and it needs a change to the Building Code. So that’s on the list here. And there are a lot of things that are like that.So it’s a question of do you start squelching or editing every suggestion that comes out and say, well, you know, you have to change State Law to do that, you have to change the County Code to do that. The thrust of the Plan was to really include a lot of these ideas and not say, well, we’re not going to say anything that needs a change in State Law. If it needs a change in State Law, the Plan is there. It’s a direction for somebody to advocate for that in the future. It provides some official, if a legislator, if you can convince a legislator to introduce a bill he can say our Puna Community Plan came out and said change this part of the law and the people want this. And, sure, there are too many of them to do, and then a lot of them are not going to get done. But I think that was the spirit of not saying, well, gee, that needs a change in State Law or that needs another ordinance to be passed. Yes, there’s a long list of them and, you know, being realistic probably most of them are not going to get done. But the plan at least endorses a lot of these actions and rather than say, well, we’re going to take this idea out, it provides a support or a basis for somebody if they want to run forward with this concept. So I just wanted to explain, that’s the explanation of how it got to be that way. BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Did that -? OLSON: Could I, Mr. Chairman, just one -? WATANABE: Yes. OLSON: I want to take this just one step further. The transportation element of our plan broke up into five different committees. One of those committees was EXHIBIT B 47 highways, which the County has no authority over. But next month the State Department of Transportation is going to start an entire another planning document for the re- planning of Highway 130. We now have a very complete voice from Puna because of this process on that Highway 130 planning; and it will be far more extensive than anything that the State was prepared to give us. So in terms of what this means to us as a document to the community, you know, that is probably one of the more outstanding pieces that you will have to dive into the working papers to find; and we make very little mention of it in what goes to the County Council, but it is significant. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Now before we get to the voting part, cause Mr. Alameda would encourage us to get to, I recall that you had a few revisions that you would like to propose. And I believe you brought some these up at the first meeting, so maybe this is a good time to introduce those. YUEN: As I mentioned earlier there are some changes that we would do at the County Council. But the only thing we’re asking the Planning Commission for today are the four changes that are contained in the background and recommendation put out last month, and specifically to not send grading and rubbing permits to a Commission, to have a provision about downzoning large lots, but much less drastic than what is called for in the draft plan, elimination of the requirement for basically individual sewer treatment plants for homes in the Maku‘u area, and finally a very small wording change. And those are at the end of the background and recommendation. WATANABE: Thank you. Anybody have any questions about those changes? SIRACUSA: Procedural question. WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Okay, are you asking that -? WATANABE: Yeah, for you to do a friendly amendment. SIRACUSA: I accept those as a friendly amendment for the purposes of this motion? YUEN: Yes. SIRACUSA: With the whole other pile of discussions then. I had thought that we would take that as a separate item, but -. WATANABE: How would we? If we were to approve this, then how would we amend something already approved? SIRACUSA: Well, I’m not clear on, you know, on how I feel about all those four items. EXHIBIT B 48 WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: The easiest way to do this is to work on amendments to the plan and then vote on a favorable recommendation to the plan. And that way if a specific amendment does not get -. WATANABE: Sit well? YUEN: Sit well, exactly, with the Commissioners they don’t make that amendment, and then they take a final vote on the plan with the amendments that they’re comfortable with; and then send that on. WATANABE: Okay. That satisfies what -? SIRACUSA: Are you saying that we should do that with the amendments that I had suggested as well? YUEN: That’s probably a good way to proceed. WATANABE: Or, let’s put it this way, since you are the maker of the motion, and let’s assume that you do not want to accept those as friendly amendments, then we could potentially vote on those since it has been brought up everyone is aware that we have four suggested amendments that are not included at this point. And I’m going down the list, starting with the grading and grubbing permits. Yeah? We could vote on it as is; and if it passes I guess it goes up that way. And if it doesn’t then we’re back to another motion, a completely separate motion. That’s another way we could do it. The only reason I bring that up is because it doesn’t sound as though you’re open to accepting these. SIRACUSA: I’m not sure if I’m open to accepting all four of them, that’s why I seemed hesitant. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Can we vote on them separately? Can we just do that? WATANABE: Well, we’re a little bit jammed up now because we’ve got a motion that’s live on the table. So maybe we should have that withdrawn first if you’re going to look at what amendments you want to include. Cause I believe if you’ve got a live motion you’ve got to act on it. Right? WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, well, couldn’t we approve, if we approve Commissioner Siracusa’s motion, couldn’t we approve the amendments subsequent? I’ll ask Mr. Torigoe. EXHIBIT B 49 TORIGOE: Well, the motion basically is to send a dispositive recommendation with three additions. And so, you know, if you vote on that then that’s basically what your action is. So it would be cleaner. WATANABE: You wouldn’t go back to amending it any more. TORIGOE: Right, right. WOODWARD: Okay. That would have been too easy. WATANABE: Yeah, so that was my point initially. So I would have preferred to include all the proposed amendments. But it doesn’t seem like the maker of the motion is willing to include all of the proposed. So, you know -. You have something to add, Ms. Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I had been looking for the Director’s proposed amendments and was having trouble finding them in my pile of paperwork. But Commissioner Rho just passed them on to me. I’m willing to look at his suggested amendments and as you say vote on them one at a time and then whatever passes we stick onto my motion. But we have a motion on the floor already, shall I just retract that motion temporarily for us to look at the Director’s motions? This is a procedural question. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: I think Robert’s Rules provide us to act on the motion as amended; and once that motion is adopted then anyone can make further amendments to the amendment as amended, and take that one by one. WATANABE: Right, we could do that. But then, okay, then let’s do this then. Let’s discuss the four amendments one by one to see -. Unfortunately, you know, we’re not going to really take a vote that way on those amendments. So people may sound like they’re agreeable to that, and then when we include that they might vote no anyway. YUEN: Somebody could move to amend the prior motion with numbers 1, 2, 3 or 4 of the Director’s recommendations. That’s procedurally correct. And if that fails, then it fails. DOMINGO: Okay, Mr. Chairman, I’ll make a motion. WATANABE: Yes. DOMINGO: I move that we amend the motion, and we approve the motion, as proposed with the amendments as stipulated by Commissioner Siracusa. EXHIBIT B 50 WOODWARD: And Director. DOMINGO: And that we further amend it to reflect the four changes that have been suggested by the Planning Director. WATANABE: Okay, so now I have a motion to add the four changes or suggested changes by the Planning Director. Do I have a second on that? WOODWARD: Second. WATANABE: We have a second on that. Now we have an entirely new motion; and I suppose we want to get into discussion about that. So, Ms. Bowman? BOWMAN: It appears to me that this motion, if we vote on it, would approve all seven amendments, correct? WATANABE: That is correct. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. TORIGOE: Add it to the motion -. WATANABE: I beg your pardon? TORIGOE: If you approve this motion then it would basically amend the main motion to include all of those points, and then you would have to vote on the main motion as amended. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Yuen. YUEN: And let me say exactly what he said in a different wording. You would be voting on the Director’s four amendments to the main motion. And then if you pass, if you defeated that then you would go to the main, if you pass it you would go to the main motion on a package of seven of the Community Development Plan, favorable recommendation with the three amendments proposed by Commissioner Siracusa and the four amendments from the Director. If you defeat it then you go back to the main motion with just the favorable recommendation of the three amendments suggested by Commissioner Siracusa. ALAMEDA: Good. I like that, I understand. SIRACUSA: I’m not sure about some of your amendments because, for example, the first one where you’re changing the corridor from at least two miles wide between the Wao Kele O Puna and State lands and you’re changing it including the Wao Kele O Puna; and that’s owned by OHA.And I’m wondering if you had any feedback from them on that. I hesitate to just go changing things around on their land. EXHIBIT B 51 YUEN: Well, the original, let me explain what this does. The original, the CDP as proposed would basically disallow ordinary septic systems or cesspools in an area including Wao Kele O Puna and going all the way to the ocean; and that includes the Maku‘u, Hawaiian Home Lands farm lot subdivision, and would cause a considerable expense to people who wanted to put homes in that subdivision, for example. And so the suggestion is that this no septic and cesspool limitation be limited basically to the area