Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-18 TKONACDP PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 18, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANwas called to order at 10:50 a.m. in the Sheraton Keauhou Bay Resort and Spa, Keauhou III and IV, 78-128 Ehukai Street, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rene’ Siracusa Alvin Rho Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner  Maija Cottle, Staff Planner Deanne Bugado, Planner, Kona Office And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Review and action on the draft Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) submitted by the Kona CDP Steering Committee and its consultant, Wilson Okamoto Corporation. WATANABE: We are now on the Agenda Item No. 4; this will be the third reading of the Kona Community Development Plan. May I call on Mr. Melrose and Nancy Pisicchio – I hope I pronounced your last name right. PISICCHIO: Good morning. WATANABE: Okay, why don’t I swear you all in then. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? PISICCHIO: I do. MELROSE: I do. E. MATSUKAWA: I do. EXHIBIT D 1 WATANABE: Thank you. And if any of you are going to provide any additional testimony or comments, would you state your name and address prior to making any comments. So I’m not sure – Mr. Melrose, shall I begin with you? Do you have anything to add? MELROSE: The only thing I’d like to add, I’d like to provide another Steering Committee member, Curtis Tyler, an opportunity. There was a -, both of our prior meetings with you, there have been questions about the membership of the cultural resource group; and since Curtis was the Steering Committee member that lead that Working Group, and was actively involved, I’d like to ask him just to share some thoughts with you. Is that all right? WATANABE: That would be great. MELROSE: I’m going to give him my chair then. WATANABE: Mr. Tyler – I’ve sworn in Mr. Melrose earlier – but do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TYLER: I do. WATANABE: And of course, name and address. TYLER: Mr. Chairman, Members of the Hawaii County Planning Commission, Director Yuen and members of the staff, good morning. My name is Curtis Tyler. My residence address is 73-1305 Hiolani Street, Kailua-Kona, 96740. Mr. Chairman and Mr. Melrose, thank you for the opportunity to make a brief comment to you regarding the Kona Community Development Plan. I come to you this morning as an individual, as well of course as a member of the Steering Committee, but relative to the cultural resources portion of the Plan, which you have before you. I speak to you as a kamaaina, as I have before this body. And I wanted to say to you that one of the things that I feel is so important about this Plan is the fact that it has at all times and in all places tried to be inclusive. And certainly if you consider the membership of the Steering Committee – and you know those persons as I think all of us now know each other pretty well after almost three years of working together – that’s about as inclusive and diverse a group of individuals as one could imagine. And when you consider that this group of approximately 15 – I think we finally ended up with twelve or 13 at the end – individuals committed themselves to serve not only the County of Hawaii but in particular the citizens of Kona to help put together a proposal and a recommendation for a Kona Community Development Plan, and at the final vote it was unanimous vote. I think it’s a clear indication of the commitment of the individuals to recognize the need to be inclusive and the need to embrace our diversity as a community. And with that in mind, I just want to say that I realize it’s been suggested to you that certain groups be represented in certain kinds of portions of the Plan – some of these subgroups or subcommittees – and I wanted to caution you and to express my feeling that to do so, to have a particular group named as the Plan being required to have a representative from that group would be contrary to this spirit of inclusivity, rather than exclusivity. There are many bona fide EXHIBIT D 2 Hawaiian organizations – I’m sure each of you could name quite a few; I won’t name any of them here today – whose members would be suitable for some of these committees. However, it is my very strong belief that individuals get selected or chosen or named or appointed or confirmed to various groups because they’re raised up by the community for their own manao, for their own na'auao, their own wisdom, their own perspective and experience, not so much because of the organizations to which they belong. And I think that there is enough good work that’s been done and good work to be done, and representatives and individuals from Kona who understand the importance of this inclusivity or being inclusive, that we together as a community can work with the Planning Department and the Council and others involved to come up with – and the administration, of course – to come up with individuals who will best serve the needs of this community. So I would, in closing, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Commission, I would ask you please to favorably recommend passage of this Plan as it has been submitted to you. I’ll be happy to answer any questions.And I thank you for your consideration of my comments. Aloha. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Tyler. Fellow Commissioners, do we have -? Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Tyler -. TYLER: You’re welcome. DOMINGO: For your comments and for your contribution to the Kona Community Development Plan and also with respect to the culture that you referred to. You know, I was hard in expressing the possibility of having certain group be named in the council that was within part of the discussion of the Community Development Plan at the last meeting. Now as you speak and as I’ve thought about it ever since that time, you know, if we were to include that within the Community Development Plan; I just turned that around, and be that that group that I had referred to were included in there – and you know, I have tremendous respect for those individuals because of their concern for the culture and their heritage – but then I also turn that around and I thought what about those groups outside of this particular group that wanted to be included, how would they accept the fact that we were suggesting that only one group, only a group of that movement, be included. And then I felt it wouldn’t be fair to them, and I wondered what their reaction would be if this is done. So to take the safest position, I think your comment and the comment that Mr. Melrose made with respect to exclusivity in the last meeting, I take it very seriously and I think that’s the best route to take and just leave that portion of the Community Development Plan as written. And I thank you again for coming forward and expressing that. TYLER: Thank you, Commissioner Domingo. I very much appreciate your perspective. Mahalo for that. Thank you again, Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any -? Mr. Melrose, you have some additional comments, please. EXHIBIT D 3 MELROSE: If I might. Earlier today Norman and you all recognized Commissioner Rho for staying over an extra meeting to participate in the final vote of passage of the Community Development Plan. We greatly appreciate your participating and staying on the program with us here. And in that same note, I would like to say that there are several members of the Steering Committee that are here with the same level of commitment to this Plan, and I would like to recognize all the members of the Steering Committee that have come today: Besides Curtis, we have Marni Herkes, Kate Jacobson, Ed Rapoza, Mike Matsukawa, Tom Hickox, Gretchen Lawson. I think we’ve got a majority of the Steering Committee here to join you and the majority approving the Community Development Plan. