The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0964.000 2004-2006Harry Kim Mayor County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 215 • Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-4252 (808) 9615211 • Fax (808) 961-6553 KONA: 75-5706 Kuakini Highway, Suite 103 Kailua-Kona, Hawai'i 96740 (808) 329-5226 • Fax (808) 326-5663 June 19, 2006 Honorable Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawai'i 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Higa and Members: weneral Plan Interim Amendments Change of Zone Application (REZ 03-032) Applicant: Jack & Barbara Umphrey Request: RS -7.5 to CV -7.5 Tax Map Key: 7-9-3.61 Dixie Kaetsu Managing Director Barbara Kossow Deputy Managing Director As required by Chapter 4, Sec. 6-4.3(C), Hawai'i County Charter, transmitted herewith for the County Council's consideration and action are the Planning Commission's letters and enclosures regarding the above -referenced requests. Sincerely, Harry Kim Mayor L052606 Enclosures cc: Planning Department 4/, mm"Nolm • : 14►�1i�1111b County of Hawaii PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 June 19, 2006 Stacy Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Higa and Council Members: General Plan Interim Amendments The Planning Commission (PC) conducted public hearings on the Planning Director's General Plan Interim Amendments on April 7 and April 21, 2006. Subsequently, at its meetings on May 5 and May 26, 2006, the Planning Commission voted on the Planning Director's General Plan Interim Amendments. The PC voted to send a favorable recommendation to the County Council on the Planning Director's proposed amendments, with the exception of proposed map change F-2 which had an unfavorable recommendation by a vote of 6-0. The PC also was not able to have the required number of votes to support proposed map change A-1 (3-3 vote on a motion to support change). A unanimous vote was cast for all other proposed amendments. At the request of the Planning Director (March 30, 2006 letter to Planning Commission), the Planning Commission also voted to defer action on the proposal to delete a current Course of Action which states the following: "To relieve traffic congestion through Waimea town, implement construction of (a) Parker Ranch's connector road from Kamamalu Street to Mamalahoa Highway; and (b) the County's extension of this road, between Mamalahoa Highway and Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Waimea solid waste transfer station." Enclosed are the copies of the Planning Director's General Plan Interim Amendments, letters from the public, and the Planning Commission's transcripts. Sincere] C. Kim airman Planning ommission LgpinterimamendOlpc Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Enclosures Harry Kim �yor (aotxntg of �att£uz i PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742 March 30, 2006 Mr. C. Kimo Alameda, Chairman And Members of the Planning Commission 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720-3043 Dear Mr. Alameda and Members of the Planning Commission: Proposed General Plan Amendments Christopher J. Yuen Director Brad Kurokawa, ASLA LEED® AP Deputy Director One of the proposed amendments to the General Plan has aroused a great deal of public interest: the deletion of a "Course of Action" for Transportation in South Kohala, sec. 13.2.5.6.2(g): "To relieve traffic congestion through Waimea town, implement construction of (a) Parker Ranch's connector road from Kamamalu Street to Mamalahoa Highway; and (b) the County's extension of this road, between Mamalahoa Highway and Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Waimea solid waste transfer station." This "course of action" was new in the 2005 General Plan and grew out of the ordinances rezoning Parker Ranch land on the south side of the Mamalahoa Highway: Ords. 92-65, 96-117, and 02-25. These allowed commercial and residential development on Parker's properties (the "Parker Ranch 2020" plan), and required Parker Ranch to build this lateral connector road, triggered by phases of their development. The Parker Ranch section of the connector road would allow traffic to bypass the Lindsey Road/Mamalahoa Highway intersection bottleneck, as well as allow residents living in Waimea south of Mamalahoa Highway to get to shopping areas and the public school without using Mamalahoa Highway. The Planning Department decided that this requirement should be formalized in the General Plan as well. Representatives of Parker Ranch met with me and asked that the County consider alternatives that would still provide a parallel route south of Mamalahoa Highway but would not necessarily be the "connector road" called for in the ordinances. They pointed out that the General Plan locked in a specific solution, and that if the County in the end decided that it wanted the connector road called for in the rezoning ordinances, it could Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Mr. C. Kimo Alameda, Chairman And Members of the Planning Commission Page 2 March 30, 2006 still enforce these even if the requirement was not in the General Plan, but that the General Plan would be another obstacle if a better solution was found. This made sense to me and I agreed to introduce an amendment deleting this course of action. At the same time, the written rationale for the amendment does say that the conditions of the rezoning ordinances remain in place. Unfortunately, but understandably, some members of the public have taken the proposed General Plan amendment as a retreat from the concept of a parallel route for traffic in Waimea. In addition, to date, I have not been shown any plans by Parker Ranch for a way to have this alternate route without implementing something like the road called for in the rezoning ordinances, and it seems that it would be very difficult to do so. The County has a contract with Parsons Brinkerhoff, an engineering firm, to specifically look at traffic circulation within Waimea, including the connector road concept. They expect to have preliminary findings by mid -summer. Because of this pending study, and because of the public concern about the amendment, I ask the Planning Commission to defer action on this proposed General Plan amendment at least until the Parsons Brinkerhoff study has given its preliminary findings. If the study reaffirms the basic concept of the type of connector road called for in the rezoning ordinances, I will withdraw the proposed General Plan amendment. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Sincerely, CHRISTOPHER J. Planning Director CJY:syw p:wpvdn60\pc\1ettus\2006\pc gpamendmwt 3-30-06 cc: Parker Ranch Trust Waimea Community Association Department of Public Works Parsons Brinkerhoff Mr. Wayne K. Awai (via e-mail) Ms. Margaret L. Becks Ms. Victoria L. Dunn Ms. Margaret Wille G GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP. (February 24, 2006, Revised June 7, 2006) PUNA DISTRICT A-1 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Along the north (Kea`au) side of Ainaloa Boulevard within Orchid Land Estates near the intersection of Ainaloa Boulevard and Kea`au-Pahoa Road, leaving a landscaping buffer along the Kea`au-Pahoa Road Rationale: To allow future commercial development to service the residents of the Ainaloa Subdivision and other nearby subdivisions. A-2 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Along both sides of Orchidland Drive within Orchid Land Estates Rationale: Expand the existing Medium Density Urban area from the location of the existing Wiki Wiki Mart to the area along 35`h Avenue. This area would allow future commercial development to service the residents of the Orchid Land Estates and other nearby subdivisions. SOUTH HILO DISTRICT B-1 Rural to Low Density Urban Location: Area mauka of Sunrise Estates between Kaumana Drive and Waiakea Uka Rationale: Current rural designation may imply that this area should be in extremely low density large lot development. This area is suitable for the future expansion of the residential area of Hilo with lot sizes to be determined at time of rezoning. B-2 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Makai of Mohouli Street Extension Rationale: The area below Mohouli Street should be medium density urban, consistent with current zoning. The 2005 LUPAG map currently has a small triangular area as Rural. B-3 Low Density Urban to Important Agricultural Lands Location: Area mauka of Wainaku Avenue and between Wailuku River and Kaiwiki Road Rationale: The area currently shown as Low Density Urban is much larger than realistic for the future urban growth of Hilo in this area. Access into much of the area is difficult because of streams and existing road cuts. Most of the area is classified as "Prime" agricultural land in the ALISH system. B-4 Industrial to Important Agricultural Lands Location: Area surrounding Pepeekeo Mill Site Rationale: The new proposed industrial area would be the same as the 1989 LUPAG map. The expanded area in the 2005 LUPAG map was based on a proposal that is no longer being pursued, and the area currently zoned for industrial use is adequate. The area proposed for "Important Agricultural Lands" is mostly classified as "Prime" agricultural land in the ALISH system. B-5 Industrial to Medium Density Urban Location: Waiakea Houselots area between Kekuanaoa and Lanikaula Streets and Kanoelehua Avenue and Laukapu Street Rationale: There is a housing shortage in the Hilo area, and ample land designated for Industrial. Further housing development would be more compatible with this area, which consists entirely of single-family homes. B-6 Medium Density Urban to High Density Urban Location: Waiakea Houselots area immediately around the High Density Urban at Big Island Candies Rationale: To allow a greater range of uses consistent with the immediately adjacent High Density Urban area. HAMAKUA DISTRICT C-1 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Paauhau Camp Rationale: The former Paauhau camp area is similar to many of the areas classified Rural in the 2005 LUPAG map because it consists of small non -conforming lots, with a mostly residential character, within a larger mostly agricultural area. Because it has already been subdivided into small residential lots, it is not likely to be used primarily for agriculture in the future. NORTH KOHALA DISTRICT D-1 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Malin Ridge Subdivision Rationale: The proposed map change would recognize the existing Maliu Ridge subdivision, which consists mostly of lots of two acres. In the 2005 LUPAG map, most such existing subdivisions were classified as Rural. This amendment recognizes existing zoning and does not imply support for future rezoning. NORTH KONA DISTRICT E-1 Urban Expansion to Conservation Location: West of Makalei Estates Subdivision Rationale: To recognize and protect an area of native dryland forest, while retaining a potential corridor for a future road connection mauka to the Mamalahoa Highway. E-2 Resort, Medium Density Urban, Low Density Urban and Open to Open, Low Density Urban and Urban Expansion Location: Kohanaiki Rationale: Increase the Open designation to protect and preserve cultural and natural resources, provide coastal open space buffer for public recreational uses and open space. This amendment is meant to allow the development as currently approved under the 2003 Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit. The 1989 LUPAG map would allow major development closer to the shoreline than the 2003 SMA Use Permit. E-3 Urban Expansion to Conservation Location: East of Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision and south of Hina Lani Street Rationale: To recognize and protect an area of native dryland forest of about 150 acres. The mapped area is not precise and the "Conservation" designation is intended to allow a future corridor for the "Mid -Level Road", which is not yet designed but will have to go through this general area. E-4 Open to Urban Expansion Location: Area of Honokohau Harbor Rationale: The State plans to expand the harbor and have some associated commercial and golf development surrounding the harbor. The development should include a coastal open space buffer, but the exact dimensions can be set at the time of zoning. E-5 Open to Urban Expansion Location: Southeast of Kealakehe Parkway between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kealakehe High School complex Rationale: The area is State owned land which the State granted an Executive Order to the County for the planned Kealakehe golf course. The area was designated Open in the 2005 LUPAG for the golf course; however, the golf course may not be feasible, and the proposed Urban Expansion designation would allow more options for the future use of the property. E-6 Extensive Agricultural and Orchards to Important Agricultural Lands Location: Area between the 1000' elevation and Mamalahoa Highway, from Keahou to Hokukano Rationale: In this area of Kona, the lower limit of the "Important Agricultural Lands" should be the lower limit of the "Coffee Belt. " In a prior council resolution, this was identified as the 700' elevation. However, after receiving testimony from kamaaina landowners at the workshop, the Planning Director believes that the 1000' elevation is a more accurate level for the dividing line. E-7 Orchards and Important Agricultural Lands to Extensive Agricultural Location: Area makai of the 1000' elevation between Keauhou and Hokuli`a project Rationale: See rationale for E-6. E-8 Important Agricultural Lands to Extensive Agricultural Location: Area makai of the 1000' elevation, north and adjacent to the Hokuli`a project Rationale: See rationale for E-6. SOUTH KONA DISTRICT F-1 Extensive Agricultural and Orchards to Conservation Location: Keopuka/Kealakekua Bay Areas Rationale: To protect the quality of the nearby ocean waters and Kealakekua Bay, to retain the present open space along the shoreline, to protect and preserve cultural and archaeological sites, burials, important natural features such as lava tubes and lava feeding channels, and scenic vistas from Napo `opo `o. F-2 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Mauka of Kealakekua Bay Rationale: The area is within the State Land Use Urban District, County zoning is Residential and Agricultural -2 acre, and there is a pending subdivision for two acre lot sizes. Therefore, this area would be more appropriate within the Rural designation. This amendment recognizes existing zoning and does not imply support for further rezoning. KA`U DISTRICT G-1 Extensive Agricultural to Conservation Location: Kahuku Ranch mauka of Hawaii Belt Road and adjacent to Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Rationale: This area is now part of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and will be managed as a natural area. GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN FACILITIES MAP (February 24, 2006) PUBLIC FACILITIES -FIRE STATION FACILITIES MAP, Figure 31 The amendments to the map reflect updated facilities provided by the Fire Department. An existing fire station at Hawaiian Ocean View Subdivision, proposed fire station at Kalaoa-Mauka, and a Federal fire station at Pohakuloa. PUBLIC UTILITIES -ELECTRICITY MAP, Figure 38 The amendments to the map reflect the type of facility, distinguish the facilities between Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) owned versus Independent Power Producer, and updated facilities from HELCO. TRANSPORTATION — ROADWAYS Roads Map A - Keahole To Kailua Area A-1 Show "Main Street" (Kamanu Street extension) as a future collector road from proposed University Drive to Kealakehe Parkway, A-2 Extend Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) from Palani Road to proposed University Drive. A-3 Show proposed collector road from proposed University Drive extending south to Keohokalole Highway and north to Mamalahoa Highway. A-4 Connect Kanalani Street within the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision to future Keanalehu Drive extension. A-5 Revise road alignment (mauka portion) of proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension to Mamalahoa Highway per favored alignment in the Environmental Impact Statement. A-6 Connect Keanalehu Drive to Manawalea Street. A-7 Delete proposed road segment between Palani Road and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway extension. Roads Man B — Kailua To Keauhou Area B-1 Connect Hienaloli Road from Palani Road to Hualalai Road. B-2 Extend Nam Kailua Drive from Hualalai Road to Alii Drive. B-3 Extend Proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Ali`i Highway) from Kuakini Highway to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. B-4 Connect Alii Drive to Proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Ali`i Highway). B-5 Connect Puapuaanui Street from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to Hualalai Road. B-6 Connect Lako Street from Hualalai Road to Alii Drive. B-7 Revise road alignment (mauka portion) of La`aloa Street Extension ("Mauka- Makai" Road) to Kuakini Highway. Roads Man C - Keauhou To Kealakekua Area C-1 Extend Haleki`i Street to proposed Mamalahoa By -Pass Highway. Roads Map F - South Kohala F-1 Connect proposed northern end extension of Paniolo Drive to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. All Road Maps Housecleaning: 1) Changes to the Legend for clarification of arterials and collectors. 2) Deletion of reference label for changes adopted in February 2005. Harry Kim Mayor April 19, 2006 Tountg of Anftrrxit PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742 Mr. C. (Kimo) Alameda, Chairman Planning Commission County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chairman Alameda and Commissioners: s7�� MNBVED Planning Director's General Plan Interim Amendments Proposed Changes to the Text, Policies, Courses of Action; Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map; and Facilities Map Christopher J. Yuen Director Brad Kurokawa, ASLA LEEM AP Deputy Director We have received comments on the Director's proposed interim amendments as well as requests for new amendments to the document, and LUPAG Map. We are transmitting to you for your information all correspondences received since the Department's workshops in November 2005 to date regarding the General Plan Interim Amendments. We have arranged the correspondences by judicial district. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me or my staff Alice Kawaha of this department at 961-8288. Sincer , C STIr E J. YUEN Planning Director AK p:/wpwin60/ahcewin/L.PC GP Requests&Comments Enclosures Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. b) 3Y -3'/ Koga, Pat m: Yuen, Chris Thursday, October 13, 2005 10:09 AM r Koga, Pat Subject: FW: Orchidland Master Plan Login this and return to me and Alice. -----Original Message ----- From: Kirstie Goin [mailto:kirstiegoin@hotmail.com] Sent: Thursday, October 13, 2005 9:50 AM To: chris_ruen@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Orchidland Master Plan Dear Mr. Yuen, I am aware that HPP has recently revised their Master Plan in hopes of having it included in the County's upcoming General Plan. The Board of Directors of Orchidland Community Association is considering adopting a guideline for commercial development within the subdivision. How soon would this plan need to be approved and sent to the County Planning Commission to be included in the General Plan for Puna currently being developed? Please respond by email at your earliest convenience. Sincerely, Kirstie Goin, Recording Secretary OLCA igoin@hotmail.com Harry Kim Mayor December 5, 2005 (9uixnfg of'p2duati PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 e Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 The Honorable Councilman Gary Safarik Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Councilman Safarik: PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN Christopher J. Yuen Director Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Director Although you were not able to attend the General Plan workshops as scheduled, we thank you for expressing your support on the proposed amendments. Please be informed that we will accept written comments on the proposed amendments until January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincerely, CHRISTOP RAE J. YUEN Planning Director AK:cd pAwpwin60\a1icewin\GP LSafarik.dm 'Yu.Mrr� Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer Kawaha, Alice From: Gagorik, Susan I: Thursday, December 01, 2005 11:58 AM Yuen, Chris cc: Kawaha, Alice Subject: GP Changes Chris, Councilman Safarik called to say he was not able to attend the GP Workshops. However, he concurs with the proposed changes you are recommending. Susan Susan K.S. Gagorik County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Phone: (808) 961-8288 Fax(808)961-8742 0 Harry Kim •Iuyar November 25, 2005 (-9VUnfV of ptt%tttt PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Hawaii County Council County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Chairman Higa and Members: Christopher J. Yuen Dincmr PROPOSED INTERIM AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Director The Planning Director is considering interim General Plan amendments to the text, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map, and Facilities Map. We are transmitting an original and nine (9) copies of the proposed amendments for your information. The proposed amendments may also be viewed at the County of Hawaii website (http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us). The Director is required to have a public workshop on the proposed amendments before submitting them to the Planning Commission. The Director will hold public workshops to take comments on the following dates: November 29, 2005, Tuesday, 5:00 p.m. County ofHawai`i Aupuni Center Conference Room 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii November 30, 2005, Wednesday, 5:00 p.m. King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii r Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 'NOV 2 5 2005 Honorable Stacy K. Higa, Chairman and Members of the County Council Page 2 November 25, 2005 You are welcome to attend and provide comments on the proposed amendments. Written input must be submitted to the Planning Department in person at the public workshops or by January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincerely, j! f C141I OP EH R J EN Planning Director CJY:ak pAwpwin60\aIicewin\GP LCounciLdoc Enclosures xc: Mayor Harry Kim Planning Commission 0 GARY SAFARIK Councilmember District V Puna Makai 4, Phone: (808)961-8267 Fax: (808) 961-8912 Email: gsafarik@co.hawaii.hi.us December 13, 2005 MEMORANDUM County of Hawaii Hawai `i County Building 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawai `i 96720 TO: Chris Yuen, Director Planning Department i a FROM: Gary S'afarik, Membe Hawaii County Council COMMITTEES Environmental Management Chair Finance r Vice -Chair rc":'a ii'L� 7 rl 56 j' 'art RE: .. General Plan Interim Amendment for the Puna Makai Alternate Route Thank you for your letter dated November 25, 2005, enclosing the Proposed Interim Amendments to the General Plan and welcoming comments. Although I was unable to attend the public workshop held on November 29, 2005, Skip Bethea, my legislative assistant, provided oral comments, and I would like to follow up with written request as outlined below. Now that the Puna Regional Circulation Plan (PRCP) Final Report (November 2005) has been completed, I would like to request that the Puna Makai Alternate Route be modified on the Transportation Roadways Map for South Hilo. Currently the Puna Makai Alternate Route (PMAR) is shown connecting to Railroad Avenue. The PRCP Action Plan map (see page 13-9) shows the PMAR running makai and parallel to Railroad Avenue, avoiding both the wetlands near Keaau and the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) in Panaewa (see also page 8-7). The proposed route that would connect to Railroad Avenue would be an emergency access route with a multi -path for pedestrian and bicycle use only. I have enclosed a copy of the South Hilo Transportation Roadways Map showing the modified future collector road (green dashed line) running from Hawaiian Paradise Park and connecting to the proposed future collector road which is an extension of Puainako Street to the Hilo International Airport Road. I would appreciate your consideration of this modification to the South Hilo Transportation Roadways Map as part of the proposed General Plan Interim Amendments to the General Plan Facilities Map. 4r18'70Z Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Prmnder and Employer If you have any questions or need additional information, please contact me or Skip Bethea at 961-8020. Thank you for all your efforts to bring forward these proposed interim amendments to the General Plan. Harry Kim UjYor 6M Tauntq of Pato xii PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808) 961-5288 • FAX (808) 961-8142 February 6, 2006 Mr. Stephen Starnes, President ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. P.O. Box 280 Keaau, HI 96749 Dear Mr. Starnes: SUBJECT: OBJECTION TO GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS Christopher J. Yuen Director Brad Kurokawa, ASLA LEEDT AP Deputy Director Thank you for your comments and suggestions about the proposed change to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map expanding the area for potential commercial uses along Orchidland Dr. There seems to be a general consensus that we should have set areas planned for commercial services between Kea' au and Pahoa, where a large population is now settling. Because the subdivisions were not originally planned and zoned for this type of activity, it is hard to put them there now. But without set areas, the residents will have to travel to Kea'au and Pahoa for common services, and there will be constant pressure to establish these in an unplanned way through special permits. In response to your comments about the three new houses on Orchidland Dr, between 35t° and 36`h St., I have revised the proposed amendment so that the proposed Medium Density area stops before these houses. The map is not meant to be exact, however, so that it is possible that controlled types of commercial uses could be considered in the general area of Orchidland Dr. and 35th -36th St., through special permits or rezoning. Hawaii Counry is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Mr. Stephen Starnes, President ORCHIDLAND COMMUNITY ASSOCIATION, INC. Page 2 February 6, 2006 The next step is that this amendment will go to the Planning Commission, then to the Council, which has the final power to approve or disapprove. Sincerely, CHRISTOPHER J. InMN Planning Director CJY:pak Wpw nfChnslStephen Starnes - Orcbidland Community Association, Inc. - Objection to GP Amendments cc: Ms. Alice Kawaha, Planning Program Manager Orchidiand Community Association. Inc. Kgaau, HI 96749' '_ December 15, 2005 County of Hawaii Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hi 96720-3043 Attention Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Subject: Objection to GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENTS Dear Mr. Yuen: Orchidland Community Association, Inc. (OLCA) Board of Directors wishes to register an objection to the following: GENERAL PLAN AMMENDMENTS October 20, 2005 LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (page 11) PUNA DISTRICT A-2 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Along both sides of Orchidland Drive within Orchid Land Estates Rationale: Expand the existing Medium Density Urban area from the location of the existing Wiki Wiki Mart to midway between 35th Avenue and 36th Avenue. This area would allow future commercial development to service the residents of the Orchid Land Estates and other nearbv subdivisions. We agree with a change in designation to Medium Density Urban. However, we think it should be limited to midway between 30 and 3e not between 350' and 360'. Perhaps this is a typographical error in the plan. Please be aware that there three new residences have been constructed in the first half block between 350' and 360', and it would not be fair to them to change the designation after the fact. Sincerely, Stephen Starnes— President Orchidland Community Association Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Law Company 85 nikaula Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4199 Te, ,e: (808) 961-0055 FAX (808) 969-1531 December 9, 2005 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Hawaii County Planning Dept. 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Re: Proposed Residential Project TMK: (3) 1-6-003:010 Kea'au, Puna District, Hawaii Dear Mr. Yuen: R. BEN TSUKAZAKI rbt@lava.net THOMAS L.H. YEH tly@lava.net MICHAEL W. MOORE mmoore@lava.net { CHRISTOPHER B.P. GREGORY cgregory@lava.net On behalf of our client, KY International, Inc., this is to request your consideration in incorporating the above -referenced property (as depicted on the attached location map), more specifically identified as Tax Map Key ("TMK") No.: (3) 1-6-003:010 ("the Property"), as one of interim general plan amendments that are currently being proposed. The Property appears to be presently designated Important Agricultural Lands ("IAL") by the General Plan's Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide ("LUPAG") Map. As a matter of background, in 1995, the Property was rezoned from the Agricultural, 20 -acre minimum lot size ("A -2W') zoning district to the current Agricultural, 1 -acre minimum lot size ("A -la") zoning district by way of Ordinance No. 95-98. KY International, Inc., the new owner of the Property, wishes to incorporate an affordable housing component into their development concept. Their intent is to develop dwelling units in a residential subdivision that will include affordable housing units that will constitute a minimum of twenty percent of the total unit count. They feel that the Property is an appropriate location for affordable housing due to its close proximity to Kea'au Village and the Kea'au school district facilities. In order for our client's residential project to be developed, the Property will have to be redesignated from its current IAL designation to a Low Density Urban designation in order to support the underlying zoning of the project. Therefore, we respectfully request that you consider including the Property as an interim amendment that will redesignate the Property from IAL to Low Density Urban. ' CO -8539 Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Law Company Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Hawai'i County Planning Dept. December 9, 2005 Page 2 of 2 We appreciate your review and consideration of this request. Please contact me should you have any questions. Very truly yours, TSUKAZAKI YEH & MOORE A Limited Liability Company. cc: KY International, Inc. 1-1 yr 1,1 w � � M In 7 Ln rsttkazaki Yeh & Moore yTTORNEYS AT LAW � Lim"-] Liability Law Company 5 V, caula Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4199 'eleptw.. ,. (808) 961-0055 FAX (808) 969-1531 January 3, 2006 Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attention: Alice Kawaha (via hand -delivery) - .t( 1 57 1,. Re: W.H. SHIPMAN, LTD. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 2005 GENERAL PLAN Dear Mr. Yuen: R. BEN TSUKAZAKI rbt@lava.net THOMAS L.H. YEH tly@lava.net MICHAEL W. MOORE mmoote@lava.net We represent W.H. Shipman, Ltd., and offer the following from W.H. Shipman, Ltd., for your consideration and comments in regard to the General Plan amendment process that is presently underway. Keaau and its surrounding lands, the majority of which are owned by W.H. Shipman, Ltd., provide an opportunity to plan an expanded urban community where residents can live, work, learn and play. A significant portion of this vision has been put in place with the prior community general planning efforts, the growth of small businesses, the maturing of W.H. Shipman Industrial Park, the advancements of Kamehameha Schools Hawaii Island Campus and Keaau High School, and the development of the Keaau By -Pass Highway. Although significant community planning and development are still needed to support the significant infrastructure needed to support new housing and achieve the vision for Keaau, there are some key elements of the General Plan that can be addressed at this time. To strengthen the general framework for the planning and long-term growth of Keaau and its surrounding lands, please consider the following proposed amendments to the 2005 Hawaii County General Plan. As depicted in the attached Exhibit — "Proposed Revision to the 2005 General Plan," the numbered proposed amendments are: Agriculture to Urban Expansion. Consistent with the intent of the General Plan, the remainder of certain W.H. Shipman property that is presently designated as "Urban Expansion" should also be included in such designation in order to facilitate the comprehensive master planning of the Keaau community. t rsukazaki Yeh & Moore .TTORNEYS AT LAW .Limio-" ability Law Company Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 January 3, 2006 2. Low Density Urban to Urban Expansion. Already envisioned as Low Density Urban uses located around the core of Keaau Village, the proposed Urban Expansion designation provides greater flexibility in the planning of mixed-use walkable neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and supporting community services. Agriculture to Urban Expansion. In close proximity to the Keaau High School, this area should be included as an extension of the Keaau Village to allow for an appropriate land use in close proximity to the center of Keaau. 4. Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban. To provide for a variety of housing types within the Keaau community, additional areas of medium density housing should be planned. With higher density housing, a broad range of housing opportunities may be provided, including much needed affordable homes. 5. Low Density to Rural. As a transition from the higher density town center of Keaau, a lower density rural designation is appropriate. 6. Industrial to Rural. The industrial type uses should be planned and developed within the existing Industrial Park and these lands would provide for a rural transition from the town core of Keaau to the agricultural areas and also include a regional wastewater treatment facility. Agriculture to Rural. Extending along the Keaau-Pahoa Road on lands that are generally of low agricultural value, a rural residential settlement could be planned to support the expanding need for primary housing in a rural setting, yet in close proximity to all the support services of a town. Adjacent to Hawaiian Paradise Park, these lands could be planned to provide improved access and supporting community services such as parks and schools. 8. Agricultural to Resort. As discussed many times in the past, this region could receive tremendous economic benefit from the development of a visitor destination that capitalizes on the unique coastal setting and allows visitors accommodation to spend more time exploring the regions attractions. A minor resort designation would also provide much needed employment for the region. Csukazaki Yeh & Moore +TIDRNEYS AT LAW � Limit, "'ability Lew Company Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 January 3, 2006 We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these proposed amendments. Please contact our office if you should need further information regarding these matters. Very truly yours, TSUKAZAKI YEH & MOORE R. BEN TSUKAZAKI RBT:nI Enc. cc: W.H. Shipman, Ltd. ,B`�•§! � � � •� Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Law Company 85 "' ' anikaula Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4199 Te a: (808) 961-0055 PAX (808) 969-1531 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Attention: Ms Alice Kawaha (via hand -delivery) ?006 FEB 17 RM 10 32 PU%N;NG C�P'.ARTMENT COUN FY OF' HANA, February 16, 2006 Re: W.H. SHIPMAN, LTD. PROPOSED REVISIONS TO 2005 GENERAL PLAN Dear Mr. Yuen: R. BEN TSUKAZAKI rbt@lava.net THOMAS L.H. YEH tly@lava.net MICHAEL W. MOORE mmoore@lava.net On January 3, 2006, we submitted a letter offering various revisions to the 2005 General Plan on behalf of W.H. Shipman, Ltd., whom we represent. Due to an oversight on our part, our - initial request included a map that did not correctly correspond to the request. Apparently, the letter mistakenly proposed an amendment redesignating an area from Industrial to Rural (proposed amendment number 6) which was not reflected on the attached map. As such, we offer the following corrected proposal and map for revisions to the 2005 General Plan. Keaau and its surrounding lands, the majority of which are owned by W.H. Shipman, Ltd., provide an opportunity to plan an expanded urban community where residents can live, work, learn and play. A significant portion of this vision has been put in place with the prior community general planning efforts, the growth of small businesses, the maturing of W.H. Shipman Industrial Park, the advancements of Kamehameha Schools Hawaii Island Campus and Keaau High School, and the development of the Keaau By -Pass Highway. Although significant community planning and development are still needed to support the significant infrastructure needed to support new housing and achieve the vision for Keaau, there are some key elements of the General Plan that can be addressed at this time. To strengthen the general framework for the planning and long-term growth of Keaau and its surrounding lands, please consider the following proposed amendments to the 2005 Hawaii County General Plan. As depicted in the attached Exhibit — "Proposed Revision to the 2005 General Plan," the numbered proposed amendments are: 1. Agriculture to Urban Expansion. Consistent with the intent of the General Plan, the remainder of certain W.H. Shipman property that is presently designated as "Urban Expansion" should also be included in such designation in order to facilitate the comprehensive master planning of the Keaau community. 011097 Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Law Company Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 February 16, 2006 Low Density Urban to Urban Expansion. Already envisioned as Low Density Urban uses located around the core of Keaau Village, the proposed Urban Expansion designation provides greater flexibility in the planning of mixed-use walkable neighborhoods with a variety of housing types and supporting community services. 3. Agriculture to Urban Expansion. In close proximity to the Keaau High School, this area should be included as an extension of the Keaau Village to allow for an appropriate land use in close proximity to the center of Keaau. 4. Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban. To provide for a variety of housing types within the Keaau community, additional areas of medium density housing should be planned. With higher density housing, a broad range of housing opportunities may be provided, including much needed affordable homes. Low Density to Rural. As a transition from the higher density town center of Keaau, a lower density rural designation is appropriate. 