of State lands mauka of Highway 130 which does include Wao Kele O Puna which is supposed to be kept as, I mean the idea behind it is it’s going to be kept as a natural area, a forested area. So if there’s a problem with that and say there’s a problem with the CDP as it stands, I’m proposing to reduce the size of this no septic and cesspool area to basically an area that’s supposed to be undeveloped anyway and is adequate to, this is actually the area that’s mauka of the existing Department of Water Supply wells, rather than put an expense on the Hawaiian Home Land’s developments makai of the Highway. SIRACUSA: Okay, then can you explain to me about No. 2 then? Because it’s about grading and grubbing, and that’s before the Council now. So, I mean, are we going to be approving a motion that the Council already has before them? YUEN: No. What does this, what the recommendation on the plan says is that grading and grubbing ordinances should be reviewed by the Cultural Resources Commission. Currently if you, I mean grading and grubbing permits. Currently a review of a grading and grubbing permits is done administratively in the Department of Public Works; and there are over 200 grading and grubbing permits a year that are issued. And I think we’re all, so what the plan is proposing as a result of a lot of concerns that people have had about grading and grubbing is that every one of those comes to a Commission like this which, the Cultural Resources, not this Commission, but the Cultural Resources Commission, which involves a tremendous amount of, as you know from seeing these things involve a tremendous amount of time and effort from everybody. And in my view it’s likely simply to lead to people saying I’m not going to bother getting a grading and grubbing permit. And it’s one of these well-intentioned things that’s likely to have, just create a, make a lot of outlaws out of people and create really a several month long process to get a grading and grubbing permit. SIRACUSA: So your rationale for this is that the way it stands now it would result in excessive delays in granting those permit approvals, is that correct? YUEN: In reviewing them, yes. SIRACUSA: Actually I would like to see those excessive delays so I would not want to approve, maybe the section, your first one but not the second. So what I’m asking basically is that I think maybe we should take your suggested amendments and vote on them one at a time, and see how each of them fly. YUEN: You know, that’s fine with me. Somebody can make a motion to that effect. EXHIBIT B 52 WATANABE: Well, I had two motions on the floor, a motion to amend the motion and a motion, possibly a motion to amend the amendment. DOMINGO: Okay, what’s the motion? WATANABE: No, there is no, it was suggested, it was suggested that we have another motion to amend the motion that amends the original motion. SIRACUSA: No, no, no, no, no. WATANABE: Yeah, because you wanted to take it one at a time; and right now it still it’s stated as -. SIRACUSA: But that was a suggestion, not a motion. WATANABE: Right; and that’s what I said. I said it was suggested that. Now while we’re in the discussion on this, yeah, why don’t you voice all of your concerns or -. You talked about two of them. There are four of them. I’m sure you have more. SIRACUSA: Well, number four I have no problem with that. That’s just a nonsubstantive thing. That’s a typo really, I guess. The number three is a little more complicated and I really am having trouble understanding it. WATANABE: So you had problems with almost all of them. Okay, okay. Does anyone else have issues with the proposed amendments since we’re in discussion? Okay. Then so now to make it clear, what we’re voting on is whether to include the four amendments as proposed by the Director in the original motion which then further amended this with the three original amendments. Okay? So with that why don’t we call that vote? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I think the motion, amended motion is clear, as articulated by the Chair. So with that I’ll take the roll call vote. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Bowman? EXHIBIT B 53 BOWMAN: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Nay. HAYASHI: Chair Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Motion carries. WATANABE: Okay, so now we have an amended main motion with seven amendments to the proposed CDP. Right? WOODWARD: Right. WATANABE: And is there any further discussion on that? BOWMAN: I just -. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just want to thank Ms. Siracusa for her scrutiny. I think it’s important that we do that. So thank you. WATANABE: I’ve been real quiet about all of this. I have some questions. I’m sorry, I know it’s getting late. But within the CDP Plan they talk about, and I brought this up during the Kona meeting, you know, providing free wireless beginning in whatever area, cell phone communication. And I think, you know, much of the community probably wants that and probably much of the island wants that. But, you know, Hawaiian Tel Com lost $40,000,000 in this first quarter of this year. That’s a burn rate of a little more than $13.3 million a month. So who’s going to pay for this? OLSON: Well, I mean, having been there for the discussion the question is, yeah, that is the question. Who is going to pay to pay for it? I mean this goes up to the Council. I mean the Economic Development Committee looked at ways to enhance EXHIBIT B 54 economic development in Puna; and obviously wireless internet, internet wireless service was found to be, you know, one of those components that would serve that end. Now, I mean, obviously this is going to take a lot more discussion because who is going to pay for it? It’s a legitimate question, which is separate from is it a good idea? Now we’re going to have to bring the, the fact that it would provide economic benefit, is there something that goes over to R&D? I mean the reason it came up, of course, is there are other municipalities and other counties across the United States that have moved to do this. WATANABE: As I recall this was not an objective. This was stated as an action item. As stated -. OLSON: Yes, we would like to have R&D go and look at it and see whether it’s viable. WATANABE: I’d like too if you would pay my $100, you know, that’d be great, you know. But as I stated before in the Kona meeting, yeah, I’m all for one County, one island, one County. I’m all for subsidy of essentials, yeah, essential services. But I don’t necessarily consider essential services free wireless communication. And this kind of goes to the point of, okay, how much of this ordinance is enforceable? So, you know, we make this ordinance now, it’s law; and then now we can argue that, well, you approved it so we have to give everyone in Puna free. OLSON: It’s whatever the County Council approves and leaves in our document. WATANABE: Oh, yeah, even if -. But you’re asking me for a favorable opinion, right? You’re asking me for a favorable -. OLSON: Do you think it’s a good idea? I mean you can approve or disapprove it. I mean it’s going up to the Council and they’re going to make the call. That’s what they get paid for. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: No, I was just going to say be careful not to break your own rule now. We don’t want to debate with the -. You know, it’s easy to get sucked back in. So I think we’re on the right track and, you know, if we just move forward. I hear what you’re saying, but we don’t want to get sucked back in again. So, if we can -. So just clarity then, okay, so what we’re going to vote on now is the seven amendments. We already did the four, that’s the Director’s four. Now we’re going to include René’s, Commissioner Siracusa’s included, is this correct? EXHIBIT B 55 WATANABE: That’s correct. We’ve got seven. Okay. Then I said my piece. Let’s have the vote. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. There are seven amendments to the proposed draft of the Puna CDP, one of which is to have the working papers attached. Before I take the vote, from the staff’s standpoint we need to transmit these documents over to the County Council if this motion passes. We need to be clear, as well as the Steering Committee, needs to be clear as to what these documents are. Because we don’t know what it is. SIRACUSA: The working papers and recommendations from the Working Groups. HAYASHI: Okay. And we also need it in a timely manner so that we can transmit to the County Council as soon as possible. YUEN: Larry, are you clear what would be sent up? Is there a set definition of what are the, I’m sorry, the working papers and the -. Is there a set work product that we received from the working groups that we can define and send up? BROWN: Yeah, it’s right here. It’s all here. Actually it’s two volumes about this thick altogether. And it’s all been on the website since the date of approval by the Steering Committee. I have CDs, copies. We didn’t print all of that stuff out cause it’s over 800 pages; and it’s an appendix-referenced document to the CDP. It’s not actually what in and of itself, what my understanding would be what is adopted by ordinance. But the fact that it’s referenced in the document to be adopted as a reference document gives it what degree of legitimacy or -. YUEN: Correct. You cannot, you would not adopt two volumes of a ppendices by ordinance. You would refer to it as a separate document. BROWN: Right. WATANABE: Okay? HAYASHI: So I guess we’re all clear as to what needs to be submitted. With that I’ll take the vote. BOWMAN: Question? I have a question, excuse me, just real quick. So the Council will get a CD or something, whether it be paper or CD of the working -? BROWN: I have submitted a CD to the Council but I can burn a copy for each member, too. BOWMAN: But of the working papers? EXHIBIT B 56 BROWN: Correct, working papers and working group reports. BOWMAN: And working, thank you, just to clarify. WATANABE: Okay, I think we’re ready for it. HAYASHI: Okay, thank you. On the motion, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. WOODWARD: That was kind of a half aye. OGATA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye, with reservations. HAYASHI: Commissioner Bowman? BOWMAN: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: And Chair Watanabe? WATANABE: Nay. HAYASHI: Mr. Chairman, seven ayes and one no, motion carries. EXHIBIT B 57 The discussion ended at 7:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT B 58