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you very much. Would that pretty much conclude your initial presentations? You will have an opportunity to make additional comments following public testimony. MELROSE: Thank you very much for the opportunity. WATANABE: Okay. And I assume that we have no further questions. Mr. Domingo, do you have any further questions? DOMINGO: I’ve learned in the past that it’s best not to say anything when you know you’re ahead because things might change if you say something. WATANABE: Thank you, thank you. Okay, we do have five additional people from the public who have signed up to testify. So we have five seats up here – I can call you all up: Jon Barlow, Gretchen Lawson, Marshall Blann, Shannon Rudolph and Harold Murata. Would you all come up, please. Okay, I’d like to swear you all in at the same time; so would you all raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Okay, great. As a reminder, we do generally place a limit on time limit that is on public testimony because we do want to provide everyone with an opportunity. So I’d like to request that you limit yourself to, say, five minutes at the maximum, three to five minutes. Okay, maybe we can begin with you, Gretchen, yes? You are on the Steering Committee. So would you state your name and address, please, and then you may begin with your testimony. LAWSON: My name is Gretchen Lawson. My address is 75-5342 Laaulu Road in Holualoa. I have served since the inception of the Steering Committee. I would just like to reiterate and reinforce Curtis’ words about the diversity of the group that became a very close knit group of people and did due diligence in working over many details and taking into consideration input from the public, starting with a small group meetings – I think 1,000 of them – each composed of individual members; the passion that went into this Plan was incredible. I think the Plan itself is comprehensive, it’s thorough, it’s supported. The parts of the Plan that I am most pleased with are the integrations between the different subjects and concerns – the nine guiding principles – and the fact that the Plan takes the time and acknowledges that there is a need for a financing plan, that there is an implementation plan, and that there really are EXHIBIT D 4 statements of evaluation that will tell us whether the Plan itself has been effective or not; those are components of any good thorough planning job. And I would love to see that this Commission recognize the amount of work that has gone into this thus far and support the unanimous vote of the Steering Committee to move this forward to the County Council as is. And I certainly do appreciate the opportunity to be able to come before you and express my deep and thorough support of the work that was done on this Plan up until now. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you for your testimony. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions for Ms. Gretchen? Seeing none, thank you, you may be seated. LAWSON: Thank you. WATANABE: Sir, would you use the mike, please, and I need to have your name and address before you begin your testimony. BARLOW: Yes, my name is Jon Barlow. My address – I’m trying to come home after 27 years in Anchorage, Alaska – 4206 Cope Street, and right now I’m residing in HSY 298. With a number of projects to bring to Hawaii with the fact that the clean energy needs and/or the fuel costs are driving people pretty much out of their homes and everything, I’m testifying on regards to the energy component 4.7 of the KCDP. As is, it’s a little bit hard to adjust for the energy programs that will be coming in, the technology that is available. So I hope you’ll understand that in written testimony I’m about to bring that we can have some kind of a change so that -, I know it’s an emerging technology, it’s an industry that’s going to be coming about; but we need to address that there is room for the technology to be applied. And that’s why I’m saying that energy is free; it’s the technology that has a price. Malama pono o ho‘nua, no hanauna e hiki mai ana. Though translation can vary, the basis of this statement, Power Alternative’s mission, is to “Take proper care of earth, so generations/descends can be alright for life.” Since oil was discovered in Titusville, PA, 1842, American industrialization has brought about unprecedented changes, advances and achievements from application of petrochemicals in products, technologies, and conveniences that have made our quality of life what it is; but then too, modes of progress, productivity and commercial distribution rely on same petrochemical as “fuel” for nearly 150 years – sparkplug was invented in 1860. So it was when progress came to these Islands with the means for generating power and the Iolani Palace was energized – as you may or may not know, before the White House – and now, the power supplier is entrenched in the State Statues. And like the rest of nation, Islanders think fuel and energy are one in the same, thus, deem “existing conditions” (Energy 4.7.1) affects Housing, Transportation -. WATANABE: Mr. Barlow. BARLOW: Yes. WATANABE: We do have your written testimony. EXHIBIT D 5 BARLOW: Oh, yeah, okay, you are right, right, okay, okay. WATANABE: Yeah, so -. BARLOW: I don’t need to read it, right? WATANABE: What I’m suggesting is maybe you -. BARLOW: New stuff. WATANABE: Provide like an executive summary type, rather than -. BARLOW: Going through this whole thing, right. WATANABE: Especially since, you know, we are only going to allow you five minutes max, right? BARLOW: Right, okay, okay. I’m sorry. I got kind of carried away here in putting it out. Well, what I have here is just some drawings of some projects that I would like to try and propose to the owners of these properties, as well as the areas that I’m looking to speculate for properties. And the thing is -, like, the first thing I did when I came into Kona was the fact that the energy component, like it was in Anchorage, it has lack of substance for the new technology I’m applying. I do have a proprietary energy system; you have the literature that I brought to you last week with regards to ATEC, Ambient Thermal Energy Conversion, which is similar to the OTEC – I have a letter of support from the Natural Energy Laboratory with the fact that the ATEC system will work as the same principle as the OTEC. And they would be implemented into these structures. Ideally, as we find that the energy is getting so costly for people who live and commute from other town, it’s to have homes that are self-sustained like it says in your energy issues, as to have new homes, existing homes to be redesigned, renovated, so that they can become more energy efficient, not waste energy, and become self-sustained; and I am in align with those things. And I’m just hoping that when it comes time that I have the money and means to be able to present to you those plans that would be associated with these complexes and projects, that I can gain your favoritism and your approval on the fact that we need to do something for our children today on providing for the quality of life and not burn up all the fuel or the petrochemicals so to say, so that we can have a future for our children. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Barlow? None? Thank you, Mr. Barlow, you may be seated. ALAMEDA: May I make a statement real quick, Mr. Chair? WATANABE: I beg your pardon? Yes. ALAMEDA: I just want to suggest, Mr. Barlow, maybe you might want to talk with the HPA school; they just had a presentation on renewable energy, so -. EXHIBIT D 6 BARLOW: Yeah, I know, I know, I saw that. ALAMEDA: Maybe you could put your minds together and figure something out. WATANABE: Very well. I believe -, probably the next person is Mr. Murata? Would you state your name and address, please. Please speak into the mike and then state your name and address, and then you may begin with your testimony.+ MURATA: Okay. My name is Harold Murata. My mailing address is Box 1752, Kealakekua. I reside in the Keauhou Mauka area near Donkey Mill Art Center and the Board of Water Supply; I live in that area. On the backside of the sheet, I have an excerpt of the Kona Community – yes, okay – under sub-item “Capital improvements and equipment.” I think this is, you know, important beef of the Plan; I’m talking about beef that’s edible and good stuff – that beef in a combative way. The 16 items shown there plan how to spend the money and what to th improve. That’s good. I support that. But I’d like to see a 17 item added into it; and this item would be capital expenditures for Mamalahoa Highway between Honalo and Palani Junction for operational and safety improvements. The impact of urbanization has changed the character of that Highway from low-volume country road to urban commuters and residents going back and forth more. And that is a country road, narrow, and it’s dangerous with more use; the road will be subject to accelerated erosion and fatigue. So that’s why I’m saying that. In the process of developing of this Plan itself, I attended the Transportation Working Group meetings, and I talked about this. But somehow my talk fell through a crack regardless of how it happened, it did fall through or it got filtered out – I don’t know. And I didn’t catch this until the final draft was prepared. Before the final draft there was an opportunity to review an earlier version of the draft; I don’t remember if I review that thoroughly, but somehow it fell through my crack also. A fervent advocate of the Plan told me that my point is not substantive enough, and that it’s not worthy of slowing down the process for revision. And I talked with avid fans and they told me, yeah, that Plan is imperfect, maybe faulty, and it is important to forge ahead with this Plan during this administration, that there would be a lot of problem in administrative protocol and, you know, that kind of stuff. So I said, okay, yeah. But I think more important than expedient passage is completion of the Plan with clarity. The formulation process deserves correct prevision of the project theme with reflective revisions as appropriate before finalization. The mantra of “get it approved now” is perhaps shortsighted. That’s it. That’s all I’ve got to say. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Murata? I might add one comment, Mr. Murata. You know, every plan is really a living document; and so potentially in the longer term, revisions will be made. And possibly, that road that you are talking about will revert back to a more of a rural type of traffic when some of the other improvements are put into place. I think a lot of people are now using that road as an alternate route only because some of the improvements that are suggested and have been EXHIBIT D 7 delayed, you know, they were projected to be completed already have not taken place. If those improvements move ahead, potentially you may actually see your rural road return to its original state. MURATA: It is a very important transportation facility; and all the land use actions of zoning, rezoning, re-re-rezoning and what not, has an impact to it. Then sometime I think we get caught up in all this rapid growth, and some necessary things are ignored. So you know, I just want to give this thing a little essence of importance, so that when you open the document years from now, you say, oh, yeah, yeah, Mamalahoa is in there, so you know. That’s all. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Murata. So just in a nutshell, you just want to make sure that the road that you are talking about, even if it might return to a rural road, but just that we pay attention to that road and we make sure that we have funds to maintain the essence of what the road used to be or to make sure it’s safe. Is that pretty much what you are saying? MURATA: Yeah, yeah, you know, that it doesn’t fall by the wayside. ALAMEDA: Okay. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Murata. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Murata, for your input to the Plan. You know, as I looked through the Kona Development Plan and the Puna Development Plan, and of course many other plans that I’ve gone through during my time, I tell myself – I talk to myself and that’s what happens when you become a commissioner; you talk to yourself sometimes – you know, Mr. Murata, if I am looking for a perfect plan, again, I tell myself, you’ll never find it because there is no such a thing as a perfect plan. But what any plan, in fact, most of the plans that I’ve come across, it provides for procedures and venues and whatever way you want to make an amendment to the plan; it’s there and you can do it at an opportune time, you know, at the right time. When you bring it up at the right time, you’ll find that you have more attention, focus on that issue to which you concern. And what I’m saying is that even though it’s not written in here, in the future as you visualize and you observe things happening, and then you come to a conclusion at that time, this is when I should mention it to the powers that be, so that they can address it right away. You know, if you put it in the Plan, it might be forgotten or it might be overlooked because of the nature of it or probably it’s not as important as others may see it. So don’t feel bad about it not being here; but like anything else, it’s a flexible plan and it can be amended. Thank you very much. EXHIBIT D 8 MURATA: Yeah, I do get introspective myself at times. And you are right; plans are subject to change. But you know, memory is short and I’d like to say it once, twice and three times. Redundancy increases reliability. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Murata, you may be seated. Oh, excuse me. RHO: One very short question. Can you talk to us or give us a statement on operational improvements? You say “Mamalahoa Highway Operational and Safety Improvements;” I want to know what operational improvements are in your mind. MURATA: Operational improvements are improving the standards of the road, a country road for smooth flow and safety primarily. If you drive Mamalahoa Highway, a lot of places are eroded; you make one mistake when you are driving night time, you’re going to end up down the embankment. RHO: But your vision for that road and for placing that at No. 17 – or whatever the number is – is not to make that road from Honalo to Palani Junction a highway, I guess. MURATA: You mean like an arterial highway? RHO: Yeah. RUDOLPH: No room. MURATA: No, that’s right, there is no room for -. RHO: Basically what, focus on safety? MURATA: Yes. RHO: And it would retain its country character. MURATA: Yes. RHO: Okay, thanks. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, I think we are done with the questions. Thank you, Mr. Murata, you may be seated. All right. I believe -, Shannon? Yeah. RUDOLPH: Aloha. My name is Shannon Rudolph, Post Office Box 243, Holualoa, Hawaii. I just want to say I also live on Mamalahoa Highway, and I understand it’s part County and part State; maybe the County and the State need to get together on that. As far as Mamalahoa being in the regional plan or – that was old – the Kona Community Development Plan, certainly need to plan ahead, and may or may not need to be in there. But it seems to me that we’ve been paying for the safety of that road for a long time and not getting it. Now, I will volunteer to go along that road in two hours with a can of orange spray paint and point out all the EXHIBIT D 9 places where it’s dangerous because on the side of some parts of the road, it drops down ten inches right on the white line; you hit that with your wheel, it throws you back into the other lane. And since that road is used so much now, there’re a lot of really dangerous spots. I can tell you; I’ve been driving that for 20 years. And I’ve called and not really gotten much action. So that’s something that we’ve already paid for that we are not getting, so -. Anyway, I just want to say I think the Kona Community Development Plan is democracy in action. I haven’t been able to pay as close attention to this Plan as I have two past attempts at regional planning because I’ve been ill. I’m just very concerned this Plan will go the way of past resident-formulated regional plans – shot down again by a few.Residents have been trying to pass similar plans for at least 20 years that I know of; and now is the time to pass this Plan – or yesterday. If it gets shot down again here today, you folks are participating in the death of democracy on our island once again. Please help democracy thrive on Hawaii Island. Please pass this Plan onto the Council today. Don’t let residents’ hard work be for naught yet again. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. When I think of democracy, I will not depend on others to fulfill that need on my part; I would for my part be strong and assertive to see that my rights are preserved and that what we’ve done as a community is fulfilled. I would suggest with the immediate problems that you have concerning Mamalahoa Highway, you know, get your councilman go with you, walk the distance and pinpoint the more serious areas of the road, which present some endangerment to you. RUDOLPH: Sir, every time it rains, there’s more problems; the problem is the erosion mostly. DOMINGO: Well, I guess you need to bring that up to your councilman. That’s -. RUDOLPH: Well, she can’t, they can’t stop the rain. DOMINGO: No, but -. RUDOLPH: Because once it gets fixed, then it erodes again as soon as it rains again. DOMINGO: Okay, let me say this. Nobody can stop the rain; but what you can do as an individual, as the county, you can address the effects of the rain that comes on in a way of flooding, you know. And there are steps that you can take -. RUDOLPH: That got shot down, too. DOMINGO: No, you know, don’t be so negative about it. I mean, it takes just everybody to come together and put a plan into operation. And -. DUDOLPH: That’s why I’m here. EXHIBIT D 10 DOMINGO: As you stated, you commend those who were part of the formulation of this Plan. And does that mean that it ends here? To make it become, to bring it fruition, the community needs to be together, always be together, and be vigilant as to what’s happening. This is a suggestion I give you. Okay, Mr. Chairman, I’ll keep my watch out. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Yes. WOODWARD: I might just make one comment because you brought up the comment that Kona had been through this several times before and nothing much has occurred. Well, in the past the Community Development Plans were submitted to County Council as resolution, which in a legal sense mean they were like a suggestion – so like if you pulled up to a stop sign that said, “Please stop if you like.” I mean that’s essentially what it was.The law has changed and the Community Development Plans now, once enacted by County Council – we only pass on our recommendation to County Council – but once they are passed by County Council, they are ordinance; they have the full effect of law just as all other laws County Council has passed. So things have changed and this is a meaningful process now. And I think it was kind of a meaningless process in the past; and I think you are right there. But just for your information. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any further questions? Okay, Shannon, thank you for your testimony. You may be seated. Marshall Blann? BLANN: Yes, Marshall Blann, 75-5865 Walua Road, Kailua-Kona. I’m one of the very citizens who did not participate in this Plan. I have read it twice now, and my comment is what a fantastic job. The document is a wonderful vision for the next 100 years for the development of West Hawaii. It is, as pointed out, flexible as written, and additionally can be amended after it’s adopted. Now, should it be adopted, after a couple of years wearing it, we’ll get the touch and feel of it, and of course we can then make minor amendments to it; and by success of approximation, it can indeed approach a perfect Plan. We can’t expect it to start out that way. But as pointed out, we can keep amending it as we go along this next century to do so. So my main purpose, since this could be amended to death – and I mean that literally – is to urge passage without amendment. Now, some concerns were expressed even today, and others, on flexibility; some of these points in fact can be addressed in the implementation phase, I believe. And for that I have to say there’re a couple -, well, you want to have a real good feel for what’s in that Plan; so to know what ordinances we might want to be adopted or charter amendments made in implementation, I can see that there’re a couple of people on that Steering Committee who would be excellent for the next charter commission, which the Mayor is going to appoint in 2009. So I was just going to, in this digression, urge that if you know the new Mayor and have influence with him, whoever he may be, that you suggest those names. WOODWARD: Or her. BLANN: That was neuter. That was a neuter point. I was going to say I won’t finger those people by name because up till now I consider them friends and I think they EXHIBIT D 11 consider me a friend; so I won’t give them by name. But again I want to urge acceptance of this without amendment, so that it does get through and become law, and then as we go along and get a feel of it, it can be amended. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I thank you for your positiveness. I commend you for your philosophy with regards to this Plan. We really appreciate it, and I’m sure the Steering Committee and the community does really appreciate that. Thank you very much. WATANABE: Do we have any further questions? Okay, thank you, Mr. Blann. I do have an additional person, Marni Herkes; I believe you are a member of the Steering Committee also. May I swear you in. HERKES: You may. WATANABE: Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? HERKES: I do. WATANABE: And name and address, please. HERKES: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Marni Herkes. My Post Office Box is 572, Holualoa. I know Marshall is probably the only one up here today that was from Kailua-Kona; so Holualoa was well represented today. I was on the Steering Committee, and obviously I love the Plan; everything is fine. But I want to talk to you right now as a Board member of Pulama Ia Kona – I see Mr. Yuen is smiling because he is very familiar with the Kona Heritage Corridor. Mamalahoa Highway has been designated as a Kona Heritage Corridor. I will get you all booklets and maps about the Heritage Corridor. We have a workshop st on November 1. We hope to be the first scenic byway in the State. The State has missed millions and millions of federal funds because they have not been able to set up a scenic byway program. We have all the documentation, everything ready to go; and when and if the State gets its act together, and the State Highways gets a program with criteria – we’ve met all the criteria that they can find – we will be a scenic byway. With that comes federal funds, comes a flexible highway and a different kind of a system for highways. So I would encourage you to support Mamalahoa Highway. As it is right now – I drive it about four times a day, we all live on it – it is not a dangerous road, if everybody goes at the speed limit and everybody pays attention. But you cannot talk on your cell phone, eat food, smoke cigarettes, not keep your hands on the wheel while you are driving Mamalahoa Highway; it is one you have to pay attention, and if you do that, for the most part you’ll be okay. At night it gets a little spooky, but I drive it anyway, so -. And I drive a small car; so I don’t have to worry about one of those big ones. But I would st encourage you to, well, invite you to the workshop on November 1, and encourage you to support all of the Heritage Corridors; there is one in Kau, there is one in Volcano, there is one in Hamakua. So all of us are recognizing our buildings and historic objects along our highways. Thank you very much. EXHIBIT D 12 WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Herkes? None? Yes, Mr. Rho. RHO: You heard Mr. Murata’s comments -. HERKES: Good morning. RHO: Good morning. HERKES: I heard his comments. He is a good friend. I know him very well. We talk a lot. He is a very good highway person. RHO: Would you place that into the Plan, his recommendation or his suggestion? HERKES: I’m not sure what his recommendation is. If it’s a four-lane highway up there, no. RHO: No, I don’t think it is a four-lane highway. KERKES: What is it? RHO: It would just be safety improvements, the way I got it from him. HERKES: Mamalahoa is constantly having safety improvements all the time. RHO: So you wouldn’t have any problem adding that as No. 17, as a member of the Steering Committee -. HERKES: Safety improvements to Mamalahoa? RHO: Yes. HERKES: There are safety improvements and there are safety improvements. I would not have a problem adding safety improvements as No. 17. I would have a problem with amending the Plan, however. I would have a problem with that in anything; I think it should stay as it is. And safety improvements to Mamalahoa are certainly in a lot of places in the Plan already; safe streets – there is a whole bunch of safe wording in the Plan under which safety improvements can be added. RHO: Thank you. HERKES: We don’t think there is much that’s left out of the Plan, so -. RHO: Thank you. EXHIBIT D 13 ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: I’m just curious and a little perplexed. Why wouldn’t you want to add something that makes sense, to me at least? HERKES: It’s already in the Plan; there is already improvements. To open it up to adding things if somebody else wants to add something, somebody else wants to add something – the Plan is a well-balanced document; it has some very good planning philosophies in it. And safety improvements are already in the Plan. Mamalahoa is already on line to be improved through the scenic byways. So why would you add that one? ALAMEDA: So the idea of somebody adding something here and something there concerns you. HERKES: Yes, it does. ALAMEDA: Because -? HERKES: It throws the balance of the Plan off. ALAMEDA: But those somebodies are part of the community; I mean, that’s the Community Development Plan. So I’m a little confused on that. But thank you anyway. WATANABE: Okay. We’ve talked quite a bit specifically about Mamalahoa Highway. And in Mr. Murata’s testimony he did indicate he was more concerned about it returning to rural nature and the safety. Possibly that’s not necessarily something that goes into a Community Development Plan where you are talking potentially more about, you know, arterial roads and the size of the roads; maybe this is something that is more Public Works kind of an issue where we are addressing, you know, roadway maintenance. And like I indicated earlier, I have the feeling that if some of the other major arterial connections do eventually materialize, that people will not select that particular route; they are selecting that route because of the current congested traffic conditions. ALAMEDA: Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: In response. I don’t see it so much as the issue as opening up the Plan for amendments. That’s what I see the issue really is all about, not so much the road. So the question that I have, maybe later on in deliberation, is what is the danger of opening it up for amendments now because that’s part of the process, huh? Or no – I don’t know. WATANABE: Yeah, I’m not entirely against that, either. Okay, thank you, thank you. Okay, last call. Yes, Mr. Matsukawa, I assume you’d like to testify. EXHIBIT D 14 M. MATSUKAWA: I didn’t sign up. My name is Michael -. WATANABE: Yeah. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? M. MATSUKAWA: I do. My name is Mike Matsukawa. My address is Hind Road, Captain Cook, Kawaloa, South Kona. I’m a member of the Steering Committee. I just wanted to nip this dialogue as quickly as I could.I’ve spoken to Mr. Murata about this issue before. I think what Mr. Alameda is talking about – and Mr. Rho – is covered by Chapter 5, which is the implementation section. The major direction in Chapter 4 outlines new roads, expansion of existing roads, new infrastructure. The ongoing maintenance of Hine Road where I live, where Napoopoo Road going down to Kealakekua Bay, is not in here because it’s part of our ongoing maintenance programs, highway safety, which is addressed in the Plan. Now, Chapter 5 is a new dynamic for people who are not quite familiar with how the CIP and budgetary process works. To a large degree, if you go to a County Council committee hearing on the budget, five people show up at the public hearings; it’s a complicated subject matter. What Chapter 5 does is on Page 5-7 it creates and charges the Implementation Committee with this important function of considering budgetary issues, CIP – Chairman mentioned – Public Works types of improvement requirements for existing facilities and roadways. And this creates a public process and a public forum for the community to discuss, you know; we have access to five million dollars of fuel tax money, how do we apply it? Do we fix Napoopoo Road before we fix something up in Kalaoa? If the Pulama program goes on with the Heritage Corridor, could we leverage county money and federal funds to improve the safety and cultural aspects of the roadway? So I think that’s what Marni Herkes was talking about is the Plan dose give you the structure to address these kinds of concerns as they arise. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Matsukawa? Seeing none, again, last call, anyone else would care to testify? Yes, ma’am. Okay. May I swear you in. Would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? PALMA-GLENNIE: Yes, I do. My name is Janice Palma-Glennie. I’m a resident of Kona, P. O. Box 4849, Kailua-Kona is my address. And just briefly, because of the discussion of amending the Plan, I want to say one thing that amending the Plan which included input from an unprecedented amount of people in this community and other stakeholders will only make the people of Kona wait longer to have better planning and community-generated development, which are the two things they’ve been crying out for. I urge you folks to please pass this Plan intact. There are other times that we will be able to take up issues that need to be looked at as things progress. But right now this community wants you to pass this Plan, and they want a plan, they want a regional plan, they need a regional plan; and this is the time that we can really have that happened and we can make true progress. So thank you very much for the time that you spent working on this; I know it’s been a huge effort for everyone. WATANABE: Thank you. EXHIBIT D 15 PALMA-GLENNIE: Mahalo. WATANABE: Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Ma’am, thank you for your testimony. So in your opinion then, or in your vision, how do you see, where is the inroad after the Plan goes through and it follows the course that you would like it to follow, then at what point, or where is the inroad for somebody to come and make some further suggestions, or maybe take away something that was thought as a good idea but, shucks, bad idea now? PALMA-GLENNIE: Well, I think that the Plan is really strong structure, but at the same time -, well, first of all, it has to still go through the County Council process; so there is time for public input during the legislative process of this.I mean, just if you folks, you know, pass it today from you, that doesn’t become law until after that. So hopefully there will be input from, you know, the community then. Also, to survive and to thrive, this Plan requires constant input from the community. It is always going to be a community document, it is always going to be a community plan because it can’t survive without that, and it gives so many opportunities for everyone that is interested to take part and there is no end to it.So that’s what’s really exciting about it is that within that structure it will naturally flow with what’s happening in the community, what needs are with the future; I mean, no one knows exactly what the future is going to look like. But at this time at this stage, going the way we are going, we get a pretty good lookout, if we are looking at Oahu or the mainland; and I don’t think that that’s the way that we want to go. And this gives us a great opportunity. And it has included so much public input – I don’t know how much is enough, either. That’s the other thing, like, how much do you need till you feel like it’s, you know, I mean, it’s it and it will never be it; it’s both of those things. And it’s a huge -, it’s been a tremendous, amazing work because of such a compromise. I think the woman who was speaking before said this is democracy in action; that’s what it’s been and I think that’s what will continue to be unless it gets held up, you know, forever, which is what has happened to the past plans. And I don’t think, me as a Steering Committee member, and I don’t think the community wants to see that happen. ALAMEDA: Just a real quick comment. I understand that. I know it’s going to go to the County Council and then community members have a chance to input their thoughts there as well. But just a quick caution: If the rhetoric will continue to be like, you know, so many people invested so much time on this Plan, and if you make any -, that to me is just like a double-edged sword, because one side of sword is, hey, right on, plenty community support, so many people invested so many hours for so many years, and consultants and – so that’s good cause that shows inclusivity and diversity; on the other end that’s a huge amount of pressure for somebody who disagrees with the Plan, for somebody who would say, hey, maybe I’d like this changed a little bit. So we’ve just got to be cautious that -, cause we’d like the Plan to be a living document; and if you want it to be a living document, we’ve got to be cautious not to put so much pressure on, hey, this is for everybody, this -, you know. So what I’m saying is just be cautious because if we really want it to be a living document where people can continue to put thoughts and bring it to life, then you want to be really cautious in saying so many people have put in so many hours – you know what I mean – cause there is that pressure on that end. That’s all. EXHIBIT D 16 PALMA-GLENNIE: I really appreciate what you are saying and I guess maybe I wasn’t clear; maybe other people weren’t, either. But I think that’s the thing is that the Plan is very inclusive and so many people have done so much work; but so many people have to do more. And I think that if we – you’re right – let go of the pressure thing about it and look in the future about how much more is going to happen, I don’t think that people need to feel that -, well, I mean, the document is very structured but it is still open. I mean, to me it doesn’t have every little thing, you know, every i dotted and -. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Woodward, you had some comments? WOODWARD: Yeah, just regarding this question of amendments. We sent the Puna Community Development Plan with the favorable recommendation to County Council with six amendments. Now – and I’ll address this to Mr. Torigoe – if we suggest amendments, does that delay anything? Or Mr. Yuen. WATANABE: Sure, Mr. Yuen. YUEN: The reason I want to jump on that is that I can explain the process and I can explain the timeline for all of this. First, the Planning Commission can recommend amendments; only the County Council can actually make amendments. So even the amendments that I’ve suggested to the Puna Community Development Plan, somebody at the County Council has to make a motion to insert those for those even to be on the floor of the County Council. So there is that point. Now, any substantive amendment, if the Council -, it takes three votes by the Council to pass the Community Development Plan; they vote once in the committee, then they have first reading and then they have second reading – so that takes three votes at the Council. If the Council votes at any of those points to make a substantive amendment, the amendments go back to the Steering Committee for their comment and to the Planning Commission for its recommendation. So where we are at on the timeframe actually, with the Puna Community Development Plan, I actually met yesterday with a group of people who were lobbying to pass the Plan as is with no amendments and amend later because they were very concerned about it getting passed right now. The Puna Plan just barely has enough time; if the Council were – the Council is going to thth take it up on July 30 – if the Council passes a group of amendments on July 30, we have enough time to cycle it back through the Steering Committee and the Planning Commission and to get it to the Council for -, they will need two more votes at that point. Okay, there is just enough time to do that with the Puna Plan. There is not enough time to do that with the Kona Plan or either of the Kohala Plans. In the Kona Plan, if it first time went to the Council, they voted to amend it and it went through this process, it could possibly make it, if the Planning Commission took a minimum amount of time necessary and the Council were for example to reschedule and have special meetings and the like; but we cannot assure that it would – taking the scenario of the Planning Commission takes the maximum amount of time that’s allowed by the ordinance and so forth – we could not assure that it would be able to pass in the term of this Council. Now, it’s not absolutely necessary that it pass in the term of this Council or in the term of this administration; it will still be on their agenda. Certainly, though, once you’ve had a series of discussions with the Council, we would like it to go through in that Council. There will be at EXHIBIT D 17 least two new Council members – there’re two members who are running for other office, and not prejudging the outcome of any races – but there will be at least two new Council members. So for that reason, we are trying very hard to get all these Plans to the point where the Council can vote on them and hopefully pass them by the end of the term. I have to keep repeating it’s not any kind of absolute requirement that that happen. It’s not that we are afraid of what will happen in the next term. But you know, both the administration and the current Council have put a lot of attention onto the Plans. So with that, I have to say that I would encourage everybody to have a lot of discipline in what kinds of amendments get made to any of the Plans at this point. And an amendment that is a good idea that’s not in the Plan, I would exercise the discipline of not trying to amend it with that, because there are a lot of good ideas. There are 100 good ideas in the Plan and there are 20 more good ideas that somebody could think of to put in the Plan. If there is, however, a serious problem – and I do have -, there are a couple of things in the Puna Plan that I’m suggesting to change – yes, they should be fixed. So that’s a take on the timeframe on the whole question of amendments to the Plan. I would suggest – and this I think is to help the Commission and its discussion today because there is a timeframe for the Commission to deal with the Plan and this is the last day – my suggestion would be if the Commission is inclined to suggest changes, that rather than work on wording of specific amendments, the Commission express areas of concern and a direction to the County Council. I think we should have another discussion to make sure that it is the consensus of the Planning Commissioners that this section needs to be worked on and to give the Council the direction. But I know it’s very hard to come up with the exact wording in a committee setting like this and especially on something that’s been worked on to the extent – and hashed over – to the extent that this Community Development Plan has been looked at already by the Steering Committee. So I just wanted to offer that as an explanation of the timeframe and the significance of doing amendments at any of the stages that come up before you. You know, it is a function of the Planning Commission to take a good look at this; it’s a function of the County Council to take a good look at this. We can’t say, ramrod this thing through, forget it, pass it, don’t read it, just sign on the dotted line. There are, though, these timeframes and these consequences, if we do substantive amendments. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Woodward, you had some follow-up? WOODWARD: Well, I had a question. What constitutes a substantive amendment? YUEN: Well, let me -, I think the easier way is to say what is not a substantive amendment -. WOODWARD: Let me just refine the question because the only point that I have a problem with – and I’ve stated this before – is Policy LU-1.5, on Page 4-39, the Enhanced Shoreline Setback where it says that they will “maintain a minimum of 1,000-foot open space no-build setback for undeveloped lands adjacent to the shoreline, on parcels which currently exceed 1,000 feet in depth ….;” and that I have a problem with. Now, if it’s not a substantive amendment to say, okay, or maybe we just suggest to Council that they say, “on parcels which EXHIBIT D 18 currently exceed 1,500 feet in depth;” I can live with that. But I don’t know if that’s a substantive amendment or not. YUEN: Yeah, I would say that’s a substantive amendment. And -. WOODWARD: All right, well, you know, I will be happy to suggest that to Council. Everything else is fine with me. I think they’ve done a great job; it’s an incredible document. But I do think that should be changed. It’s not enough for me to vote against it; it’s not enough, you know, if an amendment is going to require it to be delayed, I’m not willing to do that. But I think we ought to send it to Council with that recommendation. WATANABE: Okay. Anyone else have any comments? Well -. PALMA-GLENNIE: Steering Committee might all end up up here. WATANABE: I did promise you a chance to make further comments after testimony. You are also part of the Steering Committee? Is that correct? I know Mr. Melrose is, but -. PALMA-GLENNIE: Yes, I am on the Steering Committee. WATANABE: Okay. MELROSE: And I just came up quite honestly because this 1,000-foot setback is very much Janice’s very important integral part in the dialogue on that part of it, and if she needed more of support, I wanted to be here for her.And trust me, the two of us did not agree on this when we began this process -. PALMA-GLENNIE: This was our toughest point. MELROSE: Took us weeks. I appreciate the comments and the questions that you all raised. And I know you didn’t ask me back up for an opportunity, or allow me back up for an opportunity just to rebut the members of the public that have come up here to do that. And I don’t wish to do that except to point out that Mr. Barlow’s concern about alternate energy technologies is addressed in the Energy Policy 1.5 where there is distributed energy distribution and alternate resources; there is a policy here that deals with that. Mr. Murata’s concern about Mamalahoa Highway is very legitimate. Chapter 4, Transportation System, real focus for Kona has been on connectivity and concurrency, and all of the legs in the first 16 that are listed there are new pieces of road. So if you look at Transportation Policies 3.2 and 3.4 and Public Facilities Policy 2.5, you’ll see that the maintenance functions and the safety level of service components are addressed here not as a new component but as a developing as the other. And I think that the issue that Commissioner Alameda raises about how do others get involved, other good ideas get into the Plan is -, Page 5-7 has the duties of the Implementation Committee and the duties of the Implementation Committee include responding to public questions and to make recommendations for amendments and to initiate and coordinate actions for which the community has assumed responsibility; so there is a mechanism here for the ongoing – it was really intended – when we talked at the last meeting in Hilo about the Implementation EXHIBIT D 19 Committee not assuming a regulatory role that is what you fulfill, we talked really here about the Implementation Committee being the focus, and so that there are opportunities and a duty to provide input to the budget process and into the public process. We try to craft through the dialogue of the time a balance here, and most of the stuff that’s been raised, the questions that have been brought up, can be found a place that are addressed here in the Plan at this point as it is drafted. And we really appreciate your support and particularly that of Director Yuen on the timing issue. And I would just like to say that we’ve all been around long enough to see what happens when the General Plan makes a transition between the administrations and Councils, and that it can go for protracted length of time and be adopted in the latest hours of the next Council. And we appreciate the opportunity for Kona to have a plan that we can deal with now. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay. I believe we are done with the public testimony part. And we’ve heard from one Commissioner so far with regards to suggested revision or special scrutiny from the County Council. Do we have any other concerns from other Commissioners? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I have a couple of comments. And I do compliment the Steering Committee and the people that were involved; you know, they produced this 278-page document with 550-plus pages of supporting documents. But I think one of the speakers mentioned that a large group of people put in a lot of time; and I would have to say it was a small group of people that put in a whole large bunch of time to do this. And that’s one of the concerns I have because if you look at the document itself, the participation, given the 2000 census for North and South Kona, 37,000 residents, and yet 800 people at the first group of meetings and 350 at the second, and assuming that those were not the same people, that still put you at 3 percent of the population. Now, that being said, I think they’ve done a fine job. But I think what we need to do as the Planning Department – and I’ve mentioned this before – is to improve our system of doing these Community Development Plans. What I’ve suggested, since Kau is coming up shortly, you know, the people who are going to show up are going to be retirees, they are going to be political activists, they are going to be people with special interest and developers, largely. You know, mothers with kids and guys that are working three jobs to support their family are not going to show up. And what I’ve suggested when we do the Kau Community Development Plan is that we mail out a questionnaire with two simple questions: What do you see that needs to be improved in Kau, and No. 2, how do you suggest we do it? And then at the bottom of that single page, these are when the meetings are scheduled. And I looked at Section 15.1 of the General Plan, which dictates how Community Development Plans are activated and how they are conducted and up to the point where the steering committee appointed by the Mayor and approved by County Council, the data gathering process is not spelled out in any form of fashion; so there is no reason you can’t do that. So you know, we talk about inclusion and diversity, but when you have 97 percent of the population that are not participating, even though I think this is a fine document, you know, it’s a little hard to say that you have inclusion and diversity. And the second problem I have is with this Enhanced Shoreline Setback. And I will vote for this Plan, but I think we need to send it to County Council and recommend that they change the wording, so that “maintain a minimum of 1,000-foot open space no-build setback for EXHIBIT D 20 undeveloped lands adjacent to the shoreline, on parcels which currently exceed” 1,500 feet in depth. As it currently is written, if you have a property – and I know there aren’t many, but this is going to be a document that’s going to have the power of law for at least ten or twelve years until another Community Development Plan is written for Kona – if you have a property that is 10,020 feet (sic) in depth and you have a 1,000-foot setback, you’ve got nothing. So those are just comments. WATANABE: I think what you meant, Mr. Woodward, was 1,020 feet, not 10,020 feet. WOODWARD: Yes, sir, that’s what I meant, sorry. WATANABE: Yeah, and we’ve had this discussion – I know you want to speak, Mr. Domingo – but we’ve had this discussion to some degree; but really for clarity, I might ask Mr. Yuen to once again indicate whether this is a mandate or if again it’s purely discretionary. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, if I might clarify that a little bit. After Mr. Yuen’s previous comments, I would make this just as a suggestion to Council.I would not vote against the Plan based on that one small objection; but I would suggest that to Council and let it be at their discretion. WATANABE: Thank you very much for that concession. But again I think what I’m looking for is, you know, Mr. Yuen handed out a document that indicated some of the items in here are actual mandates and some are not; and in particular I don’t believe that if you had a lot along the shoreline with 1,020-foot depth, that it’s mandatory that there be a 1,000-foot setback – not the way I’m reading this, and correct me if I’m wrong. YUEN: You are correct in that this applies to discretionary land use changes; it does not apply, for example, to building of a structure that needs only a building permit. And in that respect it’s different than the setback in the Zoning Code like when you have a setback for your house from the street, that applies when you come in for a building permit. This applies for things like Changes of Zone, SMA Major Permits and the like where you are seeking a land use entitlement that you don’t have. And so just to give you an example, if somebody has a piece of property that’s 1,100 feet deep and they want to build a house and there is nothing that they need to build that house besides a building permit, this does not mandate that the house be set back 1,000 feet. WATANABE: Right. So that would be if they already have residential zoning there. YUEN: Right, right. This is not -. WATANABE: If, however, if it was zoned Ag -, well, even on Ag, you can build on farm property, yeah, and you wouldn’t be subject to any setback so -, I mean not the 1,000-foot anyway, just the 40-foot. YUEN: Right. This applies when people are seeking land use entitlements that they don’t have already. EXHIBIT D 21 WATANABE: Okay, now, possibly then, cause not everyone has had the opportunity to read the document that you provided us with on when this is mandated and when it isn’t, and maybe that some of the wording that could be inserted into this, not so much to reduce the 1,000- foot but to make it clearer that it only applies when you are applying for entitlements that you don’t already have. And the reason I’m saying that is because when you make this law, people from the general public read this and then interpret one way, the Planning Director reads this and interprets it one way, the Council people read this and they all interpret it in their own fashion; and it’s confusing. But maybe we could request that the Council look at this and make it clear that it only applies when you are applying for, again, entitlements that you do not already posses. YUEN: Well, that was certainly the intent, and that’s fine if the Commission wants to make that recommendation to the Council. That’s an example of something that’s non- substantive; something that clarifies the intent and the meaning that’s already there is not substantive. Let me mention, though, that one of the clauses that we put into the Community Development Plan that reflects the overall perspective and balance that is along the lines of that you are talking about is – and I can’t remember the exact wording and exactly where it is – but we have a clause that talks about existing zoning and existing entitlements not being nullified by the Plan. That was important to a lot of people and that is in there. And so some of these things are -, they don’t operate in isolation; there are statements about what people’s existing land use entitlements and rights are and that how they have to be respected that besides this phrase in this section. WATANABE: I don’t doubt that. I’m just suggesting that since this is something new, it might be good to recommend to the Council that they consider making it clear that it only applies to properties that are seeking new entitlements as opposed to already existing entitlements. And I don’t know how the other Commissioners feel about that, but you know, that might be something we want to discuss. Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Well, I would be happy with that recommendation because Mr. Yuen is going to appear before Council and present this; and if he just presents our concerns – this was one paragraph in this 278-page document that some of us had questions about – they might want to consider rewording it. That would be fine with me. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have any other comments? Mr. Alameda. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to reflect on the statement that the General Plan requires CDPs be adopted as ordinance giving the Plans the force of law – and that’s great. But I’d like to present the double-edged sword again. So this is a question for Mr. Yuen: If it becomes adopted as ordinance and then it’s given the force of law, what is – let’s revisit the good ideas again – how do the good ideas come in, if this whole document becomes the law? YUEN: Well, most things – what would be an example – suppose in five years time kite flying becomes the favorite sport of the population, and so the County wants to make a kite flying park for, you know, cause you need a lot of space to fly kites; even though there is EXHIBIT D 22 nothing in the CDP that says we should have a kite flying park, you can find their policies for recreation. So the County could go ahead and CIP a kite flying park without it being in the Community Development Plan. So not every idea has to be in there. If there is something that is contradictory, then that becomes a problem; if we had something that says we shall not have a kite flying park, then you’d have to amend the CDP first. So a lot of things can be done. And of course, you know, planning is a guide to future actions, not meant to squelch initiatives that people may have in the future; it does give priorities. I wrote this thing about what are the legal effects of it because there was confusion, I think, by people about what is the legal effect of a Plan; because it’s a little different. The Plan does not have a legal effect in a sense of, say, the Zoning Code. And let me explain a little further what that means, all right. If you use your residential lot for an auto repair business that violates the Zoning Code, and the zoning inspector from the County can go out and they find you using it for the lot, they write a citation saying you violate Section 25 of the Zoning Code, right? You’ll never cite somebody for violating the Community Development Plan or the General Plan, which is also adopted by ordinance, and say, you know, you are violating Page 21 of the Community Development Plan; it’s not a direct regulation in that sense.What it does do, though, is it guides decision making like somebody comes in for a rezone that is not consistent with the Community Development Plan, it does have the force of law in that you are not supposed to pass this rezone because it is inconsistent with the Community Development Plan. ALAMEDA: Quick follow-up. WATANABE: Sure. ALAMEDA: The long-term plan with the, you know, going to 2020, which is consistent with the General Plan, does that mean that in 2020 the group will reconvene, revisit the Plan, the Plan is no longer ordinance, or -? YUEN: No, actually, the Plan as passed by ordinance remains in effect until it’s amended. The way we look at both the General Plan and these Community Development Plans is that you basically have a 20-yaer planning time horizon, but that you are going to revise it over 10 years. So we have a 10-year cycle on the General Plan; we are looking at a 10-year cycle for the Community Development Plan. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: And just for clarification, there are interim amendments to both the General Plan as well as the CDP, if something drastic should change within the environment that would make it appropriate to amend. Is that correct? YUEN: Absolutely. And so you can amend this a year from now, two years from now, just as you can do interim amendments to the General Plan. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Woodward. EXHIBIT D 23 WOODWARD: I might just, if I could, see if Mr. Yuen agrees with me. But to answer Commissioner Alameda’s question, most of the things in here are directions that is we should look to do this, we should look to do that; there are very few that say you will or you shall cause those are the ones which are a little more sticklish. But the way I look at it is while it does have the force of law, most of the provisions are guides for direction, and there’re very few that are absolutely inviolable. So that’s kind of the way I look at this. And I ask Mr. Yuen if that’s correct. YUEN: That’s correct. There are some things, for example, that apply at the subdivision level that are mandates and have to be followed – and I don’t want to go through it and go point by point, obviously – but the bulk of the Plans are directions, guides, frameworks for decision making, and are not you absolutely must do this or absolutely must do that. And what will happen is that the Planning Commission and the County Council will have land use applications that come in in the future, the Plan should give a direction; it will not generally tell you you must vote up or down on a particular application. It gives you the framework and the guidance in which – so you are not making a decision based on whether you feel good that day, or even whether there are 50 people on one side or another in the audience – you have a longer range guidelines and principles for making the decision, but it’s generally not going to be mandatory in either way. WATANABE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Chair. WATANABE: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. I just wanted to thank the Director and Commissioner Woodward for adding to that clarity. I feel good about the process and I’m ready when you are. WATANABE: Okay. Go ahead, Ms. Ogata. OGATA: I move that we send a favorable recommendation for the Kona Community Development Plan to the County Council. RHO: Second. WATANABE: Thank you. We had some discussions about maybe directing the Council, or advising the Council to look at amended wording to clarify paragraph on Policy LU-1.5, Enhanced Shoreline Setback. That was on Page 4-39. I -. WOODWARD: I’m happy that that will be in the minutes, and I’m sure Mr. Yuen will communicate that to Council; so I don’t think we -. WATANABE: Okay, so you don’t feel that needs to be -. EXHIBIT D 24 WOODWARD: I will second Commissioner Ogata’s motion, and I think just the fact that it’s in the minutes is sufficient. WATANABE: Okay, thank you, but since Mr. Rho is leaving us and he already did second -. WOODWARD: Okay, I’ll defer it then. WATANABE: Okay, so, the motion then is to send a favorable recommendation to the Council in its entirety, yeah? Any further discussion on this? Along with the minutes, of course. Any further discussion? Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Before I take the roll call, I looked at the Acknowledgement sheet and – these are not substantial changes – but there we need to acknowledge Commissioner Lani Bowman on this list; her name is not reflected. And I think Commissioner Alameda would like his name to be referenced as C. Kimo Alameda. And one other thing is under the County of Hawaii Staff, Planning Department, I’ve worked with the Department for a number of years and I don’t recall a Louise Winn working for us; so that may have been a typo or mis-located -. YUEN: Our contractual -, she works under contract for the Planning Department. Is there anybody else who is like that? We should acknowledge her; I think we will try to figure out what would be the best term to use. HAYASHI: I don’t know who is on contract with our office; so this is why I brought that up. And hopefully, these changes to the acknowledgment to the Planning Commission will be made before the documents are sent up to the County Council. With that, Commissioner Ogata? OGATA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Rho? RHO: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Woodward? WOODWARD: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. EXHIBIT D 25 HAYASHI: And Chair Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries. WATANABE: Okay, very good. The discussion ended at 12:22 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT D 26