6. Agriculture to Rural. Extending along the Keaau-Pahoa Road on lands that are generally of low agricultural value, a rural residential settlement could be planned to support the expanding need for primary housing in a rural setting, yet in close proximity to all the support services of a town. Adjacent to Hawaiian Paradise Park, these lands could be planned to provide improved access and supporting community services such as parks and schools. 7. Agricultural to Resort. As discussed many rimes in the past, this region could receive tremendous economic benefit from the development of a visitor destination that capitalizes on the unique coastal setting and allows visitors accommodation to spend more time exploring the regions attractions. A minor resort designation would also provide much needed employment for the region. Tsukazaki Yeh & Moore ATTORNEYS AT LAW A Limited Liability Law Company Christopher J. Yuen Page 3 February 16, 2006 We appreciate your thoughtful consideration of these proposed amendments. Please contact our office if you should need further information regarding these matters. Very truly yours, TSUKAZAKI YEH & MOORE A Limited Liability Law Company. 4`� o 79z - R. BEN TSUKAZAKI RBT:mb Enc. cc: W.H. Shipman, Ltd. m ! | !/! L p N D 1 E 3 LAND" Proposed Amendment to the General Plan TMK 2-2-34:66, 78, 79 November 29, 2005 Good afternoon Planning Director and staff of the Planning Department: My name is Allan Ikawa, President and CEO of Big Island Candies. Thank you for this opportunity to comment at this public workshop. Mainly, I am here to express my sincere thanks to the Director for initiating this amendment that will allow us to make much-needed improvements to our property. Since it was founded in 1977, Big Island Candies has done its utmost to be a good corporate citizen and to do the island of Hawaii proud as we take our locally made products abroad to customers around the world. In 1997, we took a huge financial gamble by expanding our business and relocating it to - its current site at 585 Hinano Street. At that time, we vowed that the move would be a positive step not only for Big Island Candies, but also for neighboring residents and the people of Hilo. For the past eight years, we have strived to live up to that promise. We are also greatly encouraged by the continued support being expressed for our plans by the area's neighborhood association, of kumiai. Details of the proposed project are presented in our written documents. Basically, Big Island Candies has outgrown its current facility, and the new storage and production structure described in our request is vital for us to continue to survive in a highly competitive marketplace. Addressing this issue will allow us to continue to provide quality jobs for local residents and quality products for our customers with little, if any, affect on traffic, parking or the environment. Furthermore, Big Island Candies aims to accomplish this expansion in an attractive manner in keeping with our existing architectural and landscaping motifs, as well as our high maintenance standards. In closing, I wish to again thank the Director for initiating this amendment, as this motion, if passed, allows Big Island Candies to move forward in improving its facility in order to meet future demand and achieve its vision. Rc'd a by Dist'd _ Read _ FILE Copy SidneyFuke, Planning Consultant u 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 212 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720FEB 21 Q� 7 'Lit • Planning • Variance • Zoning Telephone: (808) 969-1522 • Fax: (808) 969-7996 • Subdivision • Land Use Permits E-mail: sidfuke@verizon.net PLANN`\ ;ver �_, t- • Environmental Reports February 17, 26MUNI Y O � iTM I NAWAlI W. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department COUNTY OF HAWAII 101 Pauahi Street, Room 103 Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: Subject: Interim General Plan Amendment — TMK: 2-4-01:116 I am presently assisting the Honpa Hongwanji Hilo Betsuin with its land use program for some of its properties in the City of Hilo. In that regard, the Church has authorized me to write this letter, requesting the inclusion of the subject property.as part of your package of interim amendments to the General Plan. By way of background, the subject parcel, consisting of 4 acres, is owned by the Honpa Hongwanji Hilo Betsuin. It is located on the south side of Kawili Street, immediately makai of the Waiakea High School complex. There are 10 rental houses on the property, houses whose rental income has provided important financial assistance to the church. At the same time, because the rents have been deliberately kept affordable, these houses serve a vital function in addressing the community's affordable rental housing needs. The Church is exploring alternative residentially -oriented uses for this site. These alternatives include more single-family rental units, an apartment complex, and even an elderly housing facility. In so doing, its plans may be constrained by the Low Density Urban designation of General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation (LUPAG) map which limits the residential density to no more than six (6) units per acre. It is our understanding that you are in the process of initiating interim amendments to the General Plan LUPAG map. Accordingly, in conjunction with this process, the Church respectfully requests your consideration in including an amendment of the subject parcel's designation from Low Density Urban to Medim Density Urban. The County General Plan (Section 14-7 — Land Use — Overview) states that "The land use pattern is a broad flexible design intended to gra the direction and quality of future developments in a coordinated and rational manner. The General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map indicates the general location of various land use in relation to each other." (emphasis added). As such, it is clear that the LUPAG map is a broad -brush map and is not intended to be specifically measurable, as with the case of a zoning map. 0111:35 W. Christopher Yuen, Director February 17, 2006 Page 2 However, because the map for the City of Hilo identifies major streets and other landmarks, coupled with the technological ability today to superimpose specific parcels on the map, the LUPAG map has become specifically measurable. In this area, then, it would appear that the High Density Urban designation terminates at the north end of Kawili Street, near its intersection with Kinoole Street. We would like to suggest that a Medium Density Urban designation affecting the subject and perhaps other adjoining parcels south of Kawili Street to Puainako Street may be appropriate. It would provide an orderly land use transition between the High Density Urban designation to the north and the Low Density Urban designations to the south and west. Furthermore, the Waiakea High School and Waiakea Elementary School complexes provide a natural land use border to the west, thus effectively containing Medium Density Urban type of uses to makai of those school complexes. Then, too, the land use between Kawili Street and Puainako Street along Kinoole Street is gradually transforming from an exclusively single-family residential to a mixture of uses. Uses within this corridor along Kinoole Street include a number of rental units, an interim shelter, and a pre-school. Finally, this area is also proximate to the University of Hawaii at Hilo. Having the potential for increased residential densities could also provide much-needed student housing. Given the above, we again respectfully request the inclusion of the subject parcel as Medium Density Urban in your next package of interim amendments to the General Plan. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me. Thank you very much. Sincerely, � SIDNEY M. FUKE Planning Consultant Copy — Council Chair Stacy Higa Councilmember James Arakaki Councilmember Donald Ikeda Reverend Tatsuo Muneto, Honpa Hongwanui Hilo Betsuin isukazaki Yeh & Moore 0 FORNEYS AT LAW � Limited Liability Law Company 5 P aula Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720-4199 'elep-:,,, ,,_ (808) 961-0055 FAX (808) 969-1531 January 3, 2006 Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 (via hand -delivery) Re: Proposed Amendments to General Plan (LUPAG Map B-3) David and Doris Greer Property TMK: (3) 2-6-008:28,29,32,36,38 and 39 (3) 2-6-029:14 and 15 Dear Mr. Yuen: R. BEN TSUKAZAKI rbt@lava. net THOMAS L.H. YEH tly@)ava.net MICHAEL W. MOORE mmoore@lava.net It has recently come to our attention that you have proposed the initiation of interim amendments to the General Plan which would involve designation of the above properties or portions thereof from Low Density Urban (LDU) to Important Agricultural Lands (IAL) on the LUPAG map (13-3). On behalf of David and Doris Greer, owners of the subject properties, we respectfully request that you reconsider the issue of whether to submit the proposed amendment to the Planning Commission. As you know, the Greers have been planning a mix of agriculture, residential agriculture, single family residential and multi -family residential lots at their property in Wainaku which borders Amauulu Road on each side. While their development has been somewhat delayed, they are still planning on developing the property and need to maintain flexibility in their planning. Designating the property as IAL will preclude such flexibility. As you know, the planning and development process involves a review of infrastructure development/cost/market/ timing issues. Several iterations of the plans for development have been prepared at substantial cost since the Council last decided to retain the LDU designation which include locations for affordable housing, location of the primary road entrance and the donation of land to the County for expansion of Clem Akina Park. A final plan has not been decided upon due to current family priorities. We were therefore surprised to see that the proposal to designate substantial portions of the property was being revived after the proposal to designate the property to the IAL designation had been rejected by the Council during the comprehensive review process (we understood that you also did not have objection to retaining the property in its LDU status). We received no , advance opportunity to discuss the proposal before it was submitted. Isukazaki Yeh & Moore .T. OWIEYS AT LAV/ Limited Liability Law Company Christopher J. Yuen Page 2 January 3, 2006 While the rationale for changing the designation to IAL involves the assumption that "access into much of the area is difficult because of streams and existing road cuts", the Greers have been working on plans with PBR Hawaii and Wesley R. Segawa & Associates. The plan: involve the location of the primary road entrance into the property at Wainaku Street, across from Iliahi Street and which does not implicate stream or engineering barriers to development. In addition, while the area is designated as Prime Agricultural land under the ALISH system, the area has long been designated for Low Density Urban, and was also recognized by the Land Use Commission and current and previous County Councils as having potential for low density urban development. We ask that you reconsider the proposed amendment and withdraw same before submission of the other interim amendments to the Planning Commission for its review. Should you have any questions or wish to discuss the above, please do not hesitate to let me know. In the meantime, we would appreciate being informed of the date and time of further public workshops which may be held on the subject. Very truly yours, TSUKAZAKI YEH & MOORE By THOMAS L.H. YEH TLHYmI cc: Chairman and Members of the Hawaii County Council David and Doris Greer Scott Greer Harry Kim Muynr December 5, 2005 (iffounfla of 'Falvan- PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 a Fax(808)961-8742 Mr. Roy Skogstrom Ms. Catherine Marquette P O Box 265 Pepeekeo, HI..96783 Dear Mr. Skogstrom and Ms. Marquette: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP Christopher J. Yuen Dirrao, Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Dinctor Thank you for your letter dated November 29, 2005, relating to proposed amendment B-4 at Pepeekeo Point. I will consider your comments in my decision when initiating any of the proposed amendments to the General Plan. For your information, we have completed the General Plan workshops and will continue to accept written comments on any of the proposed amendments until January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. With regards to your concerns on the restarting of the power plant, Special Management Area Use Permit No. 221 was approved by the Planning Commission in April 1985 to allow the establishment of coal storage area, a coal burning energy plant and related improvements. By a copy of this letter, we are forwarding your November 29, 2005 letter to the Commission for its information. Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEC 0 6 2005 Mr. Roy Skogstrom Ms. Catherine Marquette Page 2 December 5, 2005 Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincere CHRISTOPJ. YUEN Planning Director AK:cd pAwpwin60\aIicev in\Gp LSkogstrom.doc xc w/Itr: Planning Commission (via Norman Hayashi) 12/03/2005 16:38 80896,11'309 November 29, 2005 ROY SKOGSTROM PAGE 01 TO S.k'i}� ret/ �lp. (1 -. ^1 r_ C4 -, 44-zp� To: County of Hawaii General'Pian it WUabop, 29 NOV 05 at 5:00 PM, �b Aupuni conference room. Re: Written testimony for this workshop Pt 6et..sc. rr--� ado" d Dear Attendees and other interested parties: We apologize for not being able to attend this workshop in person due to work commitments. This letter is in reference to the proposed amendment to the LUPAG map for B-4 Industrial to Imp Ag Lands at Pepeekeo Point, and the proposed restarting of the coal feed power plant located at Pepcekeo Point, We and numerous others are opposed to the restarting of the power plant. We have lived within 1/2 mile of the power plant for the past 13 years. The past 1 year without the dirty and noisy emissions from the plant has been a wooderfiil change, in that our house and lanai no longe' have a constant layer of black soot, and our water catchment is no longer contaminated by that soot. The proposed restart would face very strong community opposition, particularly from those who have recently purchased 69 lots from Continental Pacific and 7 lots from Hawaiian Rainbows that surround the former coal plant, but also from Pepeekeo and Hanrakua residents who are thankful that coal trucks no longer rumble through their communities. The location of the plant is an artifact of the sugar cane era, and it no longer belongs in the middle of an ares that is rapidly becoming residential/agricultural (note that CP intends to sell 22 additional lots, and HR 7 additional lots, in the area)_ A rezoning that would prevent the restart of the power plant and recognize the rapidly evolving residential/agricultural nature of the area makes sense. Mahalo — r Roy Skogstrom Catherine Marquette Homeowners Pepeekeo Point P.O. Box 265, Pepeekeo, HI 96783 January 91h, 2006 26 JON 11 Phi ! 59 PLANNING DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF NAWAl1 Aloha Green Chris Yuen - Esq. Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street, Room 109 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Environmental principles in practice Re: Hakalau Industrial Zoning Dear Chris, Thank you for the opportunity to meet with you last week to discuss my request for an amendment to the General Plan for a portion of TMK (3) 2-9-02:1 lot 213 and 1 A from it's present land use designation of "Industrial" to "Residential". It is our intention to use our excess water meters from our Hakalau Plantation Village subdivision to create 5 to 6 residential lots. It is also our intent to keep the remainder of lot 213 and 3C in industrial use at this time. Enclosed is a map that further describes this request. Please contact me with any further questions you may have regarding the enclosed. P.O. Box 1146 - Hilo, Hawaii 96721 Phone (808) 964-8111 Fax (808) 964-5444 05 009651 V G C"ITT *290 Afw Vag PIIA, 1 , / 4$ jr- CARLSMITH BALL LLP VIA HAND DELIVERY Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 A LwaTED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP 121 WAIANUENUE AVENUE P.O. Box 686 HILO, HAWAII 96721-0686 TELEPHONE 808.935.6644 FAX 808.935.7975 W W W.CARLSMUH.COM JKA W AU O II@CARLSMITH. COM January 3, 2006 OUR REFERENCE NO 058820-00003 Re: Planning Director's Proposed Changes to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) May for North Kohala District I Dear Mr.Yuen: On behalf of our client, North Kohala Holdings, LLC, this letter provides comments on the proposed amendment to the LUPAG Map for the North Kohala District by Planning Director, Chris Yuen. This proposed revision is labeled "D -I" on the LUPAG Map. North Kohala Holdings, LLC is the fee owner of TMK (3) 5-6-001:078 (por.) and 079, in the vicinity of Kapaa - Upolu, North Kohala, Hawaii. As discussed below, we request that the proposed revision D-1 be amended to also include the re -designation of TMK (3) 5-6-001:078 and 079 ("Subject Area") from "Important Agricultural Lands" to "Rural," consistent with the proposed changes to adjacent lands as shown on Exhibit "1" attached, and that the boundary of the "Rural" designation on the LUPAG Map be redefined accordingly. Our proposed amendments to the Planning Director's proposed amendment to the General Plan for the North Kohala District D-1 in (Ramseyer format) are as follows, "NORTH KOHALA DISTRICT D-1 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Areas adjacent to, and including Malin Ridge Subdivision Rationale: The proposed map change would recognize the areas adiacent to and includinz the existing Maliu Ridge subdivision, T' " HONOLULU KAPOLEI HILO KONA MAUI GUAM SAIPAN LOS ANGELES Christopher Yuen January 3, 2006 Page 2 which consists mostly of lots of two acres. In the 1005 L UPAG map, most such existing subdivisions were classified as Rural. This amendment recognizes existing zoning and does not imply support for future zoning." Our general comments on the County's proposed amendment are as follows: Like the Malin Ridge area, the Subject Area is presently designated as "Important Agricultural Lands" on the LUPAG Map, the area is within the State Land Use Agricultural District, and the County zoning is Agricultural 600 acres (A -600a). Although this area was previously used for the production of sugar, the sugar mill is no longer in operation and the areas immediately adjacent to and surrounding the Subject Area, the Maliu Ridge subdivision, is presently being proposed as "Rural." The close proximity of Malin Ridge to the Subject Area would make the use of the Subject Area as Important Agricultural Lands impracticable. Because the conditions upon which the General Plan is based have changed, we respectfully request that the "Important Agricultural Lands" designation of the Subject Area be revised to designate the Subject Area as Rural to assure the coordinated development of the area pursuant to Rule 4 of the Planning Department Rules of Practice and Procedure. Sincerely, C�TU&IS"Wet". � K. K. Kawauchi JKK/l lh cc: North Kohala Holdings, LLC Enclosure 4842-5912-0896.1 17 M E Maliu Ridge LEGEND Important Ag. Lands Low Density Urban ED Proposed Rural Important Ag. Lands to Rural EXHIBIT 1 2 Miles N. Kohala =1 'T 0 0.5 LEGEND Important Ag. Lands Low Density Urban ED Proposed Rural Important Ag. Lands to Rural EXHIBIT 1 2 Miles N. Kohala =1 i; 2U06 �1Hfl 6 PM 1 31 PL, NNil !,,Y { ; ARTMENT o COUNTY OF WVAiI w(� -v/� v��i T, pfoCn o.w r j wayy) e� c, "rnm w, ww �l�vow �► C�rv�c P esc�wYwbow w w, s s2G w� C� w— Conr�cw flow ww w� � w w� w� w� .a r [j Ainako Street should extend across Kaumana Drive to meet the Mohouli extension to provide one of the major mauka cross -city connections.] Rationale. Construction of roadway is completed. [k](i) Improve Akolea Road between Piihonua and Kaumana Drive and construct its extension to the upper reaches of Ainaola Drive to provide a cross -city connection between Upper Wailuku and Waiakea-Uka. [I]f Improve Waianuenue Avenue and Kaumana Drive along their entire alignments, including the acquisition of additional rights-of-way as needed. 6. Page 13-12, SOUTH KOHALA, 13.2.5.6.2 Courses of Action. Delete course of action (g), amend course of action (i) and realphabetize courses of action accordingly as follows: [(p) To relieve traffic congestion through Waimea town, implement construction of a) Parker Ranch's connector road from Kamamalu Street to Mamalahoa Highway; and b) the County's extension of this road, between Mamalahoa Highway and Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Waimea solid waste transfer station.] Rationale: Do not lock in this course of action as the solution. There may be other possibilities. Currently, this road is a condition of Ordinance No. 02 25 (Parker 2020), so if the County wants to keep this requirement in place, the rezoning condition will assure it. Ifthe County wants to change the requirement, the rezoning ordinance will still have to be amended. lh]W Construct, at a minimum, one other paved two-lane access road out of the Ke Kumu Housing area onto Paniolo Drive. [i] h) Extend Paniolo Drive in Waikoloa north to intersect with the Kawaihae Road and the proposed Waimea-Kawaihae Road, and/or Kaahumanu Highway to provide an alternate access to Waikoloa Village. Rationale: Waikoloa Village is zoned to potentially become a community of approximately 20, 000 people. It should not be a cul-de- sac with only one access point. 9M GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT (October 20, 2005) PUBLIC FACILITIES — Protective Services Page 10-11,10.3.1 Introduction And Analysis: "Fire and Emergency Medical Services There are presently [14] 22 regular fire stations, [18] 22 volunteer fire stations and [21 1 federal fire [stations] station located throughout the island. The County is uronosine a fire station in the Kalaoa-Mauka area. The [Kilauea Military Camp (KMC) and] Pohakuloa fire [stations are] station is a federally operated [facilities] facility. [KMC provides emergency medical services under an agreement with the Countv.I The regular fire stations [and three of the volunteer stations (Laupahoehoe, Pahala, Naalehu)] provide 24-hour fire fighting and emergency medical services. The Waiakea and Kailua-Kona stations provide rescue services, the Kaumana [and South Kohala stations provide] station provides hazardous [waste] materials response and the South Kohala station provides air medical services." Rationale: Amendments are updated information from Fire Chief Darryl Oliveira of the Fire Department. Accordingly, the maps for Public Facilities — Fire Station Facilities have been amended. 2. Page 10-14, 10.3.2 Policies: "(i) Maintain funding of [two] [medical] helicopters, incl emergency Rationale: Amendment is a recommendation from the Fire Chief Darryl Oliveira of the Fire Department. PUBLIC FACILITIES — Health And Sanitation 3. Page 10-22, 10.5.1 Introduction And Analysis, Hospitals and Related Facilities: "The County's Fire Department also provides ambulance service from the Captain Cook, Central, Honokaa, Kailua-Kona, Keaau, [and] Waimea, Kawailani, Pahoa, Ocean View Fire Stations. The County's ambulances are first response units for Harry Kim Mayor December 5, 2005 (CouutV of rxiurxYi PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 Mr. Frank DeLuz, HI Mr. William V. Brilhante Tri-Kohala Development Co. 1342 Kilauea Ave Hilo, HI 96720 Dear Messrs. DeLuz and Brilhante: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP Christopher J. Yuen Director Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Director Thank you for your letter dated November 21, 2005, relating to the proposed amendment that would affect properties that you own located at Tax Map Key No. 6-8-1:6, 24, 59, and 60. I will consider your comments in my decision when initiating any of the proposed amendments. For your information, we have completed the General Plan workshops and will continue to accept written comments on any of the proposed amendments until January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate..any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincerely, CHRISTOPHERtY. YUEN Planning Director AK:cd 'oo-w p:\wpvrin60\ahcewin\GP LTri-KohalaDev2.doc Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEC 0 6 2005 TRT-KOHALA DEVELOPMENT CO. syn r. ^'S �S� �n ii - = Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi St, Suite 3 Hilo HI 96720 1342 Kilauea Avenue Hilo HI 96720 (808)935-1121 November 21, 2005 Re: Proposed Amendment to the General Plan Memo dated November 7, 2005 TMK: 3/6-8-1:6,24,59 & 60 Dear Chris: Thank you very much for meeting with Frank DeLuz and myself and letting us express our thoughts on the proposed amendment on our 1,010 acres of land in the Puako Mauka area. As we stated we are very much opposed to any proposed changes as outlined in the November 7, 2005 memo. When we bought this property back in 1980 our plans were to hang in there while we wait for water availability and do a good quality project in the future that we can all be proud of and enjoy. Any removal of the future urban expansion designation would create a serious financial hardship on being able to get financing for even a small scale development. As you know, lending institutions are scrutinizing properties and require basic entitlements such as we presently have. It would be impossible to attain any favorable approvals should there be any changes. This is possibly the last locally controlled parcel with the true feeling of someday having some of it available to the Big Island people and still be "affordable". Mr. Yuen, we respect your thoughts and aloha for the land in the area. We once again humbly ask that you leave our land status quo for now. If at the time a request is made to have the property rezoned, items of concern can be addressed by the County. Until such time as formal plans for the property are developed, we would appreciate no changes be made. We look forward to your continued success. Keep up the good work. Sincerely, 1� Frank De tlliam V. Brilhante Managing Partner �.v ®07919 1342 Kilauea Avenue Hilo HI 96720 (808)935-1121 December 13, 2005 V l !f" J Mr. Christopher Yuen, Director Planning Department County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi St, Suite 3 Hilo 11196720 Re: Proposed Amendment to the General Plan Memo dated November 7, 2005 TMK: 3/6-8-1:6,24,59 & 60 Dear Mr. Yuen - Thank you very much for your letter of December 5, M. Once again, we appreciate your meeting with us and wanted to do a follow-up to our last letter. Chris, it is important to both Frank DeLuz and Bill Brilhante who are now sole owners of TNM: 316.8-1-6 and 59 along with a local partner in the other two parcels that everything remain "status quo". We have been in this for over 25 years and any development we do should be on a small scale rather than a large scale. We would definitely come in and work hand in hand with your department to do something that is mutually beneficial to the County of Hawaii and our island. We once again humbly request your sincere consideration and not submitting the proposed changes. Any change would make the situation very difficult for us as our intent is to eventually develop the property with the local market in mind. Every consideration would be greatly appreciated. Happy Holidays to you and your staff. Sincerely, iw,� Ji Frank DeLuz, William V.Brilhante8�62 2006 AN 2q 711 05 PiAfv(d KP P,->",ri- VENT COUNT`( Ui I IAVW--Jl Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 CARLSMITH BALL LLP A LIMITED LIABILITY LAW PARTNERSHIP 121 WAIANUENUE AVENUE P.O. Box 686 FILO, HAWAII 96721-0686 TELEPHONE 808.935.6644 FAX 808.935.7975 W W W.CARLSMTM.COM SLIM@CARLSMITH.COM OUR REFERENCE NO USMNI I - I January 23, 2006 Re: General Plan Interim Amendments Change to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map for South Kohala District - TMK (3) 6-8-02:22 (866.564 acres) Dear Mr. Yuen: On behalf of our client, Waikoloa Heights Land Investors, LP, the fee owner and developer of the Waikoloa Heights project, this letter will request that the County process an amendment to the General Plan LUPAG Map for the above referenced tax map key Property. In June, 2004, the Legislative Auditor initiated a recommendation (Proposed Revision F- 21 a) to amend the LUPAG Map from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban for the Property, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit A. However, no action was taken to include the Proposed Revision F-21 a when the 2005 General Plan was adopted. Per the Agreement dated November 5, 2004 by and between my client's predecessor -in - interest, Waikoloa Ma La'i, LLC and the County of Hawaii, recorded in the Bureau of Conveyances on November 30, 2004 as Document No. 2004-241627, a copy of which is enclosed as Exhibit B, the parties agreed to the following: C. County Commitments 5. The Planning Director has reviewed a proposed General Plan amendment from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban, as generally described in Proposed Revision F-21 a of the County of Hawaii General Plan Revisions, Bill No. 163, Draft 2 (June 2004), and based upon the merits of that proposed amendment, the Planning Director has determined that it warrants a favorable recommendation to the County Council. Assuming that Proposal Provision F -21a is initiated by the County Council in 010i0i HONOLULU KAPOLEI HILO KONA MAUI GUAM SAIPAN - LOS ANGIFIIS Christopher J. Yuen January 23, 2006 Page 2 the current General Plan comprehensive review, the Planning Director agrees to include a favorable recommendation on the proposed amendment. If the Proposed Revision F-21 a is not initiated by the County Council, the Planning Director shall initiate a similar amendment as an interim amendment to the General Plan, after the completion of the comprehensive review. Based on the above, we are requesting that this General Plan Amendment from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban for the Property be given a favorable recommendation and included in the current General Plan Interim Amendments. Should you have any questions, please feel free to contact me at 935-6644. Thank you for your attention to this matter. Very truly yours, Steven .0 Li SSL/lah Enclosures cc: Waikoloa Heights Land Investors, LP --.� 4820-6287-9744.1 �aFvi (iD County of Hawaii Office of the Legislative Auditor REPORT ON THE COUNTY OF HAWAII GENERAL PLAN BILL 163, DRAFT 2 As requested, Bill No. 163, Draft 2 is transmitted for your consideration. The purpose of this report is (1) to explain the process and rationale utilized to amend Bill No. 163, and (2) to explain significant changes. Both process and rationale were thoughtful, deliberate and meticulous. Transmitted with this report are the following: (1) Chart entitled "Proposed General Plan Revisions --Draft 1 to Draft 2 -Proposed Modifications & Initiations(Additions)" (2) "List of LUPAG and Facilities Maps Revisions (Modifications & Initiations (Additions))" (3) Bill No. 163, Draft 2 with Land Use Pattern Allocation (LUPAG) Map(s), Facilities and Other Maps (4) Bill No. 163, Draft 2 (Unofficial Ramseyer Version) BILL NO. 163, DRAFT 2 AMENDMENT HIGHLIGHTS _ 4• In response to requests from the public and Council Members, the General Plan has been �- reduced to a document that is succinct and understandable. Draft 2 is remarkable and meaningful in that the vision statements, objectives and policies of the General Plan emerge and help to sharpen policy focus. ❖ Vision statements for the island and the different geographical districts have been added at the suggestion of the public and Council Members. The vision statements have a 20 -year horizon. Draft 2 is consistent with the Hawai'i Revised Statutes and the Hawaii County Charter. It emphasizes the General Plan's purpose as the Council's policy guidance document. This purpose is asserted in a new purpose section in Draft 2. C• Draft 2 contains a statement of principles required by the Charter. These principles are value -based. Draft 2 includes the statement of Principles, Vision Statements, a brief description of the County of Hawaii, the General Plan Program, Seven Elements, and the LUPAG and Facilities Maps. 4 Each of the seven elements include a brief introduction, Goals (Objectives), Policies, and Standards, if applicable The remaining descriptive text will be edited and placed in a document called the County Profile, which should be updated by the Planning Department, and may be used to formulate the basis of development plans. '�YO'i Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer 004%� 34. SOUTH KOHALA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS F-6 Initiate: Urban Expansion Area to Intensive Agriculture instead of Important Agricultural Land off the south side of Kawaihae Road F-14 Modify: Retain Resort at Puako Beach Apartment and Puako General Store area ** Comment on F-16: Guidance policies would allow flexibility in White Sands Golf Course layout in the Urban Expansion Area between Puakc and Queen Kaahumanu Highway and northeast of Mauna Lani Resort. F -21a Initiate: Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban north of County land in Waikoloa Village (6/4/04 letter from James Leonard) ** Comment on F-23: Guidance policies would allow flexibility in golf course layout. 35. NORTH KONA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS G-9 Modify: Reduce Open area as negotiated at Kohanaiki (6/17/03 Planning Director letter). Comment: Revision not needed under guidance policies. G -10a Initiate Low and Medium Density Urban and Open to Low Density Urban (6/17/03 Planning Director letter) G -10b Initiate Low and Medium Density Urban and Open to Urban Expansion (6/17/03 Planning Director letter) G -13a Initiate Extensive Agriculture to Rural -Agriculture at Makalei Estates (A-1 a) G -16a ,initiate: Open to Resort south of Honokohau Harbor by combining existing Resort Areas G-16 and G-17 (6/16/03 DLNR letter) G-17 Modify: Retain Resort Area, but combine with G-17 (6116/03 DLNR letter) G -17a Initiate: Open to Urban Expansion Area (6/16/03 DLNR letter) Initiate: Open to Urban Expansion (6/16/03 DLNR letter) ** Comments on G-18,19, and 29: Guidance policy would allow flexibility in golf course layout. G-34 Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Rural -Agriculture at Hokulia (A -1a) G-35 Initiate: Extensive Agriculture and Orchards to Extensive Agriculture below (makai) the 1,000' elevation level generally. Kona coffee belt above the 1,000' elevation level is Intensive Agriculture. 36. SOUTH KONA NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATONS H-1 Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Conservation at Keopuka (8/21/02 Planning Director) H -1a Modify: Retain Extensive Agriculture at Keopuka and Kaawaloa (8/21/02 Planning Director, and as further modified at Kaawaloa) H-6 Initiate: Low Density Urban and Open to Extensive Agriculture instead of Important Agricultural Land mauka of Puuhonua Road and north of Keala O Keawe Road H -7a Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Rural -Agriculture at Captain Cook Ranch lands makai of Napoopoo Road (RA zoning/SLU Urban) 37. KA'U NOTEWORTHY RECOMMENDATIONS I -2a Initiate: Extensive Agriculture to Urban Expansion mauka of Ocean View across from 1-2 1-3 Modify: Retain Resort in the vicinity of Pohue Bay -" 16 g � u. i L O �aa\g tea° � I cri P �I . Ol N t.. >w� w I • ui.. 1 Noiiiiii... nu..o.ou.. . ........... . • - .�.�. . .uouuuuo.o...o.0 . • 'u u. iuuou..uuoo.uv.....uuoo.ou a iu.. M.. M uu.uo..... .uuoo.o.uHU.... • .iiiii iii .uouu.vouuuvvuv.....o. • • � ,> � , � � iii � • W „ Return By Mail U Pick -Up U To: CARLSMITH BALL LLP 121 Waianuenue Avenue P.O. Box 686 Hilo, Hawaii 96721-0686 Attention: Steven S.C. Lim Telephone: (808) 935-6644 TITLE OF DOCUMENT: R-1264 STATE OF HAWAII BUREAU OF CONVEYANCES RECORDED NOV 30, 2004 08:02 AM Doc No(s) 2004-241627 IIII�IIIIII �IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII�II IIIA REGISTRAR OF CONVEYANCES 20 111 22 AGREEMENT SYSTEM TAX MAP KEY(S): (3) 6-8-02:22 (This document consists of 9 pages.) �C`w This Agreement is made this -6t-b day of 2004, by and between WAIKOLOA MA LA'I, LLC a California limited liability company, hereinafter referred to as "DEVELOPER”, whose principal place of business and mailing address is 505 Sansome Street, Suite 1450, San Francisco, California 94111, and the COUNTY OF HAWAH, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii, hereinafter referred to as ,,COUNTY", whose principal place of business and mailing address is 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii 96720. 4929-6796-3648.1 WHEREAS, Developer owns approximately 866.564 acres of land at Waikoloa, South Kohala, Hawaii, covered by tax map key (3) 6-8-02:22, hereinafter referred to as the "Property"; and WHEREAS, Developer intends to develop the Waikoloa Heights Project on the Property, with a Phase I consisting of approximately 300 residential units; and WHEREAS, the County and the Developer recognize the need for affordable housing in the County of Hawaii; and WHEREAS, although the entitlements for the Property do not require the development of affordable housing, in consideration of the terms of this Agreement, the Developer desires to voluntarily develop and sell or rent 11% of the lots in the Waikoloa Heights Phase I project area as affordable units, to be located throughout Phase I in the increments selected by the Developer; and WHEREAS, the County of Hawaii, in recognition of the Developer's voluntary development of affordable housing and other infrastructure improvements benefiting the County's Project as defined herein pursuant to the terms of this Agreement, shall assist the Developer in the expeditious processing of all development entitlements for the Property pursuant to the terms herein; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants in this Agreement, the parties hereby agree to the following: A. AFFORDABLE HOUSING The Developer shall offer for sale to qualified residents of the State of Hawaii a minimum of eleven percent (11%) of the residential units developed within Phase 1 of the Waikoloa Heights Project as affordable housing units (house/lot units, or finished house lots), completed with road access, drainage, water, and hookups to the units for electricity, individual wastewater system or sewerline if required, and telephone. The affordable lots shall not have unusual site conditions that make it difficult to build a home and/or single-family homes. The affordable homes shall consist of a minimum of two (2) bedrooms, one and one-half (1-I/2) 4828-6796-3648.1 - 2 - 11 E bathrooms, and 1,000 square feet of living area under roof, with a water heater, ceiling light fixtures, stove, and refrigerator. The affordable housing units shall be located throughout the Waikoloa Heights Phase I project area in the increments selected by the Developer. The affordable housing units shall be offered for sale by the Developer at the affordable sales price guidelines utilized by the County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development as follows: 40% of the affordable housing units shall be offered for sale to families earning up to 115% of the median family income for the County of Hawaii; 2. 60% of the affordable housing units shall be offered for sale to families earning up to 135% of the median family income for the County of Hawaii; and If within 45 days of the commencement of the affordable sales program, any affordable housing units are not sold to qualified buyers in any category, then those units shall be offered to buyers qualifying in the next higher income category for 30 days (the 115% units offered to the 135% purchasers; the 135% units offered to the 140% purchasers). If after that 30 day period, there are any affordable housing units still unsold, these units shall be offered for a period of 15 days to the County of Hawaii at the 140% affordable sale price, for resale to qualified purchasers at affordable sale prices, subject to an owner -occupant requirement, and a 10 -year County buy-back for recapture of real property appreciation on any resales. If the County fails to purchase the units within the above 15 day period, or waives its rights to do so, the Developer may then offer all remaining affordable units to the general public at market prices as determined by the Developer, free of all affordable housing requirements. 4. If the Developer decides to provide all or any portion of the affordable housing units described herein as affordable rental units, the rental rates and terms shall be established between the Developer and the Housing Administrator of the County's Office of Housing and Community Development. 1%W 4828-6796-3648.1 -3 - 5. Developer's Subordinated Mortaa¢e In order to recapture the Developer's investment in the affordable housing units and lands, the Developer may record in the Bureau of Conveyances or the Land Court, as applicable, a subordinated, deferred, non-interest bearing mortgage in an amount not to exceed $50,000.00 on any of the affordable housing units developed and sold pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. The Developer's subordinated mortgage shall be payable from the proceeds of any refinancing or sale of the affordable housing unit within 10 years of the initial sale of that unit, provided however, that the Developer's subordinated mortgage shall be enforceable only to the extent of the value appreciation of the affordable housing unit over the initial purchase price of that unit. B. DEVELOPER'S COMMITMENT TO ASSIST THE COUNTY OF rM• HAWAII IN ADDRESSING AFFORDABLE HOUSING. Imolk 1. Developer shall develop and offer for sale a minimum of 11% of the residential units developed within Phase I of the Waikoloa Heights Project as affordable housing units pursuant to the terms of this Agreement. 2. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall design and construct within the Property the Paniolo Drive Extension adjacent to the County's affordable housing project at TMK (3) 6-8-02:26 (the "County's Project") as part of the project improvements for the Waikoloa Heights Project, to include installation of all conduits for telephone and cable TV sized to handle the County's Project. 3. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall install power conduits within the Waikoloa Heights Project, Phase I, from the existing powerline at the eastern boundary of the Property across the Paniolo Drive Extension to the boundary of the County's Project. The Developer shall include upsizing of the power conduit improvements from 4 -inch conduits to 5 -inch conduits to service the County's Project. 4828-6796-3648.1 - 4 - .mow E 11 4 4. Developer, at its sole cost and expense, shall install a potable waterline from the eastern boundary of Phase 1 through the Waikoloa Heights Project down and across Paniolo Drive Extension to the boundary of the County's Project. This new potable waterline shall be upsized from an 8 -inch to 12 -inch line, to service the County's Project. Additionally, a new 20" potable water main will be necessary to service a portion of both the Waikoloa Heights Project and the County's Project, which shall be developed in accordance with the Water Master Plan prepared by Waikoloa Development Company. C. COUNTY COMMITMENTS The County agrees to expedite processing of all entitlement applications for the Property for County General Plan, State Land Use District Boundary Amendments, County Zoning, Planned Unit Development and/or Cluster Development permits, Subdivisions, Final Plan Approvals, Building Permits, Certificates of Occupancy, Final Inspections and all other administrative permits and approvals required for development on the Property. 2. The County agrees to concurrently process and expeditiously take final action on the entitlement applications for the Property as follows: a) any Planned Unit Development and/or Cluster Development Permit applications for the Property within 60 days of receipt of the application(s) by the Planning Department, b) any Subdivision applications for the Property, to include issuance of Tentative Subdivision Approval within 45 days of receipt of the application(s) by the Planning Department, and issuance of Final Subdivision Approval within 30 days of the County's approval of the subdivision construction drawings and posting of the subdivision Bond and Agreement by the Developer. c) any construction drawings (residential units and infrastructure) for the Property within 60 days of receipt of the drawings by the Department of Public Works and Department of Water Supply, and d) any other administrative permits and approvals required for development on the Property. 3. As the term is used in this Agreement, and subject to the above specific time requirements for final action described above, "expedite" or "expeditiously" shall 4828-67963648.1 - 5 - A also mean processing within the applicable Hawaii County Code time periods, and shall also mean the County of Hawaii's receipt and rejection, or acceptance for processing and transmittal of development applications and documentation for agency comments, within ten (10) working days of the receipt of the application(s) by the Planning Department for any County General Plan, and/or County Zoning applications, and within six (6) working days for any Planned Unit Development or Cluster Development, Subdivision, Plan Approval, Building Permits, Certificates of Occupancy, Final Inspections and administrative permits and approvals required for development on the Property. 4. The County shall concurrently process all entitlement applications for the Property, upon the condition that the final approval of these applications shall be consistent with all legal requirements. 5. The Planning Director has reviewed a proposed General Plan amendment from Low Density Urban to Medium Density Urban, as generally described in Proposed Revision F-21 a of the County of Hawaii General Plan Revisions, Bill No. 163, Draft 2 (June 2004), and based upon the merits of that proposed amendment, the Planning Director has determined that it warrants a favorable recommendation to the County Council. Assuming that Proposal Provision F-21 a is initiated by the County Council in the current General Plan comprehensive review, the Planning Director agrees to include a favorable recommendation on the proposed amendment. If the Proposed Revision F-21 a is not initiated by the County Council, the Planning Director shall initiate a similar amendment as an interim amendment to the General Plan, after the completion of the comprehensive review. D. GENERAL TERMS Recordation of Agreement. This Agreement shall be filed by the Developer with the Bureau of Conveyances of the State of Hawaii within thirty days after being fully executed by the parties, and shall be noted on the Certificate of Title for the Property, if applicable. Full compliance with the terms of the Agreement relating to affordable housing shall not occur until all affordable units described herein are sold or rented pursuant to the terms and conditions herein. Upon determination of full compliance by all parties, a release of this Agreement shall 4828-6796-3648.1 - 6 - -O%k be executed by the parties hereto and filed and noted with the Bureau of Conveyances, or with the Land Court of the State of Hawaii, if applicable. Successors and Assigns. This Agreement shall be binding upon and inure to the benefit of the parties hereto and their respective successors and assigns. The parties agree to execute whatever other documents and take any actions that are necessary to effectuate and carry out the intent of this Agreement. Authority to Execute: The parties represent and warrant that their signatories to this Agreement have the authority to execute and bind the party or parties on whose behalf this Agreement is signed. Entire Agreement. This Agreement constitutes the entire agreement among the parties and may be changed, modified, or amended only by all parties executing a written instrument. No Waiver. Waiver of any breach of this Agreement by any party shall not be deemed a waiver by such party of any other breach of this Agreement. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by and interpreted under the laws of the State of Hawaii. In the event of any dispute or litigation relating to the matters within the scope of this Agreement, the parties consent to the jurisdiction of the courts of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii, and further agree that the courts of the Circuit Court of the Third Circuit, State of Hawaii shall constitute the place of sole, exclusive, and mandatory jurisdiction and venue over such disputes or litigation. No Party Deemed Drafter. The terms of this Agreement have been negotiated at arms, length among knowledgeable parties represented by experienced counsel. As a result, the rule of "interpretation against the draftsman" shall not apply in any dispute over interpretation of the terms of this Agreement. Prior Agreements Cancelled. This Agreement contains the entire agreement among the parties and supersedes and cancels each and every other prior conflicting agreement, 482e-67963649.1 - 7 - 0 11 promise and/or negotiation among them. The terms of this Agreement are contractual and are "'14" not a mere recital. and costs. Attorneys' Fees and Costs. Each party hereto shall bear its own attorney's fees Enforcement. If any party to this Agreement goes to court to enforce any provision of this Agreement, the prevailing party shall receive its reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Counterparts and Facsimile Signatures. This Agreement may be executed in one or more counterparts, each of which shall be deemed to be an original, but all of which shall constitute one and the same instrument. The submission of a signature page transmitted by facsimile (or similar electronic transmission facility) shall be considered as an 'original" signature page for purposes of this Agreement so long as the original signature page is subsequently transmitted by mail or by other delivery service and the original signature page is substituted for the facsimile signature page in the original and duplicate originals of this Agreement. '"'"" [THE REMAINDER OF THIS PAGE HAS BEEN INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK] 4828-6796-3648.1 - 8 - IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed these presents on the day and year first above written. APPROVAL: By 2— Housing Administrator Office of Housing and Community Development Date: a&j�p &c9 APPROVED AS TO FORM: By�F Deputy Corporation Counsel Date: 1 i N-- \b'_ vftw 4828-6796-3648.1 - 9 - WAIKOLOA MA LA'I, LLC, a California limited liability company By: LYNCH INVESTMENTS, LLC, a California limited liability company its managing member By h PETER LYNC Its Managing Member COUNTY OF HAWAII, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii B� YI Its Mayor STATE OF HAWAII ) ss. COUNTY OF HAWAII ) On this day of October, 2004, before me personally appeared PETER LYNCH, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn or affirmed, did say that such person(s) executed the foregoing instrument as the free act and deed of such person(s), and if applicable in the capacity shown, having been duly authorized to execute such ins#rumesit (n such capacity. Name: STEVEN S C. 111Ms, ct•„:'. '` Notary Public, State of Hawaii My commission expires: I — sb? o STATE OF HAWAII ) ) SS. COUNTY OF HAWAII ) �J On this 5`h of November 12004, before me personally appeared HARRY KIM, to me personally known, who, being by me duly sworn, did say that he is the Mayor of the County of Hawaii, a municipal corporation of the State of Hawaii; that the seal affixed to the foregoing instrument is the corporate seal of the said County of Hawaii; that the foregoing instrument was signed and sealed in behalf of the County of Hawaii by authority given to said Mayor of the County of Hawaii by Section 5-1.3 (g) of the County Charter, County of Hawaii (2000), as amended; and said HARRY KIM acknowledged said instrument to be the free act *maw and deed of said County of Hawaii. Z CATHY VCORREIA Notary Public, State of Hawaii My commission expires: 10/13/06 XXOTAgI A&s`�C Hany Kim Payor December 5, 2005 @roixnfg of'.tsfumH PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax (808)961-8742 Rodney Funakoshi, A.I.C.P. Wilson Okamoto Corporation 1907 S. Beretania St., Suite 400 Honolulu, HI 96826 Dear Mr. Funakoshi: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAGI MAP Christopher J. Yuen Dimclor Roy R. Takemoto D,p.ry Dimaor *`"r Thank you for your letter dated November 17, 2005, relating to the proposed amendment that would affect a portion of the property that your clients own located at Tax Map Key No. 7-3-9:Portion of 28. I will consider your comments in my decision when initiating any of the proposed amendments. For your information, we have completed the General Plan workshops and will continue to accept written comments on any of the proposed amendments until January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincerel , 6z -t-- CHRIST PH &N Planning Director M AK:cd ,%W p:\wpwin6ftbcewin\GP LMWCorporationMoc Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEC 0 6 2005 Prior to proceeding further with the cooperative agreement, the owners are undertaking the preparation of a master plan for the overall property holdings, including necessary environmental studies. The designation of the 100 to 130 acres referenced in the letter proposal will be subject to completion of the master plan and follow-on discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. We anticipate this will occur over the coming.year. On basis of the above, we wish to request your deferral of the proposed General Plan Amendment F-3 regarding the subject property. In consideration of your interest and concern, we will submit to you a report by December 2006 on the progress of our efforts and discussions towards a cooperative agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Please call me if you should have any questions and let us know how you intend to proceed. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, P"O'?`7cxv�� - Rodney Funakoshi, A.I.C.P. Project Manager - Planning Enclosure cc: MID Corporation/Kaloko Properties Corporation hp�*1 8� k.. MAWOM351-01\Critical HabitatMOCLtr Chris Yuen 11-17-05.dcc; 11118/2005 W ` V 6351-01 November 17, 2005 Mr. Christopher Yuen -J r fl' ) 95 WILSON Planning Director OKAMOTO County of Hawaii Planning Department ` 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 CORPORATION Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Subject: Proposed Amendment to the General Plan Kaloko Properties, North Kona, Hawaii Dear Mr. Yuen: As agents on behalf of Kaloko Properties, this is in response to your letter of November 7, 2005 to MID Corporation/Kaloko Properties Corporation regarding a ENGINEERS proposed amendment to the General Plan for Tax Map Key (3) 7-3-9: 28 por., to change PLANNERS the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designation of the property from Urban 1907 S. SERETANIA ST. Expansion to Conservation (F-3). SUITE 400 HONOLULU, HI 96826 We appreciate your concern for the sensitive dryland forest habitat which is PH. (808)946-2277 FAX: (808)946-2253 encompassed by the proposed amendment. The owners of the Property share your concern and have initiated measures to help ensure the long-term protection of this natural resource. Enclosed for your information is a letter dated February 21, 2003 from TSA Corporation/MID Corporation to the US Fish and Wildlife Service regarding a proposed cooperative agreement for the subject property. Preliminary discussions have been held with the US Fish and Wildlife Service staff and the measures outlined in the letter were well received. Prior to proceeding further with the cooperative agreement, the owners are undertaking the preparation of a master plan for the overall property holdings, including necessary environmental studies. The designation of the 100 to 130 acres referenced in the letter proposal will be subject to completion of the master plan and follow-on discussions with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. We anticipate this will occur over the coming.year. On basis of the above, we wish to request your deferral of the proposed General Plan Amendment F-3 regarding the subject property. In consideration of your interest and concern, we will submit to you a report by December 2006 on the progress of our efforts and discussions towards a cooperative agreement with the US Fish and Wildlife Service. Please call me if you should have any questions and let us know how you intend to proceed. Thank you very much for your attention to this matter. Sincerely, P"O'?`7cxv�� - Rodney Funakoshi, A.I.C.P. Project Manager - Planning Enclosure cc: MID Corporation/Kaloko Properties Corporation hp�*1 8� k.. MAWOM351-01\Critical HabitatMOCLtr Chris Yuen 11-17-05.dcc; 11118/2005 W ` V UZ/Ll/ZU03 14:57 FAX TSA CORPORATION MID CORPORATION February 21, 2003 Dr. Paul Henson Field Supervisor U.S. Irish and Wildlife Service Pacific Islands E,oregloa 300 Ata Moana Boulevard. Room 3-122 Box 50088 Honolulu, Hawaii 96850 Re: Designation of Critical Habitat for Netaudia ovArn in Unit Yl and Blackburn's Sphinx Moth in Kailue-Kona Unit 5-A, Island and County of Hawaii (Tax Map Key No(s). 7-3-51:60.7-3-9:17, 25.26 and = Dear Dr. Henson, TSA Corporation rTSA") and MID Corporation (`MID'), as the owners of the real property affected by the (a) proposed designation of critical hablrst for Ne WAM ovaea, a critically endangered endemic plant species in Unit'Yl, and.dw (b) proposed designation of crillcai babitat for the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth in Kailua-Kona Unit 5-A, on the Tsland and County of Hawail, would like to thank you and other are'mbon: of the U.S, Fish 8c Wildlila Service ("F WS") staff, in partioular Mr. Gregory Koob and Me. Christa Russell, who have bees helpful in discussing the possibilities of a partnership sarong PWS, TSA and MID in creating a plan that can afford both ptotectioa of the endangered species habitat and management of speeltle area of thea a lava flow where the Neraudia ovmw and the Blackburn's Sphinx Moth (collectively, the "Endangered Species") are located while allowing for the development of the teat of the real property. TSA and MID are mindful of FWS'a time constraints relating to the proposed designations of critical habitat for the 8ndangered Species. Consequently, TSA and MID respectfully request additional time to work with FWS to implernew the fOUDwbtg interim cortservadoa measures ("ICM") that we believe will be more beneficial to the Endangered Species and their respective hibitaa: (1) TSA and MID agree to identify and provide approxiMately 100 to 130 contiguous acres located on thea a lava flow. including the identified endangered plant cluster, an the pared south of Hina Lani Street fru the prtktctioa and management of the Endengered Species (the "Modified Habitat" which would replace Loth of the currently proposed critical habitats); (2) TSA and MID agree to enter into good faith negotiations with any federal, state or county entity for the acquisition of the Modified habitat to ensure the protection and management of the Endangered Species: Z002/003 uG/Z1'AUUJ 14:01 rAa -- _. X000/000 TSA and MID agree to consider into a safe or eement with (3) to ensure protection and maaegemeatg of levels offS the Endengered Species; and (4) TSA and MID agree to enter into a memorandum of understanding andlor eonaervatlontcooperative agreement for a duration to be determined by FWS and TSAftvg D that address the following issues: s. TSAfhtM will agree that the Modified Habitat shall be protected from major physical disturbance (e.g.. no constmcdon. cleating. grading. digging or M114 and be clearly delinMed as signs (with the assistance of 17WS) will be posted so that the restrictions on disturbance are clearly viuble. Some limited development in the Modified habitat such as peripheral landscaping may be -permitted, upon approval by FWS; b. FWS and its designated contracts will have acceaa to the Modified Habitat, on an on going basis doting the duration of VW agtxmetlt among FWS. TSA and MID, for the management and protection of the Endangered Species; c. FWS will provide and be solely responsible for all necessary active monitoring. management and protection of the Modified Habitat and the Endangered Species; and d. arm a memorandum of understanding or conservadonkooperadve agreement has been, approved by all parties,.FWS agrees that no additional conservation measures will be-requked for the duration of said memorandum or agreernwrt, Thank you again for the time that you and your staff have spent working with us on this issue. Your continued patienceand cooperation are deeply appreciated. We look forward to your formal review of the ICM and possible partnership with us. Please feel free to contact the tmdersigoed for any further information or clarification Sincerely. cc Franklin Mukat 8sq. Shaun M- Mukai. Esq. Wilson Okamoto and Associates JI f L WDA LINGLE Wg XNOROPHAWAR Mr, Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen: n STATE OF HAWAII DEPARTMENT OF LAND AND NATURAL RESOURCES POST OFFICE BOX 621 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96909 SUBJECT: Proposed Amendment to Hawaii County General Plan Kealakehe PETER T. YOUNG CHAIXPM. Rw w. Atmrvan M.CSs NMML48WM WATERPFS.UMANAOEM ROBERT E. MA VDA DEPVIYDOIETIDR DEAN NARANO ARMG DEWIYUIXRCTOR- WATER AQVATW RE9OU M BOAT W O AND CCEM' RECREATION VURMU cP4VBYANCFs O(MM($ M WATER RFd%MOEI.WUOOA@1T CgA YATK]NMDM.TALt1NB3 CQYEFAVATON ANO RPSOURMS ORCEM ®mel M PORFSIItYAND WpDLRE H6IOAIC PREPENVAIION RusoouaE BIAND REscxvB cvtm.,sswN )I ATE 1ARI(9 December 20, 2005 I understand you are reviewing proposed amendments to the Hawaii County General Plan (GP). As you continue your review, we ask you to consider revising the proposed amendment pertaining to lands near the Honokohau Small Boat Harbor at Kealakehe. The Board of Land and Natural Resources (BLNR) recently concluded an RFP process to expand Honokohau Harbor including a mixed-use development with resort component. Jacoby Development, Inc., was selected to implement this plan and develop this site. I understand they have discussed with you certain GP amendments noting an expanded harbor, resort and urban uses. I believe these are consistent with the master -planned development envisioned by the BLNR. Presently, you are recommending a change from Open to Urban Expansion within the Amendment to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Maps in the North Kona District in Area F-4. We thank you for your support in recommending the change from Open to Urban Expansion. We ask that the proposed amendment be revised to recommend Open to Urban Expansion with a Resort Node. (See enclosed map.) This is consistent with prior General Plan designation for the area. Nonresidential resort use is a pivotal element in the proposed development, operation and maintenance of the marina. Thank you for your consideration of this request. Again, we ask for your support to add Resort Use to the proposed amendment to the GP so the State may move forward with its planned development. Sincerely, Peter T. Young, Chairperson w,w C -3c, Enclosure cc: Mayor Harry Kim Hilburn Hillestad, Jacoby Development, Inc. 7-,"8:10 PROPOSED REVISIONS: Federal F-4 =Open to Urban Expansion with a Resort Node 74-08:25 Federal v, F-4 Honok(&au Harbor 7-4-()$:0 DBFIL FUTURE HARBOR EXPANSION 7-4-08:02 o Lili'uokalani Trust Estate -County of Hawaii -Shft, DeParmwit of Hmalian Home Lands Reamw1m: This nap has been prepared for gaFmal =gamumn;9mpoergyI oIn«oMwnot be te analysis beyond fm lingtodons of = LEGEND TMK Boundary Open Area: Existing 4;ZD Open Area: Proposed Urban: Existing Urban: Proposed Resort: Proposed Proposed Hawaii County General Plan Kealakehe NOM ME&SCALEFMO 7 N 0 Im 0 LMA LINGLE MICAH A "NE +. GOVERNOR CHAIRMAN An OF HAWAII v4 4W1J,0m1 HAWAIIAN HOMES COMMISSION W' .�'.•,. 1, "� F.�pf�- 5STATE DEPHTY TO THE CNIX.W AM ` OF HAWAII KAULANA H. PARK EXECUTIVE ASSISTANT DEPARTMENT OF HAWAIIAN HOME LANDS P.O. BOX 1879 HONOLULU, HAWAII 96805 December 28, 2005 Mr. Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 SUBJECT: PROPOSED Ab=Mb1ENTS TO RAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN KEALAK NE, RAWAII Dear Mr. Yuen: W" The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) requests an Amendment to the Land Use Pattern Allocation Maps in the North Kona District in Area F-4, Open to Urban Expansion, near Honokohau Harbor at Kealakehe to include a Resort Node within the Urban Expansion Area. DHHL owns 200 acres of land (TMK: 7-4-08: 03) in the vicinity of Honokohau Harbor. This land is presently designated as Urban Expansion in the General Plan. DHHL has entered into a long-term lease agreement with Kona Marina Development Group, LLC for the development of this 200 -acre site. The Department of Land and Natural Resources has also recently entered into a Development Agreement and form of Master Ground Lease with Jacoby Development, Inc., an affiliate of Kona Marina Development Group, LLC, for approximately 250 acres adjacent to our 200 -acre site. '1%W As DHHL owns most of the mauka Kealakehe lands in the Villages of Laeopua, in addition to the 200 acres near Honokohau Harbor, the proposed plans for a mixed-use development including a new marina and associated resort development are an integral part of a master -planned community concept that promotes self -sustainability and provides for our beneficiaries an opportunity to live, work, learn, and play within a new vibrant community. As residential development will not be allowed on State lands the resort designation is a pivotal element in the proposed development, operation and maintenance of the marina. 04!2 Mr. Christopher Yuen December 28, 2005 Page 2 Thank you for the opportunity to provide our comments on the proposed General Plan amendments and your consideration for the inclusion of a Resort Node in the Urban Expansion Area. This is consistent with the prior General Plan Designation for the area. Should you have any have your staff contact Administrator, at 587-6434. Enclosure CC: Mayor Harry Kim questions, please call me at 586-3801, or Linda Chinn, our Land Management Division Aloha and mah Micah A. Kane, C airman Hawaiian Homes Commission e- PROPOSED REVISIONS: Federal— F-4 = Open to Urban Expansion — with a Resort Node 7-4-08:25 Federal — _� Por' F-4 ._ I HonokEhau Harbor 1� L• - DHHL 03 Lot3 i �y��t FUTURE :-1+ - v1-•�r`�J-i_ �.c :'� s. .. - HARBOR EXPANSION . - 1+fi�f i L- T, Mate 3iawr4l +� $tatC f�i3a �T � +r;-rk+� r - .� ray-• . i rtL _ 7-4-08:02 o Lili`uokalani Trust Estate Source: \, -County of Hawaii -State. Department of Hawaiian Home Lands ••�, �. This map has been prepared for general ••� plar�ug purposes only. It should not be used (ry interpretations or other spatial analysis ysis beyond the limitations of the date. LEGEND TMK Boundary [� Open Area: Existing v wo, Open Area: Proposed Urban: Existing Urban: Proposed Resort: Proposed Proposed Hawaii County General Plan Kealakehe NORTH LINEAL SCALE (FEET) ® 7 s o 1.600® IMM Smart Growth Leadership Institute To: Mr. Yuen Fax: 808-961-8742 From: Parris Glendening Date; 1(3!2006 Re: Letter Pages: 2 Including Cover CC: ❑ Urgent ❑ For Review ❑ Please Comment ❑ Please Reply ❑ Please Recycle 1707 L Street, NW, Suite 1.050 Washington, D.C. 20036 (202) 207-3355 x 21 pglendening@sgli.org S rt Grovtth America getter Chefees For our Cammunfeks �sm> December 30, 2006 Mr. Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo, .Hawaii 96720 Re: Kona Kai Ola Hawaii: Proposed Amendments to Hawaii County General Plan Kealakehe, Hawaii Dear Mr. Yuen: +a,er 170715treet. NW - Suitu 1050 Washington, OC 20036 Fhona:202-207.3355 Fax: 202-207.3349 E-mail' sga(gkmartgmwthemerlm.erg wxsv.smomgrvwrJsamerlea.erg It is with great pleasure that I recommend to you the 6 r of Jacoby Development, Inc. QDI). We have known and worked with Jim and his team for a number of years and have seen the results of his smart growth initiatives. The Atlantic Station project is the National model for sustainable smart growth, Wehave also worked with JDI on Maryland. projects such as the Wayson Corner Qug Bay expansion,) Green prints acquisition and on the Restoration of White Marsh Sand Quarry into a mixed use project featuring General Motors. Smart Growth Almerka Is a & tIo s lde coalition pmmo*g a better way to grow; one that protects farmland and open space, revlakF neighborhoods, keops housing affordable, and provldm more rmnspor non choleet. As President of Smart Growth Leadership Institute, a part of Smart Growth America, I support the Jacoby Team's sustainable development model for Kona Kai Ola. Smart Growth America has a long tradition of not endorsing specific projects, but I feel so strongly about Mr. Jacoby's extraordinary work that I make this rare personal endorsement. We understand that the plans shall include transportation alternatives, salt water air conditioning, waste manageanent and innovative water conservation. measures. I look forward to working with. Jim Jacoby and your community on this model project at Kona Kai. Ola. Si er ly, ` �+ Governor (1995-2003) —� Dacayanan, Melissa r Sara Peck [peck@hawaii.edu] ..: Monday, January 02, 2006 1:47 PM To: planning@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: Afice_Kawaha@co.hawaii.hI.us Mr. Chris Yuen, Planning Director 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo HI 96720 December 31, 2005 Dear Mr. Yuen, I am writing to you as an individual interested in the future quality of the Kona area, not in any official capacity, to ask you to make a decision that would provide the smart growth principle of mixed-use to the proposed Jacoby Honokohau area plans. As you are very aware, mixed-use can include resort, commercial and retail activities. The resort designation does not necessarily apply to billionaire/high end dwellings, and in that particular location more moderate resort and/or time share availability, if combined with connectivity of transportation would be beneficial to both the developer and the retailers within 3-4 miles of that location. I thank you for your time and look forward to seeing a stellar example of many of the best practices/smart growth principles become a reality for th4s particular Jacoby project which promises to provide a better model for 4Y �e development. sincerely, Sara Peck PO Box 56 Holualoa HI 96725 322-2266=ph 50 1 Mr. Chris Yuen, Planning Director 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo 1-1196720 December 31, 2005 Dear Mr. Yuen, I am writing to you as an individual interested in the future quality of the Kona area, not in any official capacity, to ask you to make a decision that would provide the smart growth principle of mixed-use to the proposed Jacoby Honokohau area plans. As you are very aware, mixed-use can include resort, commercial and retail activities. The resort designation does not necessarily apply to billionaire/high end dwellings, and in that particular location more moderate resort and/or time share availability, if combined with connectivity of transportation would be beneficial to both the developer and the retailers within 3-4 miles of that location. I thank you for your time and look forward to seeing a stellar example of many of the best practices/smart growth principles become a reality for this particular project which promises to provide a better model for future development. Sincerely, Sara Peck PO Box 56 Holualoa HI 96725 322-2266=ph Cc: Alice Kawaha, Planning Dept., fax: 961-8742 06 C ;3�a-6 Page 1 of 2 Dacayanan, Melissa From: Rick Gaffney [captrick@aloha.netl Sent: Monday, January 02, 2006 8:19 PM To: planning@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: Alice_Kawaha@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: General Plan Interim Amendments Chris Yuen January 2, 2006 Planning Director 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chris: I would like to comment on your draft "General Plan Interim Amendments: Planning Director's Proposed Changes to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map (dated October 20, 2005)" where those proposed changes will impact the lands immediately adjacent and to the south of Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. The document proposes changing the land use designation around Honokohau to "urban expansion" from "open." I feel this change correctly recognizes that these lands are already part of the Kailua-Kona urban corridor. However, I have a problem with the fact that you do not include a "resort ode" designation for these lands. I strongly support adding a resort node designation to the DLNR and DHHL lands adjacent to Honokohau Small Boat Harbor. This will give an opportunity for Jacoby Development, in partnership with the State of Hawaii, to design a project that will enhance this urban area with an expanded manna facility supported by a mixed-use project including resort, commercial and retail activities. I have met with Mr. Jacoby and several members of his team and I believed that they have the skills and experience to really do a good job for the community, and to help us start to solve some of the growth - related problems Kona is experiencing in this growing urban area. These problems will only get worse - not better - unless this urban expansion is planned following the "smart growth" principles the Kona Community Plan is advocating. Jacoby Development has long used "smart growth" approaches in their projects elsewhere, and they have clearly stated that they want to do the same here. Adding "resort" to the land use allowed for these lands in the General Plan enables this Jacoby project to move forward in its design, planning and permitting stages. I strongly believe that the future of ocean recreation on the Big Island is dependent on the creation of a new marina facility, and that these lands near Honokohau are the perfect place for that expanded facility. Having visited successful urban marinas all over the world, I understand that including a complete resort mix with this project is the only way it can ultimately be successful. Without adding a resort designation for these lands, you may effectively kill this project and in so doing severely hamper the boating and ocean recreation industries which are critical to the success of tourism on this island. ;ase reconsider your designation of these lands to include a resort node. W&W Aloha, �. T 1/3/2006 Page 2 of 2 _Rick Gaffney :ick Gaffney & Associates, Inc. w"'73-1062 Ahikawa Street Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 325-5000 113!2006 J rx JACOBY DEVELOPMENT, INC. January 2, 2006 Mr. Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 25 Aupuni Street Hilo HI 96720 Re: Comments on Proposed General Plan Interim Amendments for Kealakehe and Honokohau Aloha Mr. Yuen -- After reviewing the draft document entitled "General Plan Amendments, Planning Director's Proposed Changes to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map (dated October 20, 2005)" Jacoby Development, Inc. (JDI) would like to provide the following comments. In the North Kona District, JDI recognizes that you are requesting to change the land use from "Open" to "Urban Expansion" in the draft amendment F-4 for the DLNR lands around Honokohau Harbor. We support this recommended change. However, in addition, we request that you also add "Resort" resignation to these DLNR lands, and to the adjacent DHHL lands, as well. In particular, we ask for three changes to be made to your draft document: (1) Please revise draft amendment F-4 to change the land use designation from "Open" to "Urban Expansion and Resort" rather than only from "Open" to "Urban Expansion" as you propose. (2) Please include in this change from "Open" to "Urban Expansion and Resort" the state DNLR lands south of Honokohau Harbor, as well as the 17+ acre parcel bounded on the mauka side by Queen Kaahumanu Highway, on the southern side by Kealakehe Parkway, on the northern side by Kaloko Honokohau National Historical Park, and on the makai side by the fast lands surrounding Honokohau Harbor. (All these areas are State of Hawaii lands referred to as TMK 7-4-08:03 por.) (3) Please add another amendment for the lands to the south and mauka of Honokohau Harbor extending to Queen Kaahumanu Highway (DHHL lands of TMK 7-4-08:03, Lot 3) to change from its current designation as "Urban Expansion" to a new designation: "Urban Expansion and Resort." Jacoby Development Inc. is making this request for adding "resort" designation to these lands in order to create a mixed-use development based on agreements between JDI and the owners of these lands, which are the Hawaii Department of Hawaiian Home Lands, and the Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. These agreements are dated December 19, 2003 with DHHL, and November 18, 2005 with DLNR. Both agreements describe the development of a mixed use project which may include (but is not 'mited to) resort, retail/commercial, and golf course. In addition to these uses, the DLNR development °+wtgreement also requires development and construction of an expanded harbor basin and accompanying 171 17th Street, NW, Suite 1550, Atlanta, Georgia 30363 (770)399.9930 Fax (770) 206-9150 slips. Finally, the DLNR also specifically restricts the project from including any permanent residential development. Based on the terms of these agreements, and the input from numerous community meetings held by the DLNR and DHHL in developing this public-private partnership, resort use is an important component in the mixed-use development envisioned for these lands of Honokohau and Kealakehe. This General Plan amendment will be necessary to support the well-planned development of this area at the northern end of the Kailua-Kona urban corridor. With this General Plan amendment, JDI intends to create a mixed-use development with an expanded harbor, with resort, retail/commercial, and marina activities. Using smart growth design principles, JDI intends to create a people -friendly place for residents and visitors alike, that uses the best in transportation planning, environmentally -sensitive and energy-efficient design. Mahalo for your consideration of our request for resort designation on these parcels so that our project can move forward and be a part of the solution to the many growth -related challenges being faced by the Kona community. Aloha, rZ7 `pmes F. Jacoby „ hairman Jacoby Development, Inc. JAN. 12006 5:20PM BAKKEN HALE N0, 544 P. 1 Earl E. Bakken • : Ki6gIO Say, Norah Kona Cw$r, island of HaW ;i Mailing Ad&ess' PO Sp)r 3"60, Miko oa H196738-9998 relophonc 808.925.9727 fax Lin®: 808-325-0928 Facsimile Transmittal January 2, 2006 To: Chris Yuen From: Kelley.A.sbell The Bakken Hale at Kiholo Bay Tel. 808-325-3127 Fax: 808-325-0928 Total Pages, including cover page: 2 If all pages are not received, please call or fax the above numbers. Thank you. Aloha Hawaii County Planning Department, Please send this fax along to Mr. Chris Yuen. Mahalo & Aloha, --4 - Ic4tt( Kelley K. Asbell Assistant to Earl E. Bakken loaw) e- JAN. 3.2006 5:20PM BAKKEN NAGE January 3, 2006 Earl E. Bakken Chris Yuen Planning Director DSc, hon., 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 F.A.C.C, hon., Hilo, hlawaN 96720 F.I.C.S., hon„ Fax: 961-8742 F.I.E.E.E„ li.I.S.A Aloha N0. 544 P. 2 I am writing to provide public comment on your draft "General Plan Interim Amendments: Planning Director's Proposed Changes to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) map (dated October 20, 2005)" As you know, Jacoby Development was picked by the Department of Hawaiian Horne Lands (DHHL) and the Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) to develop an expanded harbor and a mixed-use project including resort, commercial and retail activities. Not only will the Kona community get the expanded harbor they have been requesting for many years, but this development will provide much needed funds to DHHL to support new housing projects for native Hawaiians, and to DLNR to fund resource protection and safe boating access to the ocean for our community, Please include in your General Plan amendments the designations necessary for this public-private partnership to be designed and developed. This includes the "urban expansion" you are recommending, as well as a "resort" designation. As the DHHL and DLNR have decided, this project will need to include a resort component to be successful. I have met with Jim Jacoby and his team on several occasions and I believe they have the skills and experience to do a high quality development which will Mama Address: improve quality of life by helping to solve some of the growth -related problems PO Box 394360 Kona is already experiencing, Waikoloa, III 96738 Thanks for your consideration of this request. Phvsic:l Address: Best regards, Bakken Hale CSiho[o Bay, Highway 19, n� Milemazker 82.5 Kailua-Rona,) II 96740 of Earl B. Bakken -' 808.325.3127 "'*1F.a: 809.32.5.0928 bak ken@bigisland.com i Page 1 of 1 Kawaha, Alice From: Fred E. Duerr [fredlynnduerr@centurytel.net] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:22 PM To: planning@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: Alice_Kawaha@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Jacoby Development Dear Mr. Yuen, I am currently on the mainland, but I am concerned about the General Plan Interim Amendment which is going before the County Council. I have attached a letter stating my concerns and would appreciate your accepting it as my commentary regarding the Jacoby Development's proposal for expanding Honokohau Harbor. Thank you, Fred Duerr 1/8/2006 January 3, 2006 Chris Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii Dear Mr. Yuen, As a forty year resident of Kailua-Kona, a retired hotel executive, and a fishing advocate, I am writing this letter in hopes that we can add into the General Plan Interim Amendment a resort node at Honokohau Harbor. I attended the meeting in Kona where the Jacoby Development Group explained their proposal for the expansion of Honokohau Harbor. It is my understanding that the DLNR reached an agreement on the proposed expansion of the harbor and surrounding lands which would prohibit any residential development but which would allow hotel and fractional ownership development, along with the marina and commercial and retail operations. The Kona community has needed and wanted the harbor to be expanded and its facilities upgraded for a long time. Without the resort component, the expanded harbor and mixed use development project proposed by the Jacoby Development Group would be very difficult to develop and to sustain economically. As a former manager of charter boat operations for Kona Village Resort and presently the president of the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament, I know of the acute shortage of mooring slips at the present Honokohau Harbor. The list to obtain a slip is long, and people are discouraged from even applying for one, feeling that it is a hopeless pursuit. Many boats are presently moored in open waters, such as Kailua Bay, at great risk to their owners and their crews. The additional moorings created within an expanded boat harbor would allow these boats to be accommodated within a safe area. I fear that if we cannot make it economically feasible for a developer to proceed, we will not see any additional slips at Honokohau in the near or distant future. The state, from my understanding, does not have the financial resources or the desire to expand the harbor and its facilities. I have seen many privately funded harbor facilities developed on the mainland at no cost to the taxpayer. These have been done very well and would not have been accomplished if there were no financial incentive available to the developer. The West Hawaii boating community needs this harbor expansion at Honokohau. I appreciate your support in helping to meet the needs of the people of West Hawaii. Sincerely, Fred Duerr Retired General Manager of Kona Village Resort '*000, President of the Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament Kawaha, Alice ,m: Kyle Datta [kdatta@rmi.org] it: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:25 PM planning@co.hawaii.hi. us Cc: Alice Kawaha@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: RMI Comments to General Plan Interim Amendments IFJ Yuen_L0106.doc (508 KB) Dear Sirs, Here are RMI's comments to the proposed interim amendments best regards, Kyle Kyle Datta Senior Director, Research and Consulting Rocky Mountain Institute 74-5617 Pawai Place Suite 201, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96739, USA phone (office): (808) 329- 4360 mobile: (808) 895-7785 fax: (808) 329-4370 phone (headquarters): (970) 927 3851 Address (Headquarters): 1739 Snowmass Creek Road, Colorado 81654-9199, USA RMI Homepage: www.rmi.org 1 Old Snowmass, I - - Chris Yuen Planning Director Hawaii County Planning Department 101 Pauahi Street Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Dear Chris, On behalf of RMI, we are writing in support of the General Plan Interim Amendments: Planning Director's Proposed Changes to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUAPG) map (October, 2005). In general, we find the proposed changes well considered and supportive of more sustainable land use planning. We are particularly supportive of the proposed changes to shift several areas to "Important Agricultural Lands" designation and the shifts to "Conservation" to protect critical environmental jewels, such as Kealakekua Bay. There are a few modifications to the proposed changes that we belief the County should reconsider. Most importantly, we believe that the County and the State should synchronize their land use planning approaches, to allow a coordinated approach to development. In our view, this would improve the effective use of scarce public resources and manpower. Thus, we observe that proposed change, F-4, shifting the area south of Honokahau Harbor from Open to Urban is helpful, it should actually be shifted to "Resort, medium density urban" to synchronize with the DLNR designation that the area be developed as a mixed use project with marina, resort, with commercial and retail operations. Our understanding is the DLNR agreement with Jacoby Development expressly prohibits the building of permanent residential. Adding "resort" to the land use allowed for these lands in the General Plan makes this Jacoby project possible to move forward in its design, planning and permitting stages RMI understands and concurs with concerns that the County Planning Department has regarding additional traffic and the need for concurrent development of infrastructure. RMI supports developments that will adhere to "smart growth" and sustainability principles. We believe that JDI is sincere in their desire to implement both principles in this development. This would include provision of mass transit, alternative roadways, bike paths to help alleviate the congestion that would otherwise be caused. JDI has the proven track record of implementing these principles. 1739 SNO WMASS CREEK ROAD SNO WMA S S, CO 1, OR ADO 81654-9199 TEL: (970) 927-3851 FAX: 1970) 927-4.510 WWW. RM I. OR As demonstration of their commitment, they have brought on board a host of experts in sustainable development, including RMI. At RMI, we are extremely selective in choosing our clients, since we will only work with those businesses that are committed to implementing sustainable approaches. We believe we have the opportunity to make this JDI project at Honokahau a model for sustainable development. In summary, we want to thank the Planning Department for its thought and effort that has gone into the Proposed Changes to Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide. We support the changes that provide for greater protection of agricultural lands and conservation areas. We recommend that the Planning Department consider providing a "resort" designation for the Honokahau project, in order to harmonize with DLNR, and to allow this project to move forward. Sincerely, E. Kyle Datta, Managing Director Rocky Mountain Institute Dacayanan, Melissa FithianHnl@aol.com Tuesday, January 03, 2006 1:27 PM ? To planning@co.hi.us; alice_kawaha@co.hi.us Subject: (no subject) Mr Yuen, I have only become aware of the ending of the public comment period on the Honokohau project, and hasten to make some suggestion that I hope would be helpful. So often these matters are too technical to respond to without seeing the document. As I understand it Jacoby wishes to provide certain improvements that are not consistent with the present zoning or that your department does not feel should be included. The inclusion of these elements sound like they would enhance the harbor which is sadly in need of upgrading. If there is no black and white prohibition of these improvements, is it possible you could require the developer to further justify their presentation with specific reference to the items or plan that is not consistent with the zoning, as a middle ground? Certainly Kona needs a great improvement in these facilities if we are to stay competitive with other resort destinations built around fishing enterprises. F•ctfully submitted, Peter Fithian, Founder Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament 1 -Sb"V Page 1 of 1 Kawaha, Alice From: Mark McGuffie [markmcguffie@hiedb.org] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:10 PM To: planning@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: Alice_Kawaha@co.hawaii.hi.us Aloha Chris! Attached is a letter of support for the Honokau moving from open to urban expansion including a resort node designation. Mahalo Mark Mark McGuffie Executive Director Hawai'i Island Economic Development Board Hawai'i Innovation Center at Hilo 117 Keawe Street, Suite 107 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Telephone: 808.935.2180 Facsimile: 808.935.2187 Email: markmcguffie@hiedb.org Website: http://www.hiedb.org 1/8/2006 Hawaii :. . Economic Development Brr .r ISLAND OF OPPORTUNITY Board of Directors SENT VIA FACSIMILE, EMAIL AND MAIL Chair January 3rd, 2006 Warren Lee Plan should incorporate this development as a major part of the solution. There President and CEO will be a significant impact to the tax base as a result of this development, that Hawaiian Electric Company Chris Yuen Secretary Planning Director Vice Chair 101 Pauahi Street Robert Saunders Suite 3 Vice President from "open" to "urban expansion", however, there needs to be further CSV Hospitality Management, LLC Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Treasurer REF: Resort Node Zoning for the Honokohau Area Richard Henderson President and CEO Plan should incorporate this development as a major part of the solution. There Realty Investments will be a significant impact to the tax base as a result of this development, that Aloha Chris! Secretary continued expansion of work opportunity for our island's residents. Barry Mizuno This letter is in general support of the proposed land use changes identified in Owner's Representative the Honokohau area, within the General Plan Amendment of October 20, 2005 Puna Geo -Thermal Venture from "open" to "urban expansion", however, there needs to be further Past Chair consideration to designate a Resort Node at Honokohau. erta Chu r vice President of Hawaii Jacob Development and their partnership with the State of Hawail wish to 5r p p p President and CEO enhance this designated urban area with an expanded harbor and a mixed-use KTA Super Stores project including resort, commercial and retail activities. In order for this to be Director an effective "smart growth" development with economic sustainability for the Chow Senior Senior Vice President long term benefit of the Kona community, g it will need approval for a Resort First Hawaiian Bank Node Designation. Director The infrastructure and workforce needs for our future in the Kona Development Richard Ha Plan should incorporate this development as a major part of the solution. There President and Owner Mauna Kea Banana will be a significant impact to the tax base as a result of this development, that will positively affect the needed resources to tackle infrastructure issues and the Director continued expansion of work opportunity for our island's residents. Patricia Provalenko President PATDI, INC. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call. I appreciate your due consideration during the planning process. Director Barry K. Taniguchi President and CEO KTA Super Stores 'O wau n6 me ka ha's ha`a R Mark McGuffie Executive Director cc: Alice Kawaha Hawaii Innovation Center at Hilo • 117 Keawe Street, Suite 107 • Hilo, HI 96720-2811 Ph(808)935-2180 Fax(808)935-2187 hiedb@hiedb.org www.hiedb.org r4ir' Kawaha, Alice From: Rick Vidgen [rickvidgen@hawaii.rr.com] Sent: Tuesday, January 03, 2006 4:45 PM To: planning@co.hawaii.hi.us Cc: Alice_Kawaha@co.hawaii.hi.us Subject: Jacoby Development Attached Note in support of Jacoby Development 1/8/2006 Page 1 of 1 To Chris Yuen Hawaii County Planning Director From Rick Vidgen 78-630 Ihilani Place Kailua Kona Hawaii 86740 Letter in support of the Jacoby Development expansion of the Honokohau Harbor and the need for some "resort" zoning to allow this to occur. Aloha Mr Yuen, I have become aware of the Jacoby Development Plans for expansion of the Harbor area and facilities. While I fully support the management of development in this (Kona) area I believe this project fits with all the criteria for sensible growth and thus should be endorsed by the county. The expansion of the harbor is quite obviously needed and this need is recognized in the community. In order for this project to proceed it must have the zoning changes needed to allow for it's financial viability. I am also aware that this project has been supported by both the DLNR and DHHL and thus, since it fits within the development "corridor" and will (shortly) be served by a 4 - lane highway, it does seem very worthy of community support. I am also aware that Jacoby come with a very strong background of experience and skills and an extremely strong track record of successful and sustainable developments. They would seem to be just the type of developer that this county should be trying to attract. For these reasons I would ask you to move to support this project with the zoning changes it requires as it could well provide a model for a development that will unite the community instead of the divisive history we currently enjoy. Sincerely Rick Vidgen i Page 1 of 1 Dacayanan, Melissa _.._.. . ---..__.. ,'—._ _.__ -.. .-. From: Sue Vermillion [hdc@aloha.net] ' Sent: Wednesday, January 04, 2006 4:31 PM To: planning @co.hawaii.hi. us Subject: Attached Letter for Chris Yuen Please find attached letter for Chris Yuen. Regards, Sue Vermillion 0$ CAC MTI0 1/5/2006 Susan Vermillion G350 Productions 74-425 Kealakehe Pkwy #1 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 January 3, 2006 Chris Yuen Planning Director 101 Pauahi Street Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720 Dear Mr. Yuen, It has been brought to my attention to comment on your document to change the land around Honokohau to urban expansion, as a decision which I support. However, we also need a resort designation for these lands. I suggest to you that accommodations made available to visitors who will be utilizing the marina's many new services, which include Sport Fishing Events which is a billion dollar industry world wide, is mandatory for the development of the lands at Honokohau Harbor. The Jacoby Pevelopment recognizes the need for a resort including accommodations. With a resort hotel and time-shares, the expanded harbor would be able to sustain itself economically as well as providing the community a location to house visiting anglers, boat owners and their families to participate in world recognized events. Adding a resort to the land use allowed for these lands in the General Plan makes this project possible to move forward in its design, planning and permitting stages. Regards Sue Vermillion Tournament Director (608) 329-1493 Reservations (808) 329.8711 Office (808) 329-8712 FOX www.huggos.com tyros )8) 326"1244 Office 308) 3298712 Fax ww,huggps.com 5828 Kahakai Rd. lua-Kona, Hj 96740 JON 10 F(, 3 09 V A "ArSN'LF; R`WL ANP WIN(a DEPARTMENT COUNTY OF HAWAII IN B°uahi $frF.£t Svnte 3 Hilo, Hawaii 95720 P.EF: Resort Clod£ Zoning for the Honokohau Area Rioha Chnsl This iettcr is in general support of the proposed land use changes identified in the Honokohau area, within the General Plan Amendment of October 20, 2005 from "open" to "urban expansion", however, there needs to be further consideration to designate a !esort Node at Honokohau. )acoby Development and their partnership with the State of Hawaii wish to enhance this desigratrd urban area with an expanded harbor and a mixed-use project including resort, comnirroal and rua;l activities. In order for this to be an effective "st;iar': growth', -_^.EVF!npn:€n' w; is£r7n0;f0(_ s0s a6nJ.bilit`j ;'or the lona^_, t£t:n i. neht of _ :;k r oriz, "rnmt'; iii nrit' >51prC'✓"ii fi r' a Nso- tve:ye The cnf astructure and workforce needs for our -,uture in the Kona Dei dopment ?len >hould incorporate th!s development as a major part of the solution. There wih oc a significant impact to the tax base as a result of this devElopment, which i+nll oo-:r^t£iy affEct the needed resources to tackle infrastructure 1ssuEs and the Continued Eyi.,an_ston cr work opportunity for our island's residents. 1al1'o i / 7i lc ^r Na! en _L;JEr 'resid-nt `!" tical. ii.Q a ty 00963£3 Your home away from home, providing the highest level of casual elegance in dining on the breathtaking Kona Coast. November 30, 2005 Mr. Christopher Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720 Mr. Yuen, My name is A.D. Ackerman. I am President of Ackerman Ranch located between Kainaliu and Kealakekua. I received a letter from you on November 10th, which I would like to respond to. But, first of all I would like to thank you for sending the letter, otherwise we would not have known of the proposed amendments to the General Plan. My family.and I have been dairy farming, ranching and working on this land for about 125 years and, we hope to be here on the land for many years and generations to come. We enjoy the open space that the ranch offers and we have no plans for any development on the parcels in question here today. However, we are opposed to the Planning Directors consideration to initiate a change to amend the current Land use pattern Allocation Guide from its current "Extensive Ag and Orchards" to the "Important Ag Land designation". The Ackerman Ranch land in question, and most of the land in this area between Keahou and Kealakekua Bay is steep, rocky, irregular and to dry for most agricultural uses. If anything, agricultural conditions have become more difficult today than they were 20 years ago. The Ackerman Ranch land in question extends from about the 1,300 foot elevation to the Old Railroad track at about the 700 foot elevation. From 1958 to 1982, we recorded a 25 year average of rainfall at the 1,300 foot elevation of 53.52 inches per year, or 4.5 inches per month. At the700foot elevation, during that same period the twenty-five year rainfall average was 30.55 inches per year, or 2.5 inches per month. The rainfall at the 700 foot elevation was a little more than half of what it was at the 1,300 foot elevation. In an article written by Mr. George Yasuda, who is a respected Kona coffee expert, he says that the first viable need for successful coffee production is rainfall close to 6 to 8 inches per month. The 2.5 inches, at the 700 foot level, to 4.5 inches at the 1,300 foot elevation, that we recorded from 1958 to 1982 hardly meets that criteria. What is worse, is the following twenty-year rainfall average from 1983 to 2002 was actually 25% less than what we recorded from 1958 to 1982. At the 1,300 foot elevation the yearly average was 41.15 inches, or 3.4 inches per month. We .rr did not continue an accurate reading of the rainfall at the 700 foot elevation F ab IbW 'd Read FILE COPY during this period. But, if you were to take the same percentages from the 1958 r to '82 period and apply them to this period, it was probably an average of about 23.45 inches per year, or a little less than 2 inches per month. During this period, many of the old established monkypod trees above the railroad died for lack of water, which is something that has never happened before. 1.95 to 3.4 inches of rainfall per month is a far cry from the 6 to 8 inches of rain Mr. Yasuda says are needed per month for viable coffee production, or any kind of commercial crop production that I am of aware of here in Hawaii. Water for irrigation would be necessary as a first requirement for important commercial agricultural viability. Unless the State and County are prepared to make substantial water resources available at a discount to farmers in this area, it is impractical and unjustifiable for the County Planning Department to raise the land use allocation pattern from Extensive Agriculture and Orchards to Important Agricultural lands. We do not know of any coffee farms in the area between Keauhou and Kealakekua Bay that extends below the 1,200 foot elevation. If there are working fields below this elevation, they most certainly must be irrigated to be of any commercial. value. If the lower limits of the important ag lands are defined as the lower limits of the "Coffee Belt" then the 1,200 foot elevation topography line would be a much more accurate boundary. The Old Railroad track at the 700 foot elevation is almost a half -mile down slope. To use this line as a "buffer against competing and conflicting uses" as you state in your letter to me is a misuse of the land use pattern allocation guide, which will also probably be adopted by the State Land Use Commission in their identification of "Important Agricultural Lands". This re -allocation is arbitrary, unnecessary and intrusive of landowner's rights. The bulk of parcel 7-9-12:5 and all of 7-9-12:6 are located below the 1,200 foot elevation. With this new land use allocation, the County would be telling us that 160 acres of our property, below the 1,200 foot elevation, of the total 190 acres is not really important agricultural land, but rather a "buffer against competing and conflicting uses". We believe that if you are going to call it important agricultural land, then that it is what it should be. Extensive Ag lands and Orchards make just as good a buffer of competing and conflicting uses as important ag lands do. The Planning Department and the County Council have the ability to make that decision whenever a request for subdivision is brought before them. Another layer of state bureaucracy is not needed for unnecessary and unjustified reasons. We are not opposed to any farmer or rancher in this area asking the County to allocate their land to "Important Agriculture Lands" if they feel they need that extra level of government protection. But, if the Planning Department and the County Council are going to change the designation of our property without our request, or consultation, we believe they owe us a justifiable reason. It is steep, 2 rocky pastureland and there is no coffee. The rainfall and the infrastructure are not sufficient on these parcels for us to consider growing coffee or any other crop without irrigation, at the very least. Unless the County is able to grant us sufficient additional County water at a reduced agricultural rate for the purpose of irrigation, Ackerman Ranch asks that the Planning Director not initiate an amendment to the General plan that would change the Land use Allocation from it's current use as "Extensive Agriculture and Orchards" to "Important Agricultural Lands". We thank you for your time and consideration. Sinr,prely, d4o ;4"4A�— A.D. Ackerman President, Ackerman Ranch IM 3 Harry Kim Mayor December 5, 2005 (911unfV of pxfum-1 PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax(808)961-8742 Mr. Michael W. Gibson, Manager Captain Cook Ranch LLC 75-5722 Kuakini Hwy Ste 208 Kailua-Kona, HI 96740 Dear Mr. Gibson: PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO THE GENERAL PLAN LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP Christopher J. Yuen Director Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Director Thank you for your letter dated November 21, 2005, relating to the proposed amendment that would affect properties that you own located at Tax Map Key No. 8-2-2:2 and 55. I will consider your comments in my decision when initiating any of the proposed amendments. For your information, we have completed the General Plan workshops and will continue to accept written comments on any of the proposed amendments until January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate_ any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincer CHRISTOPHER J. YUEN Planning Director AK:cd �iuwr pAwpwin60\a1icewin\GP WaptCookRanchGibsonldoc Hawai `i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer DEC Captain Cook Ranch LLC ✓w.IJr Michael W. Gibson, Manager 75-5722 Kuakini Hwy., Suite 208 <' Kailua-Kona, Hawaii 96740 (808) 539-0483 November 21, 2005 Mr. Chris Yuen, Planning Director Hawaii County Planning Department 100 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, HI 96720-3043 Re: Proposed Amendment to the General Plan "G-2" Dear Mr. Yuen: Thank you for your letter of November 7, 2005. We support your proposed change "G-2" of the lower portions of our parcels designated as T.M.K.'s 8-2-2-2 & 55, for the reasons stated in your letter, particularly that: a Rural designation is consistent with the SLU Urban District, and the Residential Agricultural 2 acre Zoning. In addition we point out that the 2005 legislature passed Act 183 regarding "Important Agricultural Lands Bill" which amended HRS Section 205-G in delineating the `county process' to be followed in identifying important agricultural lands. §205-G Identification of important agricultural lands; county process. (a) ?ach county shall identify and map potential important agricultural lands within its jurisdiction based on the stanch -ds and criteria in section 2C5 -P and she intent of this part, except panda that have been des' -grated, through the state '_and use, zon--ig, or county clann'_zg process, for %zrban use by the Svate or county. Therefore continuing to identify these SLU Urban Lands, as Important Agricultural Lands would be contrary to the clear intention of the legislature, which specifically excepted SLU Urban Lands from being designated as Important Agricultural Lands for State Purposes . We believe that General Plan designations should be consistent with State Law, and specifically the process outlined in 205-G, above. The historical use of this property has been pasture, and no successful intensive agricultural activities have taken place on the property. Furthermore the two acre lots permissible under the present Residential Agricultural 2 acre Zoning, will allow ample space for future lot holders to engage in the kind of Rural activities and lifestyle contemplated by such zoning. As you further state in your letter of November 7, 2005, this is an active subdivision in that Phase I was completed November 23, 2003. Phase II of this subdivision will be submitted on completion of the exacting archeological work, substantially above and beyond the requirements of our SMA permit, which we have volunteered and which you supported us to undertake. oo791' Mr. Chris Yuen, Planning Director November 21, 2005 Page 2 of 2 Further to your visit to the property last November, at which you specifically assured us that our entitlements would be honored, we engaged International Archaeological Research Institute, Inc. at substantial expense to complete the archeological data recovery for the entire Property. This report is in the process of being completed, and we will shortly thereafter be moving forward with Phase II consisting of 33 lots on the 72.231 acre parcel designated as T.M.K. 8-2-2:2. We believe that our substantial expenditures including without limitation, the contribution on $161,250 to the County for intersection improvements, coupled with out reliance on your assurances delineated above, clearly and completely fulfill the Hawaii Supreme Court's criteria for the vesting of our right to proceed with the contemplated Phase 2 of the subdivision, and that such vested rights are now constitutionally protected. As can be seen by viewing the 2 acre lots adjacent in Ka'awaloa, we believe that the proposed two acre lots are an extremely low density and beneficial use for this SLU Urban designated parcel. We repeat (Emphasis Added) that it is not our intention to seek any further change in zoning for the Property. While we appreciate your representation that the present LUPAG designation is not an impediment to our proposed Phase II Subdivision, we applaud your efforts in making the LUPG designation consistent with State Law and the Property's SLU designation & County zoning. Very Truly Yours, CAPTAIN COOK RANCH, LLC 1 Mchael W. Gibson, Manager NIWG:shp October 12, 2005 Mr. Chris Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Aupuni Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720 1-4 Lt e Subject: Amended General Plan LUPAG Designations for Lands between Keauhou and Kealakekua Bay. Dear Mr. Yuen: The new General Plan (Draft 6) was adopted by the County Council on February 2, 2005. Prior to that on January 21, 2005, the County Council Planning Committee approved certain amendments to Draft 5 including the following: • Deleted proposed LUPAG changes for Keopuka and a portion of Onouli, and, • Deleted important agricultural land designations on LUPAG for properties in South Kona owned by Ackerman, Bell and Paris, and, • Deleted important agricultural land designations on LUPAG for Hokulia. The new maps included in the Plan show "Important Agricultural Lands" designations over portions of properties owned by Ackerman, Bell and Paris rather than the designations that should be in place per the approved deletions. Hokulia is designated as "Conservation" along the shoreline, "Orchards" over most of the project area, "Extensive Agriculture" over the central -area lava flow and "Resort" for the lodge area. I believe these designations are correct. Keopuka is designated as "Conservation" along the shoreline, "Extensive Agriculture" on the lower portion of the property, and "Important Agricultural Lands" on the upper portion of the property, rather than the designations that should be in place per the approved deletions. To surnmarize, it appears portions of the maps do not reflect the proposed changes that were deleted by the amendments as approved by the Planning Committee back in January. � �sZ52 1250 Oceanside Partners • 78-6831 Alii Drive -Suite K15 • Kadua-Kona, Hawaii • 96740-2440 o,.o ..... ....._ o,.o , 1 ,. Mr. Chris Yuen October 12, 2005 Page Two I have included copies of the maps for your review with notations locating the areas of concern. I would like an opportunity to discuss this matter so the maps are consistent with the amendments that were approved. I will contact you shortly to discuss this further. In the meantime, should you have any questions, please contact me at 324-4212. Sincerely, i Robert A. Stuit Vice President, Development cc: B. Rice J. DeFries Enclosures V� /�A ,� w ►7 A C57 z.. o¢ F3� oda �� , o w w ca �d .� N N Q M N v x ncWn S O O Harry Kim "^vor Llt'k. 7FE �:N':FIf` (fours#g of Anfunii PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808) 961-8288 • FAX (808) 961-8742 April 10, 2006 Mr. Christopher Nome Managing Member Pali -K Ranch LLC PO Box 339 Captain Cook, HI 96704 Dear Mr. Nome: Christopher J. Yuen Director Brad Kurokawa, ASLA LEED® AP Deputy Director SUBJECT: HAWAII COUNTY GENERAL PLAN, AMENDMENT G-1 SICYCLIFF RANCH, LLC — TMK: 8-1-10:3 This is in response to your letter of February 20, 2006, expressing concern about the proposed interim General Plan amendment G-1, which would, among other things, redesignate property owned by Skycliff Ranch, LLC, and Pali -K Ranch LLC, above the Kealakekua Bay cliffs, to "Conservation" in the General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map. Your letter asks for "assurances... that this General Plan Amendment... would not change the permitting process ... or affect such later Conservation District Use Application or lead to the denial of an SMA Exemption determination under Rule 9" for the construction of a single-family residence on a lot within the affected area. The properties in question are currently in the State Land Use Conservation District and in the County Special Management Area. To obtain a building permit for a single-family residence, under current regulations, the owner would have a two-step process. First, obtain a clearance that the home does not need an SMA permit. A single-family dwelling not part of a larger project is normally "exempt" from the SMA permitting requirements, but the Planning Director must also determine that the home does not have a substantial adverse environmental or ecological effect. Hawai'i County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer. Mr. Christopher Norrie Managing Member Pali -K Ranch LLC Page 3 April 10, 2006 the Land Use Commission, it is a factor that must be considered, but is not in itself dispositive of the LUC's decision. Sincerel , CHRISTOPHER J. Planning Director ZN CJY:pak Wpwin60/Chns/Christopher Nome — GP letter cc: Planning Commission SMA Section Skycliff Ranch LLCzgs rE8 22 p(q 112 Christopher Norrie, Manager tm L-; T HENT Office: (206) 953-1854 Mobile (206) 953-1854 Fax: (206) 260-3622 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen Planning Director, County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawai'i 96720-3043 PLtA�N�['Vt ,`��lTuyi ar yAWAII tdariieZSZ6Vaoll.com 845 Bellevue Pl. E. #101 Seattle, WA 98102 USA February 20, 2006 Subject: Hawaii County General PlanAmendment G-1• Skycliff Ranch LLC TMK 8-1-10-3 Dear Mr. Yuen, This letter is sent in regards to proposed amendment G-1 to the General Plan of the County of Hawaii (GP) as set out in your letter of November 7, 2005. If you recall, we subsequently discussed the impact of the proposed amendment on the Skycliff Ranch LLC lands (TMK No. 3/8-1-010-003) in your office during our November 21, 2005 meeting. As you know I am also the managing member of Pali -K Ranch LLC which owns the adjacent 31 acre property (TMK No. 3/8-1-010-005) on which I recently completed the construction of my single family residence pursuant to CDUP HA -2968. Both the lands of Skycliff Ranch LLC and Pali -K Ranch LLC lie entirely within the State Land Use (SLU) Conservation District. The amendment proposed by G-1 to the GP would redesignate these lands, already within the SLU Conservation District, along with other lands in the SLU Agriculture District as conservation under the County's GP. I believe that the amendment lacks clarity and will result in significant confusion in subjecting these SLU Conservation District and those SLU Agricultural District lands to this new county -designated conservation classification in the GP. HRS Chapter 183-C provides that the Conservation District shall be administered by the Department of Land and Natural Resources which has promulgated regulations (HAR Chapter 13-5) as to permitted activities within the various subzones. Most of the 89 acres comprising Skycliff Ranch lie within the General (G) subzone. Both of these parcels are actively grazed and the ranching use, having predated the creation of the State Land Use Act creating the Conservation district regulations by more than a hundred years, is grandfathered. The actual use of these lands has been and continues to be extensive agriculture. The ranching activities on both properties support and protect the waters of Kealakekua Bay'. These grazing activities are not an "economically beneficial use" of the land, in and of themselves, but rather a labor of good stewardship. The only economically beneficial use of the Skycliff Ranch lands would be the construction of a single family residence (SFR) on any pre-existing parcel in the General subzone, and my concern is that such use could be precluded if G-1 is adopted without amendment or clarification. ' See Letter to Ms. A Giffen Chairperson of the HCPC dated September 26, 2001, copy attached 01-:116:1 These lands also lie within the Special Management Area and to this extent, we agree that the County has concurrent jurisdiction. In the case of Pali -K Ranch, the County agreed that construction of a single family residence was not within the definition of development under Rule 9 of the Planning Commission and hence did not require an SMA permit. You have seen the SFR at Pali -K Ranch and we have discussed that there is no significant adverse visual impact because of the intervening feature of the pall, the length of the setback and the size of the land at Pali -K Ranch or on the Skycliff Ranch parcel which is similarly situated. I continue to be concerned that should G-1 be passed, some future administration might have a reason to deny such exemption for an SFR which is the only economically beneficial use of the 89 acre parcel comprising Skycliff Ranch. This concern is amplified by two HI Supreme Court decisions: Gatri v. Blane, in which the Hawaii Supreme Court held that: " ....[any] proposed development must be consistent with both the general plan and zoning. Consistency with the zoning is insufficient." Save Sunset Beach Coalition et al v. City & County of Honolulu et al. "Because GATRI was subject to both the development [General] Plan as well as the zoning ordinance, GATRI was entitled only to the more restricted uses allowed by the development [General] Plan." "We believe that the "consistency doctrine" enunciated in GATRI is somewhat instructive in the instant case. Because the uses allowed in country zoning, are prohibited from conflicting with the uses allowed in a State agriculture district, only the more restricted as between the two is authorized. We've had extensive discussions regarding these issues over the years, and I believe we have both demonstrated our common interest in protecting Kealakekua Bay and its surrounding environs. You have told me you would not have a problem with an SFR on the Skycliff Ranch parcel, similar to that built at Pali -K Ranch, if you are the Planning Director at the time of application. My concern goes to how another administration might interpret the change proposed by G-1, and more importantly how the courts might interpret this given its recent rulings and the present litigious environment in West Hawaii. Unfortunately the present definition of Conservation Area in the General Plan lends itself to multiple interpretations: "Conservation Area: Forest and water reserves, natural and scientific preserves, areas in active management for conservation purposes, areas to be kept in a largely natural state, with minimal facilities consistent with open space uses, such as picnic pavilions and comfort stations, and lands within the State Land Use Conservation District." Following Gatri and Save Sunset Beach, the present definition could easily be used as reason to deny the construction of an SFR on each per -existing lot in the General Sub -Zone as indicated by HAR Chapter 13-5. At our meeting last November you asked me to write to you suggesting clarification of language to the GP which would address these concerns and allow Skycliff Ranch to drop its opposition to the redefinition of its lands from Extensive Agriculture to Conservation under the GP. I suggest incorporation of the following language in the amendment that may address these concerns and clarify the uncertainty presented by the existing language: "Land use of those lands designated as Conservation in the General Plan which are also in the State Land Use Conservation District are administered by the D.L.N.R. pursuant to HRS Chapter 183C, subject to the County's administration of the Special Management Area pursuant to HRS Chapter 205A and Rule 9 of the Hawaii County Planning Commission. Uses permitted in the State Land Use Conservation District shall be those set out in HAR 13-5-1 et seq., which uses, shall not be deemed inconsistent with the General Plan." In a practical sense I am seeking assurances from you that this General Plan amendment would not change the permitting process for the construction of a SFR on the 89 acres owned by Skycliff Ranch from the process followed for the SFR on the adjacent Pali -K Ranch parcel and that such redefinition of these lands (already in the SLU Conservation District) would not affect such later Conservation District Use Application or lead to the denial of an SMA exemption determination under Rule 9 (given similar circumstances). I welcome your suggestions or alternatives as to how this can be implemented or clarified in the General Plan. I continue to suggest that those who reside on the land have a natural interest and motivation in its stewardship and that the continuation of such stewardship through active ranching is in fact vital to the protection of the nearby ocean waters and the environment of Kealakekua Bay. Sincerely, Vv1�- Christopher Norrie, Manager %.W Pali -K Ranch LLC Christopher Nome, Managing Member Operations: (808) 323-2933 P.O. Box 339 Capt. Cook, HI 96704 E-mail: Cnorrie@aol.com September 26, 2001 Ms. Geraldine M. Giffin, Chairperson Hawaii County Planning Commission 25 Aupuni St. Hilo, Hawaii 96750 Office: (206) 323-0653 845 Bellevue Pl. E. #101 Seattle, WA 98102 Fax: (206) 325-585 In support of the Planning Commission's Recommendation to Delete Proposed General Plan Amendment "H-1" to LUPAG Map for South Kona for consideration at its 10-2-01 meeting: Dear Chairperson Giffin & Commission Members: I understand from Planning Department staff that at the General Plan workshop held on September 24, 2001, the Planning Commission voted to recommend to the Planning Director that General Plan Amendment "H-1" to LUPAG Map for South Kona be deleted. I write in specific reference to the lands of Pali -K Ranch and such adjacent properties which are already in the State Land Use Conservation District, and which has also been in continuous and active use for ranching purposes for well over a hundred years. I am privileged to have been entrusted with the ownership and concomitant stewardship of Pali -K Ranch for the past fifteen years. I am fully cognizant of the historical and ecological significance of Kealakekua Bay and the need to protect this unique resource. If the existing grazing operation were ever discontinued it could have an extremely negative impacts on the ecology of the land and Kealakekua Bay. The rainfall in these lands is seasonal with the majority of the precipitation in the wet summer season. The dominant vegetation was introduced in post contact times from Guinea in Africa. The scientific name for this "Guinea Grass" is (Panicum Maximum) which gets its name from the "maximum panic" with which this exotic fauna can grow. During the rainy season, it rapidly grows to a height of over fifteen feet and renders the land absolutely impenetrable and impassable on foot or horseback. When the seasonal rains stop, the Guinea grass dries, mats and becomes a major fire hazard. Were the grass cover to burn off in the dry season, a winter storm could well erode soil into the waters of Kealakekua Bay. Good stewardship of this land demands the continuing careful management of the existing grazing practices. There is a small but vocal segment of the community who style themselves as environmentalists, but whose true agenda is to deprive landowners of their vested property rights. In particular there are those who have attempted to challenge our long-standing and continuous ranching activity which was practiced by the Greenwell and Paris families before the beginning of our tenure in the early 1980's. As this ranching use clearly predates the establishment of the State Conservation District in 1964, it is specifically "grandfathered" by HRS § 183C-5. II respectfully suggest to the Commission that the true environmentalists are those who are directly and actively engaged in the stewardship of their land and any action which further restricts, erodes or takes such private property rights is not in the best interests of the Aina. My concern as the owner of ranch lands within the State Conservation District is that if this land is also designated Conservation by the County and if, as is suggested in the Gnen Space Section of the present draft of the proposed General Plan, "the Zoning Code [is Amended] to create a [Conservation] category for lands that should be kept in a largely natural state,' that such County rules could be used to foreclose longstanding ranching uses and otherwise take vested property rights presently allowed by the State pursuant to rules governing the Conservation District as set out in HAR 13-5. Although this testimony is limited to the support of the deletion of H-1, I note in passing two serious legal questions which should be carefully considered before the adoption of Any such Conservation Designation or Zone by the County: 1) A potential conflict with HRS § 183C which exclusively vests the administration of Conservation Lands in the State D.L.N.R., and 2) The implication that such actions by the County could be construed, in specific instances, by Federal Courts as "regulatory takings" in contravention to the Fifth Amendment of the United States Constitution. In summary: 1) There are absolutely no conceivable circumstances under which Pali -K's lands would be taken out of the Conservation District by the State Land Use Commission. Therefore there is no threat whatsoever to Kealakekua Bay by leaving these lands, already designated Conservation by the State, in their present LUPAG designation. Y 2) The present rules governing the Conservation District (HAR 13-5) are stringently enforced by the D.L.N.R. There is no need for additional County oversight and it would be onerous for the land -owner to have to deal with two sets of rules. This is overkill, and it would open another avenue of attack for the "planning vigilantes" who seek to challenge the well established ranching use of the property. 3) The LUPAG map of the General Plan should reflect the actual use of the land. Such actual use is the longstanding and continuous ranching operation as specifically permitted by HRS § 183C-5. The Land Use Allocation Map designation which properly reflects this actual and permitted use of this land is "Extensive Agriculture." For these reasons, I support the Planning Commission's recommendation to the Planning Director to delete Amendment "H-1" to LUPAG Map for South Kona in its entirety. Thank you for the opportunity to comment on this proposed amendment to the draft General Plan and your consideration of the views expressed herein. Sincerely, V 1� Christopher Nome cc: Chris Yuen, Planning Director Harry Kim Mayor December 5, 2005 (91aunk of ptifliall PLANNING DEPARTMENT 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 (808)961-8288 • Fax (808)961-8742 Pacific Star Company LLC 8777 N Gainey Center Ste 205 Scottsdale, AZ 85258 Gentlemen: .. PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE GENERAL PLAN Christopher J. Yuen Director Roy R. Takemoto Deputy Director This is in response to your request to postpone the workshops for the proposed amendments to the General Plan. Please be informed that our first letter of notification for the workshops was sent to you on November 7, 2005. We subsequently sent you the same letter on November 23, 2005, after you informed us that you did not receive the first letter. As a requirement, a public notice of the workshops was published on Saturday, November 19, 2005 in both newspapers, the Hawaii Tribune Herald and West Hawaii Today. The proposed amendments are also posted on the County of Hawaii website (bttp://www.co.hawaii.hi.us). You still have the opportunity to provide comments on the proposed amendments. Written comments must be submitted to the Planning Department by January 3, 2006. The Director will then review all comments; and if he decides to initiate any of the proposed amendments, they will be submitted to the Planning Commission for public hearing, and then forwarded to the County Council for its action. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer &M OFC 0 7 2QD5 Pacific Star Company LLC Page 2 December 5, 2005 Should you have any questions, please contact department staff Alice Kawaha at 961-8288 Ext. 203 or Susan Gagorik Ext. 256. Sincerely, i' CHRISTOPHER J. N Planning Director AK:cd p:\wpwin60\a1icmin\GP UacificStuCo2.doc THE LYLE ANDERSON COMPANY, INC. November 30, 2005 Mr. Chris Yuen Planning Director County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 Hilo, Hawaii 96720-3043 Dear Chris, It was a pleasure speaking with you last Wednesday, November 23`d, and reviewing the present status the proposed General Plan amendments and how they might affect Keopuka. With that in mind, Pacific Star, LLC would like to formally request an extension of the workshop regarding proposed amendments to the General Plan. We were not aware until last Wednesday that the workshop scheduled for this afternoon would deal with proposed amendments relating to Keopuka (we received the formal notice letter in our offices yesterday, in an envelope with a November 25 postmark). Under the circumstances, we do not feel we have adequate time to prepare a thoughtful response to the proposed amendments. We feel that a continuation of the proceedings for at least 30 days would give us time to prepare an appropriate res�onse to these General Plan issues. As I will also be in Kona the week of December 19` , it would also give us an opportunity to meet face to face and discuss these issues in detail. In particular, I would like to identify the following issues for further discussion: 1. Whether the placement of significant acreage in a General Plan conservation area (significantly more land than is currently in the state land use conservation district) might negatively impact the viability of the potential Keopuka development plan Pacific Star representatives have previously discussed with you. 2. We understand the county's desire to designate agricultural lands of significance, however, we feel that the soils and other data utilized for this designation is very generalized data and we are concerned that the designation will impede our ability to move forward with the development plan Pacific Star representatives have previously discussed with you. As a result, we would like to talk with you, in the context of the General Plan amendments under consideration, how we might address these concerns. 8777 No RTH GAIN EY CENTER DRIVE, SUITE 205 SCOTTSDALE, ARIZONA 8258 TEL: 480 443.2630 Re'd ate by!L Dist'd Read Ax: 480.998.0329 FILE (30PY Mr. Chris Yuen Page 2 November 30, 2005 3. It is my understanding from our conversation of November 23rd, that in your view neither the current General Plan nor the proposed amendment would in any way preclude development of Keopuka as described in your letter of August 21, 2002. 4. We would like to explore with you how we might proceed with appropriate land use approvals and/or agreements to embody the development plan described in your August 21, 2002 letter. Thank you for your consideration of our request for an extension of the workshop. I look forward to meeting with you and discussing these items directly during the week of December 19`h. Yours truly, Kurt Culbertson Executive Vice President for Development 1*MW "tI Morton Bass an, Jr. PO Box 21 Naalehu, HI 96772 Mr. Christopher J. Yuen, Director Planning Dept County of Hawaii 101 Pauahi St., Ste 3 Hilo, HI 96720-3043 RE: General Plan requested change Dear Mr. Yuen, 12/29/05 In the February 2005 approved plan the impact on land use due to the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park's Kahuku, also called the Kahuku Entrance, acquisition was not considered. Our federal Hawaiian delegation is working on funding the purchase of the remaining balance of Kahuku Ranch. The attached Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Service Visitor Report for November 2005 year to date (doesn't include December) indicates about 2,400,000 total visits or 7,273 visitors per day. § 12.5.9.2 (d) Encourage the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to develop the South Point area for recreational opi3ortunities. J With increasing population and tourism from the Kahuku Entrance down to the end of South Point we need to accommodate this new land use pattern. This new land use pattern may very well appear like the main Hawaii Volcanoes National Park entrance but with two major attractions, South Point and the Park. We will need some low and medium density urban centers along South Point Road similarly as currently exists near the main park entrance. The problem is there's no additional water available. For my now defunct orange orchards located on South Point Road, TMK: 9-3-4: 27, 28, 29, and 30, I made what would be considered a one million dollar investment in a well capable of producing 1,000,000 gallons per day (GPD) with about 8 ppm chlorides. My land is in a perfect location for a medium density urban center servicing both the Kahuku Entrance and South Point. I respectfully request that my property's general plan designation be changed from extensive agriculture to medium density urban. As supply and demand affects pricing of virtually all commodities by implementing this change the County will reduce the overall cost of this type of land use. This will help many starting entrepeneurs. v,dional Park Service Visitor Report Hawaii Volcanoes NP Report Date: November 2005 Page 1 of 1 AAAP" Vehicles This Month Same Month Last Year % Change This Year YTD Last Year YTD % Change YTD Total Visits Na 238,293 196,684 21.2 2,367,307 2,419,002 -2.1 Recreation Vehicles/Visitors 76,717 207,796 105,980 96.1 1,534,555 1,225,542 25.2 Non -Recreation Vehicles/Visitors 15,884 30,497 90,705 -66.4 832,752 1,193,460 -30.2 Bus VehiclesNisitors 915 24,442 22,528 8.5 257,322 226,237 13.7 Overnight Stays Namakani Palo Tents n/a 366 305 20.0 4,153 2,894 43.5 Namakani Paio Recreational Vehicles n/a 14 25 -44.0 162 150 8.0 Kamoamoa Tents n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Kamoamoa Recreational Vehicles n/a 0 0 0 0 0 0.0 Kipuka Campground Estimate n/a 77 67 14.1 871 616 41.3 Total Tents and RVs Na 844 740 14.1 1 9,582 6,779 41.3 Volcano House I Na 1 2,3631 2,349 0.61 30,372 32,165 -5.6 Kilauea Military Camp I Na 1 5,5071 4,8441 13.71 73,8391 64,560 1 14.4 Backcountry Overnight Stays -ialape n/a 232 195 19.0 1,694 1,771 -4.3 <aaha n/a 45 38 18.4 234 351 -33.3 <eauhou nra 60 26 130.8 566 574 -1.4 uta loa Summit Cabin n/a 45 41 9.8 410 482 -14.9 Japes grater n a 28 34 -17.6 395 739 -46.5 'epeiaoCabin n/a 32 11 190.9 101 166 -39.2 Zed Hill Cabin Na 50 46 8.7 550 535 2.8 otal Backcountry n/a 492 3911 25.81 3,9501 4,618 14.5 M �i��ia tlY Print Date: October 20, 2005 National Park Service Land Y Cyd Pi4ty"Py.,y k i � IMM +PV RR 44 MO er.t PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 26, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda Fred Galdones Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Rene' Siracusa Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 22 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. ALAMEDA: Well, today, we have a packed agenda. We're going to start off with our action on the General Plan Interim Amendments; and I'm going to, we do have testimonies. We'll have, the Director is going to present it again. This is the final time, I believe. Also, we've come to agreement on several of the amendments already so we're going to take testimony only on those amendments that we still want to discuss today. So should I turn it over to staff, or Mr. Director? HAYASHI: Perhaps I could just -. ALAMEDA: Sure. HAYASHI: At the last Meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Planning Director's package with the exception of a few which you wanted to discuss today. And those items are Map A-1, A-2, B-6, E-6, E-7, E-8, F-2 and also the Facilities Map. Although the Commissioners did make reference to the Waimea Bypass Road for discussion, as you recall, the Planning Director has asked that be deferred to a much later time until the study has been completed. So discussions on that should be deferred and also no action should be taken on that. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Without further adieu, Mr. Director? YUEN: Good morning, Members of the Commission and members of the public. As Mr. Hayashi said, at the last meeting the Commission did take action to send most of the proposed Interim General Plan Amendments up to the Council with a favorable recommendation, and withheld action on several of the LUPAG Map Amendments. In addition, the Director has withheld action on a text change with regard to the Waimea Bypass. So we do have this, a set of a few Interim Plan Amendments to look at that I'll be going through on the slides here before the public testimony. Just to give an overall view on this, the comprehensive review of the General Plan by the Planning Department took place roughly in the period 1999 through 2000; and the Plan was sent to the Planning Commission in April 2001; and then it went up to the Council in December 2001. It was finally passed in February 2005. In the meantime, of course, there were other issues that had come to light and it was understood that there would be some General Plan Amendments, Interim Amendments, proposed to deal with things that were, that had come up in the Council discussions, and a few other issues and some discrepancies that came to light. So the Planning Commission here is advisory on these General Plan Amendments. Like the General Plan itself, any interim amendments to take effect have to be passed by the County Council. The timeframe is that this is the last meeting that the Commission can consider these. If there is a favorable or unfavorable vote by the majority or full membership of the Commission, the ordinance that talks about these General Plan Amendments doesn't specify whether they go up with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. So we would simply report the action of the Commission and whatever the vote was in sending this up to the Council after today. So turning to the ones that are still at issue before the Commission, and the Commission held these because there have been a great deal of public testimony on some of these. The first one we're looking at is a proposed amendment that would add an area in the Puna District as a Medium Density Urban, and that would be --. The significance of that is that it would signal that this would be an area for commercial development, maybe office buildings, maybe community facilities; and in recommending such locations by special permit or rezoning that this would be an area that the Planning Department would favor the location. This is along Ainaloa Boulevard, it's actually within the Orchidland Subdivision. The Ainaloa Boulevard splits the Ainaloa Subdivision from the Orchidland Estates Subdivision. So although it's located along Ainaloa Boulevard, it's actually within Orchidland Estates. The current designation under the General Plan Map is Rural, which was a new category in the 2005 General Plan. And then I think I'd like to, probably the easiest thing to do is at the end of each particular amendment if there are questions while we have the slide up we can talk about that. Are there any questions about this one? And we can take things at the end as well. Yes? ALAMEDA: Okay. Cool. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I just want to point out that the major question we hear on the Orchidland stuff is the community association there may have a reduced kind of an area proposal. So I just would like you to comment on that. That would seem like the alternative that's most present before us, is to follow their reduced proposal they put forth. So could you tell us how that works and what your feelings are about the Commission recommending that instead of what you have here? YUEN: Well, actually, I think their reduced was with respect to the one along Orchidland Drive; and they didn't say they wanted this reduced. They were negative on this particular, on this application. GRAHAM: So your sense is, so then their recommendation is that we don't include this one. And so if we do not include this one and then include only the other one, is your sense that that's inappropriate, there's not enough room set aside for the kind of commercial development that might be needed in the near future? YUEN: Well, I think that there is more, there's need for more designated space for commercial development in the Puna area than particularly this mid -subdivision area. I mean, this area between Keaau and Pahoa, which is really one of the fastest-growing areas in population on the island, potentially, more clearly has something like 16,000 lots already permitted in the area. But they do stand alone, you know, you could pass one without passing the other, or the Council could pass one without passing the other. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I'm looking at the written testimony that makes reference to basically wanting to not have any of these changes done until the Community Development Plan for Puna has been processed and approved by the Council. You have any comments on that? YUEN: Well, we have the Community Development Plan underway. One of the things that we've asked them to do is to look at this question and to work on this question of sites for commercial development. Because of my feeling that there is a need for more of this in this area, I would like to move this on. If the Council wants to wait pending the Community Development Plan, that's, I don't really have a strong feeling, I certainly don't have a strong feeling against that if that's what they want to do. IWASHITA: To follow-up -. ALAMEDA: Follow-up. IWASHITA: I guess, you know, we always see a lot of, not a lot but regularly see special permit applications come in for different kinds of businesses to be done out in Puna. I guess I don't really see a real urgent, urgent need to, you know, start designating areas. And my preference would be to wait until the community has the input and do the Community Development Plan. It'd be a more organized way to do it rather than selecting the Council, you know, ultimately just saying, okay, this is where it's going to be without really having community input. Any comments on that? ALAMEDA: Okay. Any other comments, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: As a follow-up to that comment, I think we're not aware at this present time but you're probably aware that there are other applications for special permits, right, in that area. So would that influence some of this? YUEN: We do get quite a few applications for special permits, there have been quite a few over the years. And the idea behind having a designated area is really as a signal to people where to go. Otherwise, they will tend to buy a lot, actually, one of the dominant patterns is people buy a lot, they start the business, and they get busted, and then they apply for the special permit -- Not really the way to go. So, at the same time, we understand why, you know, you have a population center with the Paradise Park Subdivision which probably has more people than the town of Waimea with virtually no commercial activity closer than Keaau or Pahoa towns which are, you know, seven miles away. WATANABE: I would tend to agree. With that much opportunity there, I don't see how you're going to hold back the development. Then without any kind of plan, then, I think we're going to wind up with some of the other things we've been concerned about, like that strip mall on that main road going there; and those are some of the things we've been, you know, debating over in the past. And I know we've turned down some projects that many of us thought maybe would have been good but did not fit into the General Plan. So, I don't think that given as many people as there are there, I don't think that you can say, "but we don't have any plan yet, even though we know you're going to need the services." With that in mind, I would tend to agree with the Director. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Other thoughts before we move on to A-2? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Chris, is this area still at State Land Use level, is it still Agriculture? YUEN: That's right. GRAHAM: It would seem like, you know, looking at the long-term picture, if we're going to change some of this land to General Plan as you suggested it would be nice if the State had an Urban designation so that if folks want to develop they can go in for rezonings which are then appropriate to the General Plan. But at this point even if we change the General Plan they've got to go through the special permit process, it would seem, if they want to do development. Is that correct? YUEN: Well, no, people could rezone at the Council level with a 15 -acre or less boundary amendment. And although the pattern has been to do things like special permit, I think long-range we would rather see that development happen through zoning. It would have a boundary amendment and accompanied by a zone change in the future. GRAHAM: And just one follow-up with regard to my prior question when I asked you about the community association there. And in the letter we have on record they did suggest on this particular one that if the area that you were changing was only in that right of the three quadrants and only three parcels deep instead of six that they would support that and also going all the way up to the main highway. So like three parcels deep and just to the right of the three parcels that you're changing going up to the highway was acceptable to them. YUEN: I'm sorry, I stand corrected on that. I do want to mention one thing, though, as far as the highway itself. I would recommend that any -- . We didn't extend this to the highway on purpose. And that is so that if you have commercial development, it's not so dependent on the highway frontage. Rather than having this typical look of the parking lot, the commercial building, the gas station right along the highway, that it's set back at least a little bit from the highway. You'll notice that this one and the other one are on an axis that's perpendicular to the highway. Again, this is to keep a more Residential or Open field along the highway and to not have a strip along the highway, which is in some respects how businesses sometimes prefer to develop because of the visibility. And then that frontage -. So that's the characteristic with both of these. The A-1 and A-2 which we would turn to next, if we're done with A-1. ALAMEDA: Follow-up? No? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Just understanding the, I guess, concept or the need for the commercial area, relative to what's existing in Keaau and the newly -created commercial area where Malama Market is in Pahoa, the intent for this type of commercial designation is to create commercial land of that scale and level or lower, say, for the mom-and-pop to service the immediate community of Orchidland? YUEN: It is intended to serve the immediate community. I think the businesses themselves will end up determining the ultimate scale. It's clear that there isn't the kind of commercial space in this mid -subdivision area that would normally accompany that kind of population. One of the goals is to reduce the need for people to drive around. I imagine that people would still drive to these kinds of centers. There's not really the population density that would make it a village center or a walking -type of center. But take the Ainaloa Subdivision, for example, you have 3,000 lots in there. Could be, if it's 100 percent built out, that corresponds with a population of roughly 8,000 people. To give you a comparison, like North Kohala I think the population is about 7,000 people. So it's to have a place where people in that subdivision would, where a business can locate and you could have the groceries, the kinds of things that people need on a day-to-day basis, and maybe a place where somebody, the accountant has their office, or the person who does taxes, or the person who sells real estate, you know, those kinds of services, somewhere closer and some place that's legal to set up businesses like that, rather than going to either Pahoa or Keaau. That's the basic idea behind having an area like this. SALAVEA: Thank you, Mr. Director. ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, I'm ready to move on to A-2, if there's no other comments for A-1? Seeing none, Mr. Director, A-2? YUEN: A-2 is a similar concept. This is a little bit closer to Keaau. This is along Ainaloa Boulevard. This is the Medium Density Urban area in the 2005 General Plan; and it roughly encompasses the area that's already under commercial development. Again, this was started off the highway. There's a church here and now there's, I'm drawing a blank on the name of the stores that are in here, but it's largely developed under special permits. And what we propose to do is open up a somewhat larger area for this. ALAMEDA: Questions, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: The Community Association in particular didn't like going down, I think it's 35`h Avenue there, away from the main drive, because they said the road really doesn't support that at this time. Could you comment on that? YUEN: Well, I would hope that as a condition of any special permit or zoning improvement to the road commensurate to whatever kind of project was going to go in would be part of that, it would be part of the conditions of that. GRAHAM: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Other Commissioners? Seeing none, can we move to B-6? YUEN: Sure. Well, B-6 is in Waiakea Houselots, in Hilo. For orientation, this is Kekuanaoa Street. This is Kanoelehua; and along Kanoelehua around 1997, there was a General Amendment to High Density Urban. And this is an inter -play between, this is inter -play between the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Within High Density Urban in the General Plan, the Planning Department would support CG or General Commercial Zoning which includes some manufacturing; and ultimately this allowed the Big Island Candies project which does include some manufacturing to locate in that spot just back of Kanoelehua. It seems to make sense, the project wants to expand. We don't have any problem with the concept of expanding but to have the CG only extend up to Kanoelehua, and have that consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. We are processing this Interim Plan Amendment to extend the High Density Urban area, which is shown in red, up to Kanoelehua and to make a consistent block there, also on one lot on the makai side there. ALAMEDA: Questions, Fellow Commissioners, or comments? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Can you explain again why this isn't spot zoning? ALAMEDA: Spot zoning is a term that applies to singling, is when zoning is done not in conformance with a comprehensive plan. So when you have a General Plan and the rezoning is consistent with that it's not spot zoning. So this is the stage, this is the General Plan stage. If you just zone something to General Commercial and it wasn't called for in the General Plan, then that would be spot zoning. So the term just doesn't apply to a General Plan Amendment. ALAMEDA: Follow-up? IWASHITA: My general feeling is that the Community Development Plan implementation of the existing General Plan should be the process by which really any further changes to the General Plan, such as the one suggested, here should take place; and, you know, frankly, I don't really see any urgent need to go down this interim process in order to accomplish this particular change and that we really should wait until the community again can get involved in whether or not, you know, this kind of Light Industrial or High Density kind of commercial activity is the kind of activity that they want in this neighborhood. So I'd like any comments on why, you know, this really shouldn't wait until the community can have input in the Community Development Plan for Hilo. ALAMEDA: Care to comment? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I would just like to say in response to Commissioner Iwashita's comments like if this particular area that we're speaking of there where Big Island Candies is, if that whole thing was coming to us fresh now that none of that had been zoned for its current use and none of that had been General Planned for its current use, I would totally agree. But given that in the past there was a General Plan change and zoning change, I view this as just the Director trying to sort of regularize the existing situation that's there and give a little, I don't know, square it out and bring it up to the road. And I don't think there's any consequential, negative repercussions for the community. So even though I appreciate Commissioner Iwashita's general concern and I agree with it, in this specific case I find it okay what's being proposed. ALAMEDA: Follow-up, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: My main concern is that, you know, this is, I understand the explanation of why this isn't "spot -zoning." But, in effect, you know, my vision, I'm going to go out on the limb and say that for the Community Development Plan as it would apply to this particular area, but, you know, frankly, if I were involved or when it comes about and when I can get involved in the process, would be that Kekuanaoa Street, I think we all would agree, you know, it's going to end up being some type of a commercial -developed area. It's the main road between the airport and, you know, that Hilo Shopping Center, that whole part of town; and that what I really don't want to see is these kinds of changes being made on a piecemeal basis, which is what it is, you know. Maybe it's not spot zoning, technically, but it's definitely piecemeal. And, you know, it's taking what has been done off of Kekuanaoa Street and extending it on to Kekuanaoa Street; and, you know, how that's done, what limitations are placed, this is entitlement. You know, Big Island Candies will now have basically an entitlement if this is passed; and by doing so, you know, you lock in certain kinds of rights. And if the Community Development Plan says, "Well, we don't want certain kind of commercial development to be done in this area," you know, there's going to be, Big Island Candies will be entitled to be paid on, arguably, for taking away certain rights that this entitlement gives the owner. So I understand. What I really would like to see is that the community get together and say, you know, if we want Kekuanaoa Street to be a strip mall. As far as I'm concerned, doing this kind of thing is going to pretty much guarantee that it's going to be a strip mall. But if you want the Community Development process, as I would like to see it, be a vehicle by which the community can say we want Kekuanaoa Street to look more like Downtown Hilo in terms of a commercial development, not have parking lots fronting all the businesses and the theaters and whatever else is going to go down in there, and have something that's more livable and walkable, to have planned areas for municipal parking, you know, in this commercial area, what is going to be a commercial area, then we ought to wait and do it the right way. By doing it this way, you're creating entitlements and making it more difficult when we don't have to do it. There's no necessity to do it. The fact that, as far as I'm concerned, it was done wrong in 1997 or whenever it was, you know, two wrongs don't make a right; and to me that's the bottom line. It shouldn't have been done the way it was done back in 1997, you know. Everything should have been done in a more cohesive, well -thought-out way for this community. And it wasn't, the fact that, again, two wrongs don't make a right. We can't keep going down this road. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Other Commissioners would like to put your opinions on the table as we consider all perspectives? Seeing none, maybe we could move to, let's see —. YUEN: Okay. We move now to some of the Kona amendments. ALAMEDA: B-6, B-7? YUEN: These are amendments that are just a line between Important Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture in the area between Keauhou, roughly, and the Hokulia development on Halekii Street on the south side here, roughly. What it is, just to explain for a minute the significance of Important Agriculture in the General Plan versus Extensive Agriculture. The General Plan contains some policies for Important Agricultural land that are, one of the most significant would be that in looking at rezoning applications for Important Agricultural land, the Council and the Planning Commission should not rezone them to lot sizes too small to support Commercial/Agriculture. Important Agriculture is meant to be a base area for Commercial/Agriculture and for farming. What is a lot size that's too small? That's going to depend on the economic conditions of the time, the kinds of crops that people are growing, what kinds of farming that's being done. It's a guideline though of what should be considered. And, you know, the idea is that when you fragment agricultural lands, suppose you take it to the smallest lot sizes allowed in the Agricultural district of one -acre lots, there are a few things that you can grow commercially on a one -acre lot. They may be greenhouse -type or hothouse -type specialties, but you greatly reduce the range of most of the crops that can be grown economically. So that was something that we now want to do on the areas that are designated Important Agricultural land. On the other hand, there's no such policy with Extensive Agriculture. It doesn't mean that you would rezone Extensive Agricultural land necessarily. It just means that you look at other considerations. And there would be things like do you want to put that density of population in that location, what are the traffic issues, are the water supported, are there open space considerations? Those would still come into play but not the agricultural, the commercial - agricultural potential. So what happened in considering this in 2005 is that the Council adjusted the line based on testimony from some of the landowners; and the line currently zig-zags around based on the ownership of the property. It doesn't, it isn't really based on soil types, or rainfall, or anything like that. So to adjust the line to make a consistent line across, we wanted to do an Interim General Plan Amendment to make a consistent line across this area. Rainfall generally does depend on elevation, the ability to grow crops; and here it does depend a lot on rainfall. The original proposal which went out to a workshop was to draw the line at the 700 -foot elevation. The testimony was mostly against that at the workshops. People were suggesting a higher elevation, and testifying that there had been very little, if any, history of people successfully growing crops at a lower elevation. 0 So the proposal that's before you here has this line at a 1,000 -foot elevation. Depending on whose property you're crossing, in some cases it will in some people's property make more Important Agricultural land, in other properties it will result in less. And, so, at any rate, that's this line that's drawn across here. Just for orientation sake, this is where, this is the Mamalahoa Highway up here. This is the junction where Teshima's Restaurant is. If you notice that there's a, the yellow colors are Low Density Urban supporting Single Family Residential -type development, mostly; the darker here is Medium Density Urban supporting Commercial and possibly Multi -Family development, closer around the existing towns along the highway. Then there would be, below that, if this amendment went through, you would have a band designated as Important Agricultural land; and then below that line, Extensive Agricultural land in this area here. Okay? ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Director. Fellow Commissioners? Seeing no questions, we can move on to F-2. YUEN: The final Map Amendment that is held by the Commissioners would be F-2. And by way of orientation here, this is Kealakekua Bay, this is the Mamalahoa Highway going through here. This is the Napo'opo'o Road heading down to Kealakekua Bay. Hokulia project is in here. And there's an area that, F-2 is an area that is currently in the State Land Use Urban District, it's zoned RA -2a by the County. That's the zoning that permits subdivision into 2 -acre lots. We have a pending subdivision application to 2 -acre lots at the County. We had put this in Important Agriculture in the 2005 General Plan. It would, by virtue of elevation, it would fit in a Kona Coffee Belt designation. But we do not want to have an area that's in the State Land Use Urban District and currently being subdivided to 2 -acre lots and zoned for 2 -acre lots shown as Important Agriculture. It's not meant to support any change to the current zoning but just so that the map recognizes what exists there. So the proposal would be to change this from Important Agriculture to County Rural designation. Just for the sake of the standpoint of reference, this F-1 here below was a change mostly from areas that are Important Agriculture in the General Plan to Conservation; and this went up to the Council with a favorable recommendation at the last meeting from the Commission. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Director. Questions regarding F-2? Comments? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: Could you give us a little more maybe historical background. My sense from the testimony we've had and from what I've heard is that some portion of that F-2 area is already kind of vested rights for someone to develop it at a 2 -acre size. But maybe what you're planning here would sort of enable additional land to be developed to that density. But what you've just told us is that it's already zoned to that density, so it would seem that that's a mistake. I'm also wondering how did all of this get to be zoned that way when it was, you know, Important Ag lands before on the General Plan; and, you know, a little bit, maybe a chronology of how it got to be that way, and —. YUEN: It is not, at the time it was zoned, it was -. Under prior General Plans there were actually no Important Ag lands category. I believe this was Orchards in the General Plan when it was zoned RA -2a, I'm not certain. But, at any rate, it is not Important Agriculture. It was either Orchards or Extensive Ag in the prior General Plan at the time the rezoning took place. The surrounding properties, the neighboring properties to the north here, well, actually, this whole area here that I'm showing is zoned Ag -5. There is a subdivision in here and --. And, anyway, this area was rezoned to allow a greater density sometime back either, I believe it was either in the early `80s or the early `90s. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM: So, at this point, as far as Zoning Code is concerned, that whole area that you're putting for change to an F-2 can be developed at the 2 -acre level, is that correct? YUEN: Yes. There may be a little corner of this that's not zoned RA -2a, that I'm not certain. GRAHAM: Thank you. YUEN: Okay. But most part of it is zoned RA -2a. Actually, this is also all in the SMA. The subdivision part that I'm talking about has an SMA permit for a, I can't remember, it's a 33- or 37- lot subdivision. ALAMEDA: Other Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Does the Important Ag land designation impose limitations in the types of development that can occur? I guess my concern is about, you know, the proximity to Kealakekua Bay and the need to, you know, basically minimize any kind of runoff, and those kind of concerns from any developments. So I really would not want to see anything done that would take away, you know, existing limitations or regulations on what kind of development can occur. And if Important Ag lands designation, you know, has additional requirements or limitations, then I would like to see those kept in place. YUEN: It wouldn't change how the subdivision is handled. The requirements for handling drainage runoff and for wastewater disposal, all those would not change depending on, you know, whether it's in a Rural designation or the Important Agricultural designation. If this were a question of where, the designation would make a difference. If, for example, someone were coming in for a Change of Zone from Agricultural -, say, this was zoned Agricultural 20 - acres and somebody wanted to rezone this to Family Agricultural 1 -acre, then the fact that it's designated Important Agriculture in the General Plan would be a very important consideration. But with a set zoning and subdividing to the zoning that is allowed, those rules and criteria of how you handle that subdivision would not change by, would not be changed by the General Plan, by this General Plan designation. 10 ALAMEDA: Follow-up? IWASHITA: So there's nothing, no limitations on grubbing, or, you know, how this Important Ag land is actually developed and --? That's what I'm trying to find out. YUEN: The grubbing for the subdivision is all covered by other regulations. Grubbing of greater than an acre, they need a, what we call an MPDES Permit, that's -- If you notice how nowadays when you see highway projects, you'll often see these silt fences and sandbags, much more common than used to be in the past. Those are a result of MPDES Permits. That would be, those are the same requirements regardless of what the General Plan designation is, `cause it comes from a State and Federal erosion control permitting system. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Just following up Commissioner Iwashita's concern that this may enable more intensive development there as anybody could -. It seems like one way perhaps could is that if it's designated Rural on the General Plan, then someone could go in and ask for an RA -1 instead of an RA -2 in the sense of doubling the density; and it would be coherent, consistent with the General Plan if we made this change. But if we don't make this change then that more dense zoning would be more in conflict with the General Plan as it stands now. Is that not correct? YUEN: I think what you're saying is correct, that --. It would still be, though, something that would be dealt with at the Change of Zone level. It's not something that would just happen all by itself. And the State Land Use designation itself is not affected by this. It's already Urban, so potentially, you know, you do have a potential for development under the State Land Use Urban designation. ALAMEDA: Other questions? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: So that if such an application was made, basically as I see recommendations done now by the Department if they check the Rural, if it is Rural zoning then it would basically say this application is consistent with the zoning and, therefore, probably end up with a recommendation for approval. Would it not? YUEN: No, I wouldn't say that because the rules specifically say that it does not necessarily imply support for a further subdivision. That would, to say that it's consistent does not mean that you have to go ahead and rezone it. There are always other factors that come into play. And that's where something like, well, is it going to negatively affect Kealakekua Bay, is it something that's not a good density given the condition ofNapo'opo'o Road? All those kinds of things are to be looked at at zoning. So there are areas where, you know, where there may be Urban Expansion in the General Plan that somebody might come in for a rezoning and the Department would say, no, you can't, we wouldn't support that because the road is terrible; but we might support it if you built a new road through there. And they might say, well, that's not going to pan out. And so there are other things that are going to come into play. 11 I might, you know, I should mention from the standpoint of the Commission that, you know, you do see most of the things that come before you with a favorable recommendation. Many of the things that we disapprove of, you know, when we meet with people at the Planning Department and we make clear that we would not support it, many of those do not result in formal applications. Very often the things that you're seeing are things that had a degree of work done on them between the applicant and the Department by the time they get there. So I would say, no, that just the fact that this is Rural instead of Important Ag would not imply that a request for rezoning of a 2 -acre lot to a 1 -acre zoning would be supported. ALAMEDA: Follow-up? IWASHITA: My feeling is we should be going the other way, is that because this is Important Ag land designation, that the State Land Use Map should be changed; and it shouldn't be Urban, it should be a more appropriate State Land Use designation. And I really think it's going the wrong way. And, you know, if the changes made essentially a permanent change and, you know, if there's going to be changes in the Department and, you know, if 10-15-20 years from now somebody comes in -- you know, all these other kinds of considerations that I agree will have to be taken into consideration may be different. And, you know, my hunch is that at some point there's going to be, you know, a good argument to have approved a 1 -acre kind of subdivision in this area, you know. And if we don't make the change, then that basically precludes that from happening, right? ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Mr. Director, you know, obviously, there seems to be some concern about additional development and maybe higher density in this area. But I'm wondering if you could comment on the availability of water in this area because I don't believe that development would occur if we don't have potable water, yeah? YUEN: Well, it would be hard, we would oppose a rezoning without it. I can't tell you off the top of my head whether water would be available for additional meters in the area. ALAMEDA: Fellow Commissioners, we do have three testifiers today. And I would like to move forward with that, Mr. Director, if that's okay with you? YUEN: Sure. ALAMEDA: Okay. We'll have time to discuss again and take action today on each of these items. Let me call up Brenda Ford, Margaret Wille and Dore Dokos-Loewenthal. You can be seated. I'll swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. ALAMEDA: Thank you. And could you please state your name and address for the record? FORD: Brenda Ford, 81-950 Makahiki Lane, Capt. Cook, Hawaii. 12 ALAMEDA: Thank you. And down the line. LOWENTHAL: Dore Dokos-Loewenthal, 82-611 Napo'opo'o Rd. ALAMEDA: Thank you. WILLE: Margaret Wille, 65-1316 Lihipali Road, Kamuela. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Margaret. And I believe we have written testimony that you submitted already. I'm going to ask that you kind of highlight the key points of your concern and try to think about or keep to maybe a 3- or 5 -minute kind of timeframe so we can move forward today. We have a long agenda. But we're all wanting to hear kind of your perspectives. So maybe if we could start on my right, go this way? FORD: I'm Brenda Ford and I did not submit any written testimony. I brought maps to explain what has been going on here. I hope I get lots of questions on flood zones and the zoning change that put this into Urban and Rural. I'm going to try to explain it. I know I'll exceed 3 minutes. I need all the questions you can possibly throw at me. ALAMEDA: Sure. Go ahead. FORD: And, you know, it seems, with all due respect, we're been sworn in to tell the truth here. Seems like everybody who testifies in front of this Commission should be sworn in to tell the truth as well. ALAMEDA: Could you take your mike? FORD: I'm going to talk about F-2, which is up on the screen. I'm going to start with this map right here, and I'm going to start at the other end. This map shows Kealakekua Bay here. This is the State park land; and these orange sections, these five orange sections, are owned by a man named Christopher Nome. He has an assortment of Shell Limited Liability Corporations on these different parcels. My property is here; and this green section is owned by the Greenwell family, the Greenwell Kealakekua Ranch. F-2 sits right here in this section. And what has happened is Mr. Nome owns a great many portions of this, the pali, overlooking Kealakekua Bay; and he does what is called, "sequential permitting and sequential development." That is he will not tell you what his ultimate plans are and he just goes piece -by - piece -by -piece. He did my subdivision in three sections, all the sections less than 10 lots. He never paid any of the in -lieu fees. This is the type of development he does. So keep this in mind as I go down here and explain how this mess got started. These maps are basically from the FIRM maps. This is that green section, Mr. Greenwell's property right now, this is the section of the pali that's F-2. And these are the flood channels as they were in 1998, as drawn in 1998. This map is from 2001. This is the same thing. Mr. Greenwell's property, my subdivision going here and Mr. Norrie's property, this is Conservation, this is the State land. Mr. Norrie, you can see the other five lots, owns all these parcels over here. He no longer owns the lots inside this subdivision. And you'll notice these flood channels. Please notice the size of the flood channels. This is the northern one, southern, 13 northern and southern, this is 2001. This is the latest engineering design from 2003. This property right here owned by Mr. Robinson and his wife, Claire and Rick Robinson, has a flood channel flowing right through it. The last major storm that we had, my husband and I who store sand bags for our entire subdivision had to deliver, let Mr. Robinson come over and get about 33 of our sand bags because he was flooding because of the flood channel. And if you will look at the subdivision map there, approximately two-thirds of this piece of property is this new subdivision, which I'll talk about in a minute. But please notice how much larger the flood channels and the shape had to have changed as the mapping has gotten better from 1998 to 2003. This map is from 2005. It's the subdivision preliminary map. You'll notice that this northern flood channel is much smaller in size as it's designed in here. And the plan is to channelize it into this green section, the slope of the land runs 10 to 20 degrees. There's no way that that little green area is going to handle the flood waters coming through here; and the flood waters exceed five cubic feet per second. It would scour this out and we will have a major soil runoff. This whole pali up here that should be Important Agricultural land and is well within the Kona Coffee Belt has dirt, really deep dirt. We have a lot of a'a, but we have plenty of dirt. We're going to have a Hokulia mess taking place right here off of this pali again. In addition, the subdivision has 36 significant cultural sites, only four of which are noted on the subdivision map. This plat map has been designed to be in violation of the current SMA Permit which requires all lots within the Conservation area here to be a minimum of three acres. They're all two acres. Anybody in this subdivision beyond these to lots coming off of Napo'opo'o Road are going to be trapped in here by flood waters. They will not be able to be contained by that channel. Now how this thing got into the Urban situation -. Many years ago in the mid -`80s, the Greenwell family owned the entire top of this pali, or most of it, most of it. And they wanted to put in a hotel and a golf course; and they went to the State and they got it zoned to Urban so they could do that. It should never have been zoned Urban. This is an Ag area. Any of you who've ever driven down Napo'opo'o Road know what a dangerous two-lane, winding country road that is. There's no way capable of handling Urban traffic or High Density. This area is entirely in the coffee belt. I think the pali starts 800 feet at the top of the pali; and then it rises up to about 1,300 feet, something in that neighborhood. The problem with this is that going through a Rural designation is possibly the most dangerous thing that we can do in this area because Rural allows you to go down to lots, I think, 9,000 square feet. That'll be five houses per acre, approximately five houses per acre. The developer of the subdivision and the F-2 owns 90 percent of that F-2. He has been in communication, in line with Mr. Yuen for the last two years to get this area designated as Rural. Now any time you hear an attorney or developer sit here and say there are no plans to do "x," be sure that 5 seconds after the permit is granted, there will be plans to do "x." And Mr. Norrie has a long track record of doing this as he did in my subdivision. He owns all of these lots here at the bottom section. He came before you, the Planning Commission, or the Council, or the Planning Department and said, "This piece of Conservation land is going to be my retirement home." Now, you know you can have two acres around your house as your house lot. He went before them and said, "I need another 19 acres for that." Well, he didn't get it, at least I don't believe he got it because the community went up in arms and said, "No, you don't need 19 acres for a house lot in a Conservation zone." So he has this, he wanted to build his retirement home. 14 It went on sale, if not immediately upon its completion, five seconds before it was completed; and it is for sale for $6-1/2 million right now. The same Mr. Nome, with all of his LLC's is abutting Keopuka, I won't even go into Keopuka and Hokulia. This lot right now is vacant. This is going to be one of his next lots to develop right below my subdivision. Right now he has a driveway, I brought my Subdivision Plan in case you want to look at it, he has a driveway. The road comes down here, terminates in a cul de sac; and there's a driveway serving 12 lots. Six lots are the legal limit on a driveway. And he'll be trying to connect this portion to it. He already has it, and he has a road easement that goes around here. And if you look at this street in this new subdivision, it deadends right there. So we know he's going to try to connect into this area and this subdivision. He has got a variance pending in front of the Planning Department right now that I wrote ten pages of testimony saying what he's trying to do in the subdivision is wrong, culturally wrong, environmentally wrong and illegal. I also found out that these lots should all be 3 -acre lots. He's never applied for change in his SMA but the Planning Department has allowed him to turn this in with 2 -acre lots. Everything about this whole area needs to be preserved. This whole pali is covered with cultural sites, they are not being preserved adequately. Once this property is sold in the subdivision, if these people do not wish to, the new lot owners do not wish to preserve these, they won't be preserved. One of these has already been identified as a burial. I don't know which one it is, I wouldn't want to say in public anyway. So what we need to do, as Mr. Iwashita said is we're going in the wrong direction. We need to get the State to turn this back into Important Ag land, at the very least 2 -acre and 3 -acre lots minimum. Everybody up here is on cesspool at this time. I believe the County now says you have to be on septic, which is fine; but if you go into a density of five lots an acre, you can't handle that much septic. We are sitting, this whole pali up here sits on an aquifer. This is the aquifer for the area. And each point of Kealakekua Bay, you can see the north point there, the south point you can't see. If you look at the aerial photographs from George Wilkins, he's on the Water Board, he can show you how much fresh water is flowing off of those points of land. We've got rivers of water coming out of there that are going to be polluted if we increase the density to the kind of thing that Rural is going to do. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Brenda. Very articulate. Appreciate your testimony. I feel your passion. Any questions for Brenda? Very good. Thank you very much. Dore? LOEWENTHAL: This is my first time. Hope I don't make this thing squeak. I'm just giving a little detail of the bigger picture that was just covered. I'm testifying in regards to General Plan Interim Amendment F-2. This affects almost 100 acres between upper Napo'opo'o Road and the Conservation land directly over Kealakekua Bay and the marine preserve. Around 1988, Kealakekua Ranch received Special Management Area Use Permit No. 269 for a subdivision plan based on lot sizes two acres or greater. This project later lapsed. The current owner and developer, Capt. Cook Ranch LLC, has a pending subdivision of 2 -acre lots. He's using the same, they're using the same SMA No. 269 issued about 20 years ago at the standards for marine protection and runoff at that time, which were virtually nil. 15 Now the development of F-2 proposes to change this developer's land to County land use designation of Rural. Rural as defined in the County General Plan has typical lot sizes of 9,000 square feet to two acres. Therefore, this amendment is potentially going to take the lot sizes from 200 acres and greater down to 9,000 square feet to two acres; and as I understand it you can build a house on half -an -acre. I talked to the Planning Department, that's what they told me. Since SMA No. 269 was issued about 20 years ago, the Coastal Zone Management Studies had documented a complex array of problems affecting coastal waters arising from NPS (Non -Point Source Pollution) and CSI (Cumulative and Secondary Impacts), the combined impacts of by human land use activities and development. Amendment F-2 does create an opportunity for present and future developers and lot owners to apply for rezoning in the hopes of subdividing your land further. Higher density development can only increase the exposure of Kealakekua Bay to Non -Point Source Pollution and Cumulative and Secondary impacts. To put it in plain English, we don't have the science yet to know what exactly will end up in the Bay, when it will end up there, and what it will do when it gets there. The coral reef, fish and dolphins are already stressed by human use. If we ruin the water, we min the reef. If we ruin the reef, we kill the fish. The General Plan mandates protection for natural resources, natural beauty, unique habitat and coastal resources. Kealakekua Bay and the marine preserve qualify on all these levels. Therefore, I hope the Planning Commission will delete Amendment F-2 and protect K -Bay. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Very good. Any questions? WILLE: Hi. Margaret Wille and I want to make a couple of comments. One is on your Transportation Road Map F, I think that's not in detail. And perhaps you've already agreed to this, but I'm unaware, and this has to do with the mini -bypass which Parker Ranch had requested to be removed and Director Yuen agreed not to promote that. But I just want to make sure that the corresponding road map in the Plan includes this road. And I believe Director Yuen wasn't opposed to that, but that it had been overlooked or an oversight that this be, this mini bypass or the two --. Can we put that map on? Or maybe it's not detailed enough. But I have, what I gave you I handed out in the testimony showing this map. Currently Parker Ranch, under its rezoning ordinances, is required to build about one-half of that road and then the County section, which the County has substantial funds, could put that in. We're really pushing to get this road in. And I just want to make sure, as Chris Yuen said it's important for it to be on the maps in order to, if additional funding is needed. ALAMEDA: Okay. WILLE: It's also just in terms of looking at working on the State's bypasses, I mean, one of the engineers said, well, we didn't even know that map was being, that road was being considered as they were looking at the General Plan. And just so that everyone is on the same page that it's important, so I just stress that. 16 And the other point, just in terms of, I'm not sure, if you've already covered this, is the Plan Implementation. It was on Page 7 of the Interim proposals requesting to remove the Annual Report section. Obviously, I would hope that you would not remove that accountability provision. And I know Director Yuen has said he is proposing that because the Department is overburdened and that you look at these areas that he is overburdened as to how one can have additional people there. There are very minimal fees charged on any of the development permits, look at other ways. And if you have, in fact, asked, approved his or are agreeing to his request to remove this Annual Report, the accountability section, I would hope that some form of review be still carried out. I think this is very important right now where one is promoting the Community Development Plans as a communication mechanism so that the people, the communities know what's going on. I actually think if that, if that had been done, if there had been an annual review of the courses of action, the Department would see that this road is mandated; and when Parker Ranch came in for its recent subdivision, the Planning Department would be saying, "You've got to get your road in." And instead, they're asking for it to be deleted from the General Plan. So, just, if you have agreed to remove that annual report, I hope you encourage more accountability and provide, address the overburden problem in a way that isn't excluding the public from getting public input. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thanks, Margaret. WILLE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: You're welcome. I see no questions. Thank you very much for your testimony today. You may be seated. Mr. Director, hearing Brenda and Margaret and Dore, do you have any comments or thoughts? YUEN: I'll be happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have as a result of that or other things that have come to mind in the last few minutes. ALAMEDA: Okay. Any questions for Mr. Director before we take action on these items? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Just on that last testimony from Ms. Wille about the Bypass Road in the Waimea area which is already there in the paperwork and we're not going to delete it at this point. But she said she believes it doesn't exist on the map to support what's already there. Can you explain that? Is there something you're going to do about that, or is that a real problem, or — 9 YUEN: You'll notice that we're going to put this on hold until Parsons Brinckerhoff, which is working on a circulation study in Waimea, completes evaluating other alternatives. My expectation, we met with them last week, and my expectation is that they feel that this is an important, this Bypass Road, Parker Ranch Bypass Road is an important component of transportation through Waimea town. hi that case, I will drop the proposed interim amendment. And, unfortunately, the facilities map that was passed in 2005, although the text mandated this Bypass Road, the facilities map did not include it. And we really should it put on the facilities, in that case we should put it on the facilities map. But I would expect to put it, 17 do an Interim Amendment that would put those roads on the facilities map. They're not currently shown and there's no interim amendments that affect those. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM: In the last sentence you said there --. So is that something you will be doing in the near future then, assuming this report comes back the way you think it will? YUEN: GRAHAM: Yes. Thank you. YUEN: And there's one thing that came up in the testimony and there's a point of misunderstanding of the General Plan, that where people say that Rural allows subdivision down to 9,000 square feet. The reason that there's a mention of 9,000 square feet in the description of Rural in the General Plan is that we took Rural to encompass a lot of non -conforming subdivisions that were granted in the `50s and `60s. The problem with the previous General Plan was that these were simply not shown as rural communities on the General Plan. So a place like Ocean View or Hawaiian Paradise Park which are major, becoming major population centers, were shown as Orchards on the General Plan. Many of these subdivisions were as small as 9,000 square feet. Ainaloa Subdivision, for example, although it's in the State Land Use Agricultural District, most of the lots are about 9,000 square feet. So this statement is a descriptive statement rather than, it's a description of what is there rather than a prescriptive statement, a statement of what you should do in the future. And that's why there's this additional statement in there that the Rural designation does not necessarily imply subdivision or rezoning to allow lot sizes smaller than already exists in the area covered by Rural. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: As a follow-up to that comment, you know, I understand what you're saying. But, so what would we consider for the record, you know, a minimum size in a Rural going forward? YUEN: That'll be decided at the zoning level. The General Plan itself does not have a minimum lot size in Rural. You would do it on a zoning level. WATANABE: But we haven't formulated that yet, that guideline? YUEN: No, no. ALAMEDA: Other questions, Fellow Commissioners, before we start taking action on these amendments? We have eight amendments that I'd like to take action today. I believe we've covered from north, east, south to west in terms of perspective and opinion on this particular amendment. So I'd like to just ask that maybe we take action and just simply let your vote be your perspective, at this point. Could I entertain a motion for A-1? YUEN: Let me just mention for the record one thing that all these map amendments have corresponding text amendments that we've not talked about, but they're just in M the text of the General Plan that mentions the map changes. Just so that you should, as you vote on these, we'll just take it as understood that that includes the corresponding text changes. ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: As a little preface, I think Commissioner Watanabe indicated before that he'd like to see us do something or support something in this Puna District towards allowing commercial development. And what we're doing is making a recommendation to the Council; and they will, in fact, you know, fine tune it however comes out. My sense is that when I look at what the Planning Director is recommending as opposed to what the Orchidland Community Association is recommending that the Orchidland Drive A-2 is, I would, say more coherent, more consistent with the Community Association than the Ainaloa Boulevard one. So, as I'm trying to reach a middle ground on it, I think I would tend to vote, to want to vote out the Ainaloa Boulevard one and vote in the Orchidland one. So in that respect I would move that we delete the Ainaloa Boulevard A -I item from our recommendation to the County Council. IWASHITA: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Seeing none, staff? Or do we need clarification on the motion? I'm looking at Commissioner Watanabe or Commissioner Galdones. Do we need clarification on the motion or -? WATANABE: No, I understand the motion. ALAMEDA: Okay. All right. Staff? HAYASHI: From staff's standpoint, my understanding is that you're not supporting the Planning Director's recommendation relative to A-1. Is that correct? ALAMEDA: Correct. HAYASHI: Okay. Thank you. With that, I'll call the roll call vote. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Nay. 19 HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: No. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion does not carry. The vote was three ayes and three noes. ALAMEDA: Okay. Care to entertain a motion for A-2? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Consistently with what I've said before, I would move that we include A-2 in our recommendation as proposed by the Planning Director. And the part that was a little contentious to me was including extra space along 35`h Avenue. But as I believe the Planning Director's recommendation that any zoning level changes would require that the Applicant improve 35`h Avenue is sufficient to support the rezoning, I'm willing to go along with the Planning Director's recommendation. So I move that A-2 be put forth with a positive recommendation to the County Council. WATANABE: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Just, I think Orchidland Community Association's concern about 35`h Avenue and allowing commercial development at 35`h and Orchidland Drive is not limited to, you know, the condition of 35`h Avenue at that intersection. And I guess their concern would extend beyond, you know, far beyond the boundaries of what's being proposed and to how, you know, people would then within the subdivision be using 35`h Avenue more to access those particular areas. And I don't think that what's being contemplated, in terms of requiring improvements for 35`h Avenue, would extend beyond the boundaries of the proposed developments. So I think Orchidland Community Association's concern is warranted. And basically they have a current infrastructure concern as to the condition of the roads and the organization's potential liability with increased use, so I can't support the proposed expansion. ALAMEDA: Thank you for your opinion. Other discussion items or perspectives? Seeing none, staff? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is to support the Planning Director's recommendation on map change A-2. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. 20 HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries, five to one. ALAMEDA: Moving right along. Houselots area, Amendment B-5, or was it B-6? YUEN: B-6. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Watanabe, you want to entertain a motion? WATANABE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded for the Amendment to General Plan B-6 to the County Council, based on the Director's recommendations. GALDONES: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: I just want to make a record. If you look at the map for the proposed change, it's pretty apparent that what's being done is really not appropriate. The western side of Kekuanaoa Street where it terminates at Kilauea and extending almost down to Manono is all already High Density Urban and under-utilized, as you all know. So it's really from a public policy big picture perspective, there's really no need to have this done at this time in this manner. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Seeing no further thoughts, staff? HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is a motion to recommend approval of the Planning Director's initiation of the map change B-6. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: HAYASHI: Aye. Commissioner Galdones? 21 GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: No. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries, five to one. ALAMEDA: Moving right along to Amendments E-6, E-7 and E-8. We're going to take one -at -a -time. E-6, would anybody want to entertain a motion? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Interim General Plan Amendment E-6, based on the Director's recommendations. GALDONES: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, motion is to support the Planning Director's recommendation of Map Change E-6. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. 22 HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries, six to zero. ALAMEDA: Amendment E-7? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Interim General Plan Amendment E-7, based on the Planning Director's recommendations. GALDONES: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI: Motion is to support, again, the recommendation of the Planning Director, Map Change E-7. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries. 23 ALAMEDA: Thank you. E-8? Fellow Commissioners, anybody want to entertain a motion? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: I'd like to make a motion to include Amendment E-8 and Commission approval for Important Agricultural lands relative to Director Yuen's recommendation. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Salavea. Is there a second? GALDONES: Second. ALAMEDA: Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Staff? HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries, six to zero. ALAMEDA: And the final amendment for today, F-2, anyone would like to entertain a motion? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: I move that that we delete F-2 from the recommendation going to the County Council. IWASHITA: Second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Commissioner Watanabe? 24 WATANABE: I'm a little torn. ALAMEDA: Okay. Well, -. WATANABE: Somebody convince me one way or the other. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham, would you like to share your thoughts? GRAHAM: Well, I guess my thoughts are we've heard a lot of concerns about this area. And if we were the deciding body I think I would probably continue the hearing and get a lot more information on the real specifics, and maybe do a site visit, and all that kind of stuff. But we're not the deciding body. And in this case I don't feel like there's any, from what I've heard, I don't have any clear sense of support for making this change. So for that reason I feel like it's good for us to say we do not support this change, but leave it up to the County Council if they want to make effort to try to justify it. WATANABE: I think where I've having the most difficulty with this is the flood area because I did live in Cooks Landing, which is in close proximity to that, and we did have some flooding issues at one time. You know, I think much of it has been resolved. But I like the fact that, you know, we have a much greater buffer area with the Conservation change in F-1, and yet the flooding area I'm not sure about. You know, it concerns me a little bit. ALAMEDA: You need any other Commissioners to voice their opinion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Whether he needs it or not -. ALAMEDA: Here it comes. IWASHITA: Again, I view our role and the role of the Council and the role of this, the General Plan in general and this particular kind of concerns really needs to be viewed from the bigger picture. And, to me, in this area, it's sort of easier to get the bigger picture because Kealakekua Bay is right there. And any decision that's made about these lands really should center on how to protect Kealakekua Bay and keep it as pristine as possible. You know, we all have been camping to one extent or another and we all know that, you know, good areas to camp are becoming less and less and less. And so, to me, that's really the perspective. We have lots and lots, and lots, and lots of land to develop already. If the County Council never passes another zoning change we still will be crying about traffic, we still will be crying about overcrowding. We don't have to do another thing to make things worse. So to me that's the perspective that helps me say that, you know, F-2 should not be done, should be deleted. And, if anything, we should work on, as I said earlier, you know, going through the Land Use Commission and saying this should not be Urban, and change that. ALAMEDA: Other commentaries? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI: Okay, the motion is to not support the Planning Director's proposed map chanee F-2. Commissioner Graham? 25 GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair, motion carries. ALAMEDA: Thank you very much. And thank you testifiers for bringing in more information to the table on that. I appreciate it. The discussion ended at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, \n Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 26 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 5, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR was called to order at 5:25 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred Galdones Rodney Watanabe Bill Graham Rene' Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Allen Salavea Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Two people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. ALAMEDA: Final agenda item for today, Initiator: Planning Director. Again, this is the General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. Just an update, Mr. Torigoe, is this the final presentation on this? TORIGOE: It could be if you guys vote on it. But there's also the possibility of one more meeting, I understand, the way it was set up. ALAMEDA: Okay. And is there testimony today? TORIGOE: Well, although the formal hearing is closed, but I think as a matter of Sunshine Law you have to allow for public testimony. ALAMEDA: Okay. Will we need to go through the formalities of having the Director present and all? TORIGOE: No, I don't think so. As I said the hearing is closed. ALAMEDA: Okay. So should we just open it for testimony? TORIGOE: Right. ALAMEDA: I see a potential testifier. Okay, sir, would you like to come forward. So let me just get clarification as you're being seated. Mr. Torigoe, so then that means that as our potential testifier will share his views on this agenda item, will it be for the record or just something we can just consider now that it's closed? TORIGOE: Well, it is part of the record of today's proceedings. ALAMEDA: Okay. TORIGOE: And, you know, you can consider it. ALAMEDA: Okay. Sir, could you please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? ELY: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Could you please state your name and address. ELY: My name is Bob Ely and it's Post Office Box 1359, Keaau; and I'm representing the Orchidland Community Association Board of Directors. ALAMEDA: I'd like to first of all thank you for waiting this long. Your patience is very well appreciated. Go ahead. ELY: Well, let me say I had not planned to offer any sort of public testimony today. I had been told that it wasn't open, that the meeting was open to the public for listening, and that's what I planned to do. But as long as I'm up here, let me make it as brief as I can and just give you the bare outlines of Orchidland Community Association's position. First of all, there is overwhelming opposition to these A-1 and A-2. The Orchidland Community Association passed a resolution as Board of Directors and I forwarded that resolution to you, I think, in our April le letter to you. We had our general membership meeting this last Saturday and we asked the general membership to simply endorse the resolution that the Board had passed; and we got turned down. They said no way; and it was nearly unanimous that they did not want any further Commercial development in Orchidland. They felt that this was an invitation to two new strip malls right in Orchidland. And they made it clear that they felt that we were just having this zoning change imposed on us by FIAT and with no real community input, no give and take with the Planning Department or with the County. So it was quite a hostile reaction. Our feeling is that the zoning change will have a major, major impact on Orchidland and on our roads; and we do not have the money to support these roads. We barely are keeping our head above water just maintaining the roads that we've got. And the County isn't willing or can't help us with our road maintenance, with the development and the improvement of our roads, or the 2 associated liability that goes with this. Right now let's say we're talking about two different areas. One is Ainaloa and the other one is Orchidland Drive. Orchidland Drive in terms of traffic at the moment is the most obscene. During rush hour in the morning the backup of cars goes all the way from the highway back past 34`h Avenue. My own experience is that it has taken me seven minutes to get, waiting in line to get out on the Highway 130. I've been told that it is not uncommon to go twice that long, but I've never experienced that. Changing this and putting more commercial development in there is just going to exacerbate the problem and, you know, basically that's it. We feel that there is no need to rush into these changes, let's wait to the Community Development Plan is finalized and see how these things may fit in. That's it. ALAMEDA: All right. Thank you so much. We appreciate it. Let me just ask, Mr. Director, do you want to respond to any of the comments or -? YUEN: No. I'll just deal with the questions that the Commissioners may have. ALAMEDA: Okay. I see, forgive me, but I see the powerpoint all kind of set up. Were you planning on doing a powerpoint or something? YUEN: No, we've done that before. Only if there were specific questions, then that will help us visualize it. But we didn't really get it set up. So -. ALAMEDA: Okay. Well, let's see first. Fellow Commissioners, any questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Just the reference by a testifier to, waiting for the Puna Community Development plan to be done and the community being involved, that way to figure out whether or not, you know, they want to do this. I'd just like your reaction to that. YUEN: It's an option for the Commission. During the Council discussions of the amendment that created the small General Plan Medium Density area in Orchidland which just covers pretty much what has already been approved by special permits, there had been interest in more kinds of Commercial areas in Puna. So I promised the Council that I would bring forward an Interim General Plan Amendment on the subject; and that's what I've done with this Orchidland area and with the Ainaloa Boulevard. ALAMEDA: All right. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Just a procedure question. On voting, what is it we're doing here? We're going to vote to accept the amendments in its -? YUEN: You're voting on recommendations to the Council; and there's a whole series of amendments. So you'd probably want to go through those and at least -. You can do them as a group or you can do them individually. It might be easier to do them individually. Your action is a recommendation to the Council and you have this meeting or the next meeting to make that recommendation. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Well, let me just say how I sort of see it all. And my view is I think all in all the Planning Director has done a very good job on this General Plan Revision. We have gotten a lot of testimony. And somehow I don't feel like taking some perfunctory action like, well, let's send it to the Council or something, as it really doesn't do justice to all the well thought-out testimony we've gotten along the way. So somehow it feels like we owe it to get into the nitty gritty on a few of these issues that have been challenged. But, you know, here we are very late in the day and pretty much out of juice right now. So how well we're doing to do that? And then I just was looking at the agenda for the next Kona meeting, that's a long bomber, too. So I'm kind of left wondering, you know, where do we go from here? I think the Waimea, I'm just looking at a few of the items that seemed contentious to me. I think the Waimea thing we heard a lot of testimony on it but basically you're going to leave that aside on the short run so that's not really controversial issue. The controversial issues that right away come to my head are three: The particular delineations in Orchildand. Another one is that 1,000 -Foot boundary in Kona from the Important Ag to the Extensive Ag, both as to whether 1,000 feet is the right level and whether it should extend farther south as some have requested. That's probably a big issue. And the third one is we got a good bit of testimony about including in the Rural district a little adjoining piece of land above Kealakekua Bay where there was already one subdivision approved. So, tome, those are three that jump to my head that, you know, I sure just can't sign off and say they're okay the way they are. But I don't know when we're going to, where we go with it and all. ALAMEDA: We do have a timeline as well. So sooner or later we're going to have to -. And it sounds like if it's not this meeting it will be the next meeting, cause then it has to go up, cause it cannot go up without a vote, correct, Mr. Director? YUEN: The ordinance has a timeframe. Unlike the rezoning ordinance, it doesn't say that it results in a negative recommendation. I hope the Commission can take a vote on it at the next, if not today at the next meeting. Another alternative would be to get the ones out of the way that the Commissioners feel they can achieve a consensus today and save the rest for the next meeting. There's no problem with that. You don't have to act on the whole package at one meeting. ALAMEDA: Perhaps that's my tentative recommendation, is that we hold off on Commissioner Graham's three potential concerns and we go ahead and maybe take a vote on the others, cause I concur with those. And with the other potential concerns arisen via testimony I was pleased with the Director's response on many of those, including some of the ones that you presented as well. But I am willing to kind of hear more of what you're saying regarding those three. So I'm perfectly comfortable in looking at those noncontroversial items today, not the ones that are not presented by Commissioner Graham. So, I don't know, Commissioner Graham, what are you thoughts? GRAHAM: Just wondering if any of the other Commissioners had any other besides the three I mentioned that they feel like deserve a little closer insight or a little closer look at from our point of view. C! ALAMEDA: Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA: Big Island Candies, that spot zoning that's in there. I would want to have a fuller discussion on that. ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Galdones, besides the four that we just presented, are there any other things that kind of stick out? No? ALAMEDA: No. ALAMEDA: How about Commissioner Salavea? Well, we've got four potential amendments that we may want to have more discussion on, but the rest I wonder if we could go ahead and vote on that today? Mr. Director, how does that sound? YUEN: Yeah, I think the easiest way to do that would be a motion to send a favorable recommendation for all proposed amendments except -. I'm not sure if Mr. Graham is concerned, well, there's two in Puna, there's A-1 and A-2. You want to hold both of those? GRAHAM: Well, the only one that was catching my eye was the size of the Orchidland area that you were going to urbanize. YUEN: Okay. So that would just be A-2. GRAHAM: Just to refresh, what was the other Puna one? YUEN: A-1 is the one along Ainaloa Boulevard, GRAHAM: And they are both, are they pretty independent or sort of related or something? YUEN: Well, they're independent. But it's up to you if you -. GRAHAM: Why don't we just hold both of them out, then we can just check them at the time. YUEN: Okay. ALAMEDA: Okay. YUEN: Then the, which is the Big Island Candies one, oh, I'm sorry that's B-6. F.11 W% : . YUEN: Then the Agricultural ones are E-6, E-7 and E-8. And, finally, the subdivision above Kealakekua Bay is F-2. ALAMEDA: Okay, would somebody like to entertain a motion to approve the amendments made by the Planning Director, except A-1, A-2, B-6, E-6, E-7, E-8 and F-2? YUEN: And just to make it clear that that also includes the text changes except for the reference to the Waimea Bypass Road and the Facilities Map changes. ALAMEDA: So noted. IWASHITA: Can I also make sure that I guess procedurally that those matters that we're excluding that the Commission is specifically reserving the right to act on it at the next meeting?. ALAMEDA: Okay. IWASHITA: Okay. Any objections to that? All right, we're having it at the next meeting. All right, so, I'm ready to entertain a motion, anybody. SALAVEA: I'll make a motion. ALAMEDA: Go ahead. SALAVEA: Thank you. Mr. Chair, I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the General Plan Interim Amendments, Planning Director's proposed changes to the General Plan document, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map, and Facilities Map, with the exception of Items A-1, A-2, E-6, E-7, E-8, F-2, the Waimea Bypass Road and Facilities Map. ALAMEDA: And B-6. SALAVEA: And B-6. ALAMEDA: Oh, good you said that. Okay. Is there a second? GALDONES: Second. GRAHAM: I second. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Salavea, seconded by Commissioner Galdones, discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI: Okay. I'll call for the vote. Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: And I do have a question after this. ALAMEDA: Yes. HAYASHI: We do have this advertised for the May 26`h meeting. So is it my understanding that anyone who comes to the meeting can testify again on these, the whole Interim Amendments, or is it just they can come and testify on A-1, A-2, B-6, etc., etc., etc.? TORIGOE: As long as it's an agenda item, they can come and testify on it, whatever is on the agenda. HAYASHI: Even for those that we just -? TORIGOE: Well, I think the Chairperson has some discretion to, you know, as usual ask people not to present testimony on irrelevant matters or on repetitive matters. ALAMEDA: Mr. Hayashi, I wonder if on the agenda you could explicitly state that we'll be talking about the specifics so that way if it's on the agenda they'll know what they're coming for. HAYASHI: Well, I did advertise it as requested or asked to do so at the last meeting. But I can, I guess, file an amended agenda item. So I'll file another amendment to the May 26`h agenda to state that the discussion will specifically be with regard to those exception, if that is okay with the Commission. ALAMEDA: Any objections? Very well. HAYASHI: And with the understanding that any citizen that asks us if they can come and discuss or testify at that meeting we're going to say, yes, you can. HAYASHI: If it's on the -? Yes. 7 ALAMEDA: Exceptions? HAYASHI: Yes. Because for this particular meeting we informed the public that the public hearing was closed as of May I" and they would not be allowed to testify on the agenda item. I guess I was wrong in informing the public that. Because the rule, I mean, the General Plan Ordinance states that the hearing shall be closed 60days after it's submitted by the Planning Director to the Planning Commission. The 60 days, at the last meeting the Planning Commission voted to close the public hearing as of May I't, that would be the 60 days. So this is why, my understanding was that the public would not be allowed to provide further testimony since the hearing was closed. ALAMEDA: Okay. Sure, Mr. Torigoe. TORIGOE: Well, look at it this way. You know, the General Plan Amendment provides a certain procedure for the hearings but the Sunshine Law is independent of that and requires us to allow public testimony on anything that's agendized. So in any case I guess if a member of the public comes and say, hey, look, I know you guys are done with the hearing and you've taken testimony and evidence, but here's what I think you ought to do with that evidence, something like that, you know. ALAMEDA: Okay. I say we follow the counsel's heed and move forward as such. The discussion ended at 5:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 21, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the application of INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR was called to order at 12:08 p.m. at the Waikoloa Beach Marriott Hotel, 69-275 Waikoloa Beach Drive, Waikoloa, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda William R. Graham Rodney H. Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Fred Galdones ABSENT & EXCUSED: Rene' Siracusa Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR Jeffrey McCall Allen Salavea General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. ALAMEDA: Let's see unfinished business. This is the General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, the policies, the course of actions, the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. The process for this will be our Director will be sharing with you some highlights of the proposed changes and then we'll move into testimony. I have 7 testifiers and we've received a lot of written testimony up to this point as well as the additional testimony presented here today. I will be asking for those of you who provided written testimony, a brief summary kind of highlighting your thoughts so we can move this process along. But first I'll tum it over to Mr. Director Chris to present. YUEN: Good afternoon Mr. Chairman, members of the Commission. We're here to consider a package of interim amendments to the General Plan. As you know the General Plan was updated and passed the Council in February 2005. That was the culmination of the 10 - year comprehensive review of the General Plan. Between the time the Planning Commission considered the comprehensive review and the time it actually passed the Council was a little over 3 years and naturally some things changed in the interim. Also at the Council there were interest in changes to aspects of the General Plan and then there are things that have come forward at the departmental level. And the result is a set of proposed interim amendments to the plan. These are, some of them are linked together in the sense that there may be a text change that's related to a map change. For the most part they're standalone amendments. So, the Commission can choose to vote on them all up or down as a group or the Commission could eventually when it comes time for the vote break each one out or some of them out separately and vote them up and down. When it comes to that point we can advise you of which ones are, which to say some of the map changes are tied to a text change and they should go together. But other than that they can be acted on separately. The process is that the Commission makes recommendation to the Council. The Council has the final decision on these. There's a process for considering these that's set out in the General Plan now, at the back of the General Plan Amendment Procedures. So there is a timeframe for the Planning Commission to review and act on the these. The timeframe says that the close of the public-, the Commission is supposed to have public hearings on these amendments. The Commission has a 60 -day period from the receipt of the amendments to the close of the public hearing. That 60 days began March 3`d when we sent those over and since then the Commission had, we had a workshop on these as a standalone, which we setup apart from the regular meetings of the Commission so we could spend one day specifically on this. I should mention that before the amendments were sent to the Commission I had 2 workshops where the public could comment on these and we brought you the testimony that resulted from those workshops up to the time when the Commission had it. So, this is the last meeting before the 60 days run out. And then after the close of the public hearing the Commission has 30 days to make its recommendations to the Council. The (inaudible) that we have so that again the Commission would not take action today. The Commission should close the public hearing and then take action at a subsequent meeting. Now the only meetings that we have in May are May 5th and May 26`h. The May 26"h meeting, if the hearing were closed effective today the May 26`h meeting would be outside of our 30 -day window. I've discussed this with Corporation Counsel and it would be consistent with the way the ordinance is written for-, if the Commission did the following: voted to close the public hearing with an effective date of May 1 on the close of the public hearing. So in other words testimony could, written testimony could still come in and it would be considered part of the public hearing up until May 1. When the Commission, on the May 5`h meeting, the Commission can vote on the recommendations or can vote on some of the recommendations. If its unable to, by taking this May 1 effective date for the close of the hearing you open up May 26`h as another meeting that you can take action. We would suggest that the Commission do this so that you're not-. Say you have a little more time to think about this, you have an opportunity to vote on these rather than just May 5 you also have May 26 as a possibility. Of course as much as you can get done on May 5 we will be happy with but at least as of-. If the Commission follows this suggestion and votes to close the public hearing effective May 1, you've done, you've had the 60 days for the public hearings and then you will open up May 26 as a meeting that you can still take action before these all go up to the Council. So that's our recommendation of what or a suggestion about what the Commission should do today. As far as our presentation to the Commission, because we've had a workshop where we went through all of these before my suggestion is that now we take some time for us to answer questions that the Commission may have on the particular amendments. We have the computer set up to be able to project a slide of any text amendment or any map amendment so we can follow it together. After we take that time then we have a public testimony. After public testimony if there's anything the Department would like to say on, to clarify issues raised in the public testimony then we'll go ahead and do that. And then we'll again take questions from the Commission that may be sparked by the public testimony or may be, may have come up in the Commission's mind just in the course of the day. FA So that's my suggestion with how to proceed and if that's fine with the Commission then I can start taking questions. ALAMEDA: Any objections fellow Commissioners with the proposal made by the Director on how to proceed? Seeing none any questions? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Yeah I have a question on the Hokulia area and I raise that because it seems that we're designating that either, on the maps now, either as extensive Ag or orchards and what is that? I don't know what else we got there but you know I'm referring back to the settlement that was recently reached and I believe the settlement directed Hokulia to go back to the State LUC and request a Rural designation. And I also seem to recall that within the workshops you had talked about Rural designation from 1,000 -foot elevation and below but I think I need some clarification on that. Is Hokulia included in the Rural designation? It doesn't seem to be reflected on the map that way. YUEN: This set of interim amendments does not have any change to the present General Plan designation of Hokulia. Hokulia is not really set aside on the map specifically as a project. When-, it is referred to in the text of the General Plan as a approved project. We are considering whether to do an interim amendment to the General Plan for Hokulia in a different set but there is nothing in this set that actually changes what is in the current General Plan for Hokulia. WATANABE: Okay so then for clarification you're saying that the Planning Department is considering making some change but you need a little more time on that so it's not included within these proposed interim amendments? YUEN: Right. WATANABE: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Other questions Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Chris I don't think this is covered by what we just discussed on Hokulia but I think some of our testimony that we may get today and all relates to that Kealakekua Bay going mauka and where's the boundary between intensive Ag and extensive Ag and the Conservation Zone. Could you just give a little refresher on what we have planned for there so that if we catch any testimony on it we have (inaudible) in mind? YUEN: Okay well that's the slide that we have here, in the first, not of the Kealakekua Bay site but let's start from Keauhou side and the North Kona side. What happened this orientation here, this is Halekini Street is right here. This is Keauhou Bay here. This is the Mamalahoa Highway up here. This line here is the old railroad right of way or the railroad grade. So this is most, this is currently open land used for grazing and zoned Ag -5. Our original proposal in the 2001 General Plan based on some soil information that we had was to have, there's quite a bit of important Ag land in this area. In some places going down to the ocean. There was some challenge to that at the General Plan level by a number of the landowners 3 between, basically between Hokulia or Halekii Street and Keauhou. As a result of that the Council left those landowners who made objections left their properties out of Intensive Ag completely. And the result of that is that you have a line-. But there were other landowners who were actually similarly situated in the area who did not make a presentation to the Council and who's much of his property was also in Important Ag. So, we felt that we had to draw a consistent line and then to change it so that there's a consistent line between the-, that doesn't depend on who had gone to the Council and made a complaint about it. So, we went to a workshop and so we decided that we would make a line that's based on elevation. Rainfall does tend to follow elevation in the area. So the original workshop we proposed a line of 700 feet. Some of the landowners objected to that and wanted it at a higher elevation. And different people had different opinions on that. In the end what we have before you is a line that's at a 1,000 feet elevation. There's no precise line that you could actually draw and say well this is where it starts that you can grow things and this is where there's not enough rain. But I would note that the original proposal that came to the Council and actually that came to us during the General Plan amendment process before 2005 had requested a 1,000 -foot elevation. So just to finish this up here, the net result is that for some of the landowners this will take some of their property that was mauka of the line, that was not important Ag and it will put it in important Ag. All right? For some other landowners it will take property that was makai of this 1,000 -foot line that is currently in Important Ag and take it out of Important Ag and make it Extensive Ag. So, that's why if you look at your current General Plan there's the Important Ag versus Extensive Ag line jogs up and down and then after this there'll be a consistent line, if this passes there'd be a consistent line across the elevation. And that takes us on the northern side of Kealakekua Bay. There's only one change on the-. I mean on the north of Halekii Street. On the southside of Halekii Street I believe we only made one change and I can show what that is in another slide. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: I just on just for all our understanding could you explain to us what is the consequence of the land being Important Ag and not being Important Ag as far as Land Use, future rezonings or developments, whatever so we understand what's involved. YUEN: The General Plan has some policies concerning Important Ag. One of the policies is stated. Probably the most significant for a rezoning is a statement that the Important Ag land should not be rezoned to lot sizes too small to support Commercial Agriculture. The exact wording is a little bit different than what I said but that's the gist of it. It's not, there isn't a statement as to what that acreage is in the General Plan because the farming conditions, the kinds of crops that people grow, the market conditions may change over time. But this is, as a matter of guidance and direction when a property is proposed to be rezoned that's an Important Ag, the Council, the Planning Commission, the Planning Director should look at it and say can you still do Commercial Agriculture and do a range of Commercial Agriculture on the resulting property. So for example, for the most part it would be hard to say that a 1 -acre lot to take a easy one is a lot size that would support Commercial Agriculture. Now you can probably do hydroponic tomatoes or some other kind of specialty crop but if you rezone to 1 -acre lot sizes you're taking away a whole range of things that might be done on 5 or 10 -acres that you can no longer do commercially on a commercial scale on 1 -acre. So that would be a strong indication against doing that rezoning in Important Ag. So, it doesn't mean that Extensive Ag is wide open to Il rezoning, you still have to look at other kinds of issues. Whether its do you want growth in the area, can the roads support the population in the area? But in Important Ag you're looking at what are the implication for commercial farming by rezoning the property and in the Extensive Ag you're not. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: And just one further follow upon that. Since you did mention before that it involves some lands moving, in your proposals, involves some lands moving out of Important Ag but they also involve some lands moving into Important Ag. Legally speaking do you sense any takings issue by moving land into Important Ag that was not previously such that the County might be challenged in court or expect remuneration or anything like that as a result of this action that you're proposing? YUEN: No because the change in itself doesn't change your zoning and what you can do with the property immediately. I mean the properties are-. For example if they are zoned Ag 5 and you're not in Important-, if you're in Important Ag you can still subdivide it to the 5 - acre lot size and you can still-, you still could be able to come in for a house under the same rules as the, as what exists, whether you're Important Ag or Extensive Ag. It's significant for a change like rezoning or if this property were in the SMA which it's not in these cases it would be significant consideration on an SMA permit. It would be a consideration for a Special Permit. But because it doesn't eliminate all economic use of the property for the landowner and it does not in itself change the uses of the property the General Plan amendment will not be a taking. GRAHAM: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Other Commissioners questions for the Director? Seeing none we can move to our testimony now. YUEN: Did you want to look at the Kealakekua Bay area and see that slide? GRAHAM: Might as well. Thank you. YUEN: There are 2 changes in the Kealakekua Bay area. This one is a change from Extensive Ag and Orchards to Conservation and creates a band of Conservation designated land. From Keopuka which is here, a little of the Onouli Ahupuaa going across onto State land. This is-, I'm sorry I didn't orient you before but this is Kealakekua Bay here. This is the point where the Captain Cook monument is. Some of this is State land. Then it would go across this land back here which is part of it is in, this part is already in the State Land Use Conservation District and extend along the pali overlooking Kealakekua Bay. We've had a few letters about the other change in here, which is to this property of roughly 100 acres near just makai of Napoopoo Road. This property, and it's, the property in question is actually currently in the State Land Use Urban District. The proposal is on the Land Use, on the General Plan map to change it from Important Agricultural to Urban. I mean I'm sorry to Rural. We really should not have put it in the Important Agricultural map because it had been put in State Land Use Rural, I mean Urban district. The current zoning of the property is RA -2A, which means that it can be subdivided to 2 -acre lots. There is a pending subdivision; there's a subdivision that's been in the Planning Department pending for some time, which they finish up their archaeological studies on the property. The idea is, the General Plan map should reflect the actual usage of the property for it to be in, subdivided in, for it to be subdivided into 2 -acre lots they would be more consistent to say that that's a Rural classification in the General Plan than Important Ag. It does not change the zoning and there is a statement in the description of Rural that being put into the rural classification does not imply support for further rezoning or subdivision of the property. And it's really when to recognize what already exists. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Questions? Any other comments before we move to testimony? YUEN: No that's fine. ALAMEDA: Okay. Why don't we move into the next stage of this process. I'd like to invite Thomas Greenwell, Ambika Kosada, Margaret Wille, Brenda Ford, if you can come forward? Make yourself comfortable. Let me just provide some structure on this next phase. We do want to hear your thoughts. Some of you are coming before us again and that's okay. We ask that you highlight the issues or the points that you want to make. For many of you we have your written testimony already so I would encourage you not to re -read what you have already sent in but again just kind of highlight for us. And if you can think about a 3 to 5 minute, keeping your testimony within that range we'd really appreciate it. You can give it to staff. And then when you're finished with your testimony we will, we may have questions. Also please note that once you're done with your testimony you cannot testify again. Okay so, with that being said why don't we start with-, well could you all raise your right hand? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. We'll start off on my left. If you could please state your name and address for the record. Yes. Microphone. Name and address for the record and then you may proceed with your testimony. KOSADA: My name is Ambika Kosada. I live at 82-6103 Napoopoo Road. I thank you for having me here. I have not testified before and I understood it the other way around I gave you an outline of my testimony and I have more to say than what's on the page so I'll try to make it very quick. ALAMEDA: Okay go ahead. KOSADA: I am testifying specifically about the area that Mr. Yuen just described. I'm not sure of the language but I'd like you to delete F-2 from the amendments at this time and I have 6 reasons. Number 1 a timely notice was not given to the local people. I found out yesterday. The letter is dated April 17th, received by my neighbor April 19th, I heard about it yesterday. And for us in effect to border on this property being changed from Important Ag to Rural it is in effect a zoning change for us because it's-, the original plan calls for 2 acres and Rural could be applied for 0 and changed down to half an acre as I understand it. So number 1 is timely notice. Number 21 feel it's bad timing at this point through amendments to upgrade zoning. And there are 2 reasons I put on my testimony. It's the one right here first of all the Kona Community Development Plan has been meeting regularly for the past 6, 8 months supported by the Planning Department. I've attended I think 8 now of those meetings and overwhelmingly the people in my area would to see South Kona remain Ag. I will say that again. Overwhelmingly the meetings I attended will be to keep South Kona Ag. Now I know the piece in question has been rezoned back in 1987 and we need to honor that rezoning to 2 -acre Ag. I feel that we can honor that without having to change it to Rural. Secondly this whole question of Important Ag lands and Rural designation is up for discussion on many levels on the State, in the community, in the County and my feeling is, it is not politically correct at this time, in this document to make this change. It speaks tome just on a gut feeling that there's a desire and may be more coming to get you kind of through the back door to agree to something when really we have to look at the big picture and then there will be clarity and you'll know what to do. So I ask you to wait. Number 3 and again I'm not so educated about the Land Use Designation but you have the map there. North and south area is Important Ag. West is Conservation. Above me is a 10 -acre nut farm. The area, the community is agriculture and to just look at a map and say oh well now we're going to make this part rural at this time is inappropriate. The-, I have here as I said (inaudible) 2 - acre on the other hand I have a letter here from the developer to the Planning Department, it's in my testimony the second letter and I'd like to read into the minutes. In reviewing the County Council's adoption last week of draft #5 of the General Plan we, that's the person developing this land, note that the Council's revisions did not include Rural designation you supported for the Captain Cook Ranch Property and it's active subdivision in the previous drafts 2 and 3 of the map. As we discussed during our meeting in November that'll be 2004 the owners appreciate your confirmation that their zoning would be honored and when we agree with you that the change to the General Plan Designation to Rural is the most consistent with our RA -2 zoning in State land. You suggested that such a change to Rural would be included with other property similarly situated in the future omnibus revision. Now I can see that in the future there may be an omnibus revision when we clarify exactly what Rural means and what Ag means and Extensive Ag and Important Ag. But at this point it's really one developers division and that does not seem to be appropriate at this time. Also I consider this both a sacred and unstable area. And if you look at the other map I included we often are not looking from mauka/makai and I've had flooding on the property I live on over the past 10/15 years. And if you look at the map of Kealakekua it's looming right over the pali. I am flooded by the waters coming down and you can look later at the detail I put up there from Mamalahoa Highway through Cook's Landing through my property and into this subject property. The map on the right are 2 floodways that go through that property in a study that was done in 1991. So this is an area that opening it to the slightest possibility it could go to half acre would be not acceptable. Two - acre we can tolerate but nothing less. So, it also is unstable in that we are right above the bay. It is an area that lots could happen. I could go on and on about the water coming down the mountain but it comes north of Manago, south of Manago, Takashiba Nut Farm, Koa Road the water comes down very steep and onto Napoopoo Road and so we need to protect the density there. So finally the rationale I found irrational because it sounds to me like 2 wrongs make a right. When I went to the tax, the County Tax Department and said is my property, which is adjacent to this Ag or is it Urban? They said its Urban by the State and Ag by the County and the County takes precedence. So please continue the precedence and keep this Ag land. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for our testifier? Seeing none you may be seated. Thank you. Sir could you please state your name and address for the record? In the mike. GREENWELL: My name is Tom Greenwell. I live at 81-6581 Mamalahoa Highway in Kealakekua. ALAMEDA: Thank you, you may proceed with your testimony. GREENWELL: Good afternoon. I am Vice President, General Manager for Greenwell Farms and the youngest great-grandson in the family that has farmed our ranch lands since the mid -1850's. lam here today to ask your consideration to remove the IAL designation from the portion of our lands below the 1,000 foot corridor on TMK's: 8-1-04 parcel 1, 54, 74 & 75, as the Director has proposed for the lands other than family farms to the north of us. My great-grandfather, Henry Nicholas Greenwell, began fanning soon after he acquired these lands beginning in 1852. He grew oranges for export to California. Dry conditions and blight forced an end to that venture by the 1870's. Prior to the 1850's other crops were tried on makai portions of these lands including sugar cane and pineapple. These were discontinued due to the lack of adequate and consistent rainfall. Since the 1870's, these lands have, to my knowledge, only been used for cattle grazing, when there was enough rainfall. We presently grow coffee, mac nuts, avocados and bananas on about 50 acres, as well as cattle grazing on the balance of our land. The productive portions of these lands is closer to the highway, where the soil is deeper and the rainfall more consistent. Our primary crop, coffee, needs an average of from 60 to 80 inches of rainfall per year to thrive. The other crops we grow need varying amounts of water but all require consistent moisture throughout the year. As you can see from the soil and rainfall maps attached as exhibits, rainfall below the 1000 foot elevation is significantly lower than our water requirements. Further, the annual rainfall pattern in the lower areas tend to be very seasonal and typically large parts of the year can be extremely dry. We have never seriously planned for any other agricultural use below the 1,000 -foot elevation other than seasonal grazing of cattle because productive fanning below that elevation would require irrigation. The County Department of Water Supply system provides our farm with sufficient water for housing, processing and retail operations, but not for irrigation purposes. As there are only intermediate streams in the area, and those we have subject primarily to flash flooding, providing irrigation would necessitate the drilling of wells, building of reservoirs or tanks and a pipeline distribution system. I submit to you that the economics of Ag in Kona cannot support such a substantial investment. Ours is not a hobby farm or a tax shelter, but the primary source of our family's income. Besides my immediate family, the farm supports my retired mother, brother, 2 sisters, all of whom are actively involved in the farm operations. Coffee prices are very good right now and expanding our fields is a priority for our family. We can grow into about 100 acres, down to about the 1000 foot elevation, for intensive style coffee and mac nut production. The lands below the 1000 foot corridor can only sustain periodic grazing. I ask for your favorable consideration to expand the Director's request E-6, 7 & 8 further south, at least through our lands, if not further than Napoopoo Road. The rationale used in the Director's request and as detailed above for our farm, applies equally to these lands. We are framers and support the designation of protection of Important Agricultural lands, but feel the designation should be based on realities of Agriculture, consistently applied across similar lands. We respectfully request your favorable consideration of this request. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on amendments to the General Plan. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any questions? Thank you very much you may be seated. Ma'am could you please state your name and address for the record? FORD: My name is Brenda Ford. My address is 81-950 Makahiki Lane, Captain Cook Holding. ALAMEDA: Okay Brenda FORD: I'm here to talk about the same map, I have several concerns on it. The first one is since you're making those changes I think it's just appropriate that the resort of Hokulia be stricken out since its been removed legally by the Judge. With the spot zoning, its good to clear spot zoning and yet I see nothing in here that says that it will be removed. I think it's time we started complying with court rules in this County. Secondly I wanted to talk about the same section of the map Ambika talked about. I'd like to reiterate a couple of things it is an SMA area. There are 2 full channels in it. This property has been divided by the owner. My husband and I live in the subdivision directly and adjacent north of this subdivision. Our subdivision was designed by the same developer. There are a lot of problems but I'm not going to go into today by that developer. But given this a Rural designation is asking for this developer to do develop this into half -acre lots. The problem with developing half -acre lots is you're sitting right above marine sanctuary that has already had four channels carved in it and those are indicating 100 -year flood channels that drop from the right hand side of the map, that's the mauka side onto to the makai side, onto Mr. Mori's conservation land, onto the State land and over the edge of the pali. Not only that but this entire area that sits above here, sitting on top the aquifer. If you were to look at a hydraulic, a hydrologic map of the runoff from the mountains to the sea, right under the Captain Cook monument and at the south end of the point of Kealakekua Bay there are huge rivers. I'm not talking little streams I'm talking rivers of fresh water leaving the island, two huge ones that show up on the infrared maps extremely well. And there's tapes that you could ask George Wilkins of the Water Board to provide you for extra information. There is a underground dike that is holding back the water and we're all sitting on top of it. Those of us who has been there for a while are using cesspools. Now those have been outlawed and you can only use in a new construction, septic systems. But the more population, the more houses that you put on top of this pali, the more you're going to have sewage coming into the aquifer itself and extending out into the bay. The housing right along the bay shore itself are using cesspools. So anything that has a cesspool that sits on that bay is leaching into the bay at this time. This is a dolphin sanctuary, they come in and sleep during the day. It's also a very highly used tourist attraction. Another problem with the whole situation is not just the half -acre lots, which would increase full fold the number of houses that would go in there is that it will also increase the traffic on Napoopoo Road. Regarding the subdivision that is owned by Mr. Mori that will be going in here while I'm not objecting to the subdivision itself because that's already been passed in 1991, 1987 something like that. I have (inaudible)10 pages of documentation on poor engineering that was proposed for the subdivision. And the engineering is going to impact these flood channels. And it's going to impact the property owners of, the future property owners that buy this land. It's very important that this Commission understand and accept the totality of the infrastructure that we have today in this area. The bad traffic that we have and this property needs to be not higher density but no higher than it's currentlypemlitted for which is a total of 37 lots between this entire subdivision. The totality of this subdivision needs to consider the traffic. With 33 lots on the northern half of this land and 4 lots on the south end you're looking at approximately 74 cars minimum coming on the Napoopoo. A very busy road that is speed posted at 20 to 25 miles per hour, the average speed is 45 to 50 miles an hour. I've had the police out there many times just standing by the road and in horror at the amount of traffic going through there. So we need to have a lot of traffic work in there. My property actually sits on Napoopoo Road and Makahiki Lane. I've had 3 accidents. One hit the end of a rock wall. One went airborne into my property and another one took out the utility poles and all the water (inaudible). This is in a 20 mile posted speed limit. This is possibly one of the worst designs I've seen on a really dangerous road is to increase the density by going Rural. And this particular developer that owns the property will certainly do that. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any questions for our testifier? Appreciate your testimony, you may be seated. Margaret? WILLE: Yes. Margaret Wille. 65-1316 Lihipali Road, Kamuela. And I'm not going to repeat last, Hilo hearing's I spoke about the need to retain the County mandate to construct the connector road mini -bypass in Waimea. Following my testimony Director Yuen made a comment that sort of prompted me to think about returning and that had to do with the maps and the importance of if there might be a request for funding for a road that it's important to have that road on the General Plan maps. And maybe could you put on F-5 map on the- possibly? ALAMEDA: Sure. WILLE: If you don't mind. This road that is currently, there's $400,000 being spent on a environmental assessment. And it was on the CIP list for `05/'06 is off the map. And when I asked Director Yuen about the, in a phone conversation, he said that really wasn't intentional trying to omit it and I did not bring this up at the last meeting. But since he indicated that it is important to have-. If you look at, in the materials that I gave out, just the plans showing the map, showing the location. So, it's hard to look at that plan but this road is not on that map. And consistent with the text if you retain the text here it's even a specific course of action for consistency and just in terms of the possibility of additional funding I would ask that this be included on that map and the larger map that these are sections of. I did want to make a couple points but very short. Just in terms on notice on these different amendments I know there's a provision in the General Plan for if a particular party wants the Director to include a, it's on page 337 of the General Plan, how they go about making a specific request and which requires that they explain why and they pay a fee. And it would help to do that, I just encourage in doing that type of process where that other developer or in this case Parker Ranch made a specific request and our community-. I just happened to bump into that this was in here so that the communities that are affected could more readily find out that something is going on. And really (inaudible). Currently on this connector road one of the big issues is really to what extent the County is now going to require Parker Ranch to comply with its road concurrency requirement. And I appreciated your discussion earlier today about Seascape because I feel like a discussion like that had gone on in 1996 the community, Waimea, would not be in the position it's in right now where originally Parker Ranch was to put in the entire portion of its connector road. It then came in and asked for an accommodation to only do that in incremental phases. Not one inch of this road has been put in. They have now sold parcels along that who are now coming in objecting to the road. And Director Yuen now has before him their request to fiuther eliminate what is in that ordinance. So, I wish you would have had that discussion here before you all what's going on, on this so you see what happens after the after effect. Just a last thing I included, so I included my, a letter I wrote to the Mayor on this, that issue. And I also just as background for Bob Hunter's discussion on protecting the pu'us put in a background memo of the Land Conservation sub -committee and our work in trying to get the community to work on that proposal. Lastly one of the points in the General Plan is, talks about is the way there's no zoning or conservation zoning that would allow sort of multi, multi -faceted uses where you could have agriculture conservation, Hawaiian 10 customary uses and recreation. And that's really what we're trying to look at here cause you get into a wet zone, what, how does-. And I would just sort of hope you encourage perhaps this project could be done as a model, how does one go about doing that where you have commercial leases and important sacred cultural land. So if discussions come upon that I just would hope that you look at what alternatives to do such a sort of a community working through a process that doesn't fit into any of these specific zoning categories that you now have. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Very well thought out appreciate that. Any questions? Thanks you may be seated. We have 3 more testifiers. Will Larry Ford please come forward? And a David Tamas? And Rick Vidgen. These will be the final testifiers for today. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Please start on my far left. Please state your name and address for the record and you may proceed. TARNAS: My name is David Tamas. I live at 66-1672 Waiaka Place, Kamuela. I'm here today representing Jacoby Development and I wanted to provide comments, which I had provided earlier at the workshop. I'd like to reiterate those and I'll be brief but on the same topic, two different areas. Let me briefly say I represent Jacoby Development and they were selected by Department of Land and Natural Resources and Department of Hawaiian Homelands to develop the 500 acres of State land that is adjacent to North Kohala small boat harbor. The RFP put out by the State agencies that Jacoby Development responded to included a variety of different land uses that the State agencies are envisioning. Department of Hawaiian Homelands has 200 acres they envision as commercial development, it's a primary commercial-, their primary land parcel in West Hawaii for commercial development to generate revenues for Department of Hawaiian Homelands to do their job. So they put out anRFP for that. Jacoby responded. DLNR put out a RFP for the 300 acres adjacent to it, to expand Honokohau Harbor and develop a mixed use development around that. And in both of the RFP's mixed-use included commercial, retail. It also included hotel and time-share so transient accommodations are key components of what the State agencies are requesting of the developer to do. Jacoby Development has a lease with DHHL, February '04 assigning them in a development agreement with DLNR, November '05. Their proposal, Jacoby Development's proposal includes all the elements that meet the State agency's request. It includes a road, which I want to comment on under your public facilities and it also includes this mixed-use development around the harbor, which is the topic of my second comment, which is the LUPAG map. Mr. Chairman if I may on page 5 under Public Facilities it refers to under P, Construct a proposed shore drive from the Old Kona Airport park to the Kealakehe Drive intersection. I recognize this is just a change in the lettering however it's reflected on the road maps A as to a route. I would only request that this alignment I guess is in concept only and we, the idea is to connect from Kealakehe Parkway to Kuakini Highway and the route really depends Queen Liliuokalani Trust. It's their land that has to be crossed and they have to consider burial sites and other archaeological sites. So the alignment as it is on the map may not be the final one after these considerations. On the LUPAG map this would be on page 4 of those proposed amendments, which is E4 open to urban expansion locations in the area of Honokohau Harbor. This rationale description I'd like to provide a comment on that and then a comment on the LUPAG map. Under the rationale, the description says the State plans to expand the harbor and have some associated commercial and golf developments surrounding the harbor. The developments include coastal open space buffer exact dimensions to be set time of zoning. 11 The State is actually planning to do commercial, resort, hotel, timeshare and golf development around the harbor, the expanded harbor. I want to make sure that the Commission understands what the State agencies are requesting. So it's not just commercial and golfbut really a mixed-use development. Master Plan Mixed -Use development, which includes hotel, time-share components. Transient accommodations are going to be important for the economic viability of the developer to be able to achieve and build these public infiaslructure of the road, the collector road and the harbor. And so, to accurately reflect what the State is proposing in planning it really should include that mixed-use and hotel and timeshare in the description. In the LUPAG map itself I want to first say that its great that the Planning Director recognizes the urban use of this land. I appreciate the corrections that the Director has made in terms of the April Id dated map which has some additional urban expansion areas. However I want to emphasize that Jacoby Development is proposing a Mixed -Use development that does include commercial retail and transient accommodations. And that they really are essential to the economic viability of the project and therefore we would request the Planning Commission to recommend to Council to include the resort designation for the DLNR and DHHL parcels and there's about 4 TMK's I can provide you with details. We had presented this request in comments to the Planning Director's draft. And so in early January we had submitted letters in support of this requested change to add Resort designation to these 2 parcels. The Department of Hawaiian Home-. To the 4 parcels owned by the 2 agencies. Those were sent in from Jacoby Development from Department of Hawaiian Homelands, Department of Land and Natural Resources and individuals in the community, Earl Bakkens, Eric Peck, Rick Vidgin, Sue Vemrillion, Rick Gaffney and organizations like Smart Growth America and Rocky Mountain Institute and HIEDB. I don't know if you were given copies of those letters that were written testimony to the Director but those are on file. If you wish I certanily could provide written testimony to summarize these and could even provide a proposed LUPAG map if but I want to defer to the Commission, you've got your job to do in making recommendations on this. But I wanted to apprise you of this current status and the State Agencies' intention and Jacoby Development's response. And I appreciate the opportunity to speak before you today. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Thank you very much. Questions Commissioner Graham? TARNAS: Yes. GRAHAM: It sounds like near Honokohau there your plans are available to the large scale development and all these ways you're speaking of and that sort of the basis for or the support for that really comes from the RFP from the State. But from us as the County and a County agency I mean we look at our K to K plan, we look at our infiastmcture needs all that kind of stuff. So, seems like before we want to adapt our General Plan we gotta find coherence for all that kind of stuff too. So, I just wanted to put that out if David you have more to offer on that or whatever. TARNAS: Thank you I'll briefly comment on that. I appreciate that comment Commissioner. hi the K to K plan the area which is the Department ofHawaiian Home Lands area is recognized as a Regional Urban Center that would be north of Kailua-Kona that could help to relieve some of the urban pressure on Kailua-Kona. And it was envisioned as I say a Regional Urban Center. There's the drive as well and an open space in the shoreline. The Director's recommendation to change some of that open area to urban expansion I think does recognize that urban use of the lands and it has a substantial coastal ocean buffer. So in principal it follows the same, the Director's recommendation follows the same IVA recommendation of the K to K plan. The General Plan that was just amended in February of '05 included Resort designation. And so the Resort designation in the General Plan until early last year was the basis for the State agency's pursuing their development proposals, their RFP. So I recognize the K to K plan is an important document and the General Plan was the basis of what the State was going on in their RFP's and that's what the developer is responding to. Last comment, one of the alternatives in that was evaluated under the K to K plan community process included resort development in the area It was not selected as the primary land use recommendation in the end but it certainly-. In Jacoby's view a mixed-use development is really going to be the most successful there to achieve the public purposes under the RFP. And that mix of uses right now cannot include residential under the terms of the agreements. There's no permanent residential allowed under the lease or the development agreement. So because of that restriction the only other way to have this be an economic success is provide for transient accommodations and instead of the permanent residential. And so it's really with that reality that the State is moving forward in making that RFP. A mixed-use development is the model for smart growth. That's what Jacoby would like to be able to do here. You can't use the permanent residential use and then instead using the transient accommodations as the way to create that mix of uses. ALAMEDA: Follow up? GRAHAM: Thanks for your clarifications. TARNAS: Thank you Commissioner. ALAMEDA: Other questions for David? Seeing none. Thank you very much you may be seated. TARNAS: Thank you Chairman. ALAMEDA: Okay, state your name and address sir for the record. FORD: The name is Larry Ford. I live at 81-950 Makahiki Lane in Captain Cook. ALAMEDA: All right you may proceed with your testimony. FORD: I have a serious problem with the F-2, Important Ag lands to Rural. And that particular one I-, for one problem I have is the density number 2 I have a problem with the traffic, number 3 I have a problem with the flood areas which were discussed briefly prior to this. And the sewage is, which was briefly described is another concern. On the density portion that's about 92 and a half acres and that had 38 lots approved some time in the past. Right now there's a pending subdivision for 33, 2 -acre parcels. Now that is pending. If we change this to Urban the person that has that pending can then let that particular subdivision request die and come back there's nothing stopping him from putting half acre lots in. Now we're talking about what is that 132 lots and on the 66 acres. And then we have an additional 26 acres if we make that rural and we go half -acre lots, which rural says you can have. Gone is all the Important Ag lands, there's 52 other people there. By that I count about a hundred and eighty-four lots possible there. That, half of those lots would be on the floor plane, a flood location. Impossible to keep those people from being hurt and from, their homes fi-om being destroyed when we have a really big flood cause we've had a few through there. And as far as not being able to have Ag in there, there's presently on the comer of that 13 property a 2 -acre parcel that is a screen house, a shade house that's growing plants. The people there borrowed sandbags from us, I keep 200 sandbags for the neighbors, and borrowed sandbags from us to keep the, keep the water from coming down their driveway and washing their buildings away. I see more and more of this ifwe allow this to go Urban because we'll have that 184 possibilities of right-, most of `em or many of `em right in the middle of a flood plane, flood area The 38 that were a 2 and 3 -acre parcels that were approved some years ago can do agriculture. I presently live in an area that has 2 -acre and 3 -acre parcels. Everyone is intensely farming all of those parcels, every one of `em. So, it's not that we need urban in the area it's that we actually need as many diversified farmers as we can find. We also have a traffic problem. I'm really concerned about 38 parcels with 76 cars I count 2 cars per parcel going up and down the road. It's presently very dangerous, people are speeding there, everybody has to get to work, everybody has to get home and they're all concentrating on doing that instead of watching all of those curves and turns and so on and they don't observe the speed limit. We even have a real big problem when the bypass road comes through because Napoopoo Road will then have to stop at 2 stop signs. They have to cross the bypass road, stop and then cross onto Mamalahoa Highway. Very, very dangerous situation. Very dangerous. If we add more than the 38 lots it's going to compound it tremendously because the traffic will not be just, just an even increase. Once you, once you have it crowded as it is right now any addition increases the danger ex -potentially not just on a straight line basis. I'm really concerned about the flood areas because ifwe have roads and houses into 184 lots for instance. All of that runoff has to go somewhere and it, and unless every lot has its own dry well it will come gushing over that pali down into the Kealakekua Bay which is a marine sanctuary. Also, every one of those lots will be putting lawns in, fertilizer in, pesticides in. All going down through that, through the aquifer into the bay. And it will effectively kill that bay. And that's another problem I had with the sewage portion is if we have that many septic tanks it can't help but-. Even if, even if it's far enough away that we don't get the bacteria we will still have the runoff that will change that bay entirely. Those are class AA waters some of the only in the whole nation and I would hate to see them turned into a sewage dump. Thank you. ALAMEDA: You're welcome. Any questions for Mr. Ford? Thank you very much for your testimony appreciate it. YUEN: I would like to make a statement of clarification. ALAMEDA: All right. YUEN: The statement that was made that there would be nothing to prevent the person from subdividing to half -acre lots. The property is zoned RA -2a The zoning does not allow a subdivision to less than a 2 -acre lot. The General Plan amendment does not change the zoning. If someone wanted to make a subdivision of lots less than 2 -acres they would have to rezone the property. ALAMEDA: Thank you Mr. Director for clarifying that. Mr. Vidgm you can please state your name and address for the record. VIDGIN: Hi, my name is Rick Vidgin, I live at 78-630 lhilani Place in Kona and I'm here representing Captain Cook Ranch who owns the land under question. ALAMEDA: Okay. You may proceed. 14 VIDGIN: I'd just like to, you, I believe you received a letter from Captain Cook Ranch from the manager Mike Gibson dated April I go. And I'd just like to draw your attention to a couple parts of that letter to answer some of the points that were raised by the previous people. ALAMEDA: Sure. VIDGIN: First of all in the second to the last paragraph it says very clearly, as can be seen by the only 2 -acre lots on the adjacent (inaudible) orchard subdivision we believe that the proposed 2 -acre lots are extremely low density and beneficial use for this State Land Use Urban designated parcel. And then emphasized is, it is not our intention to seek any further change in zoning for this property beyond the existing RA -2 -acre zoning. That will be in public record and I think it would be in following on from what Mr. Yuen said I think it would be extremely difficult for the developer to come back again. So the intention is very clearly to leave it in 2 -acre zoning. The second point I'd like to raise is several paragraphs above that. We also note that we expect and accept the individual, that individual septic tanks will be required by the Department of Health on each of the proposed 2 -acre lots. Ina remote event that the Department of Health would not insist upon such a requirement we would requirement by covenant running with the land. We go on from that a little to cover the flood issue, which I must point out, is the subdivision that we're talking about is on the first lot and the runoff across that first lot is minimal. The second lot is a little different and that would have to be handled if and when the second lot is ever developed. We finther intend to comply fully with all Federal, State and County requirements regarding grading, drainage and all other applicable matters. I will say that I'm not aware of the 10 -pages of poor engineering noted by previous testimony, in a previous testimony. But we have retained and are working with an Engineer whose generally regarded as the best in Kona and particularly on drainage issues and we'll be absolutely certain that everything that is necessary to be done will be done. The next issue that was brought up was that the notice was not received by Ms. Kosada and I can only tell you that I wasn't responsible for that but it was done by an attorney and the notices were carefully sent out. I will check and find out if she should have received one and if-, and we'll certainly make sure it was done. I'm not sure why but I'll certainly get back to you on that. Just one further point this subdivision is separated from the pali a 90 -acre, almost 90 -acre conservation piece which won't be changing. And, on Monday just as an example of the way this developer really does take his responsibilities very seriously, we're meeting with a group, Forest Solutions to look at what can, what if anything can be done to use native plantings to reduce any of its runoff. Because currently it's in scrub and it's well covered but it's-, we think that possibly it can be done better. I think that's all. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Questions from the Commissioners? Seeing none, you may be seated. Appreciate your time. Very well. Be careful. All right Mr. Director we're at the, I guess the stage of maybe if our Commissioner have any questions for the Director during the testimony? Or if you have any further comments to add given the testimonies? Mr. Director you've asked that we remind you something just so you don't forget. YUEN: Yes I wanted to bring, point out to the Commission that we did make a slight change on the map from the amendments that we showed you earlier. And this is as a result of testimony that was made earlier, in the early meeting. In Honokohau Harbor area, let me try to focus this a little better. This is the Honokohau Harbor here. Queen Kaahumanu Highway here. And this is the road going into Honokohau Harbor. This is State land. On either side ofHonokchau Harbor there is Hawaiian Homes land in this area here. What we had in the, actually it was in the 1989 General Plan as well. The area just north 15 of Honokohau Harbor was shown as Open and we kept that in the 2005 General Plan. And then when we made this amendment here, this area, this is the area that was E-4 and went from Open to we're proposing Alternate Urban Expansion. It was pointed out to us that the Alternate Urban Expansion should also go into the area north of the Honokohau Harbor Road and north of the harbor, up against the boundary with the National Park. This is-. There are already some Light Industrial facilities there. There's a boat storage there and so this is a slight modification to the previous map to show this area as Urban Expansion. It doesn't go to the coastal area. There's some discussion between the State and the National Park about the National Park taking over the State land right at the point here. So we left that out. But showed an Urban Expansion area a slight modification to the map here. ALAMEDA: So noted. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I have a quick question. One of the testifiers, David Tamers, had indicated that a General Plan in the RFP would require that there be some at least Resort in that area south of Honokohau which is now proposed for Urban Expansion? YUEN: Well-. WATANABE: I'm not trying to put you on the spot. YUEN: No, well, I'm always on the spot. At the moment my position is opposed to that. And their specific proposal is for something like 1500 to 2000 resort and timeshare units at, in the Honokohau Harbor area, which I think given the present growth situation in the Kailua-Kona, the housing deficit, the traffic problem. I would not support a growth generating development of that nature. We're still discussing aspects of that and maybe ways that can be reduced or mitigated but I'm not supporting that amendment right at the moment and I haven't put that in. What he's referring to though as far as the change was that there was-. This, if you see this little area here? There was a small area shown as Resort on the 1989 General Plan that was taken out in the 2005 amendments. And when the, that was still in at the time when the State was doing some of the planning for the, for the Honokohau Harbor area. Although this was something that was in the Director's proposed General Plan changes to take this out from roughly April, 2001. So that's the issue and I'm, as I said, I'm not at the moment inclined to initiate a change to Resort to have a resort at Honokohau Harbor for the reason I just stated. ALAMEDA: All right. Other questions for our Director? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Did you say that there were houses and such built in that what was previously designated Open? YUEN: Yes. If you were to take a strict look at the map yes. IWASHITA: So how did that happen? YUEN: Well I'm not sure what the zoning is for the area But if you, there are many examples where because the mapping on the General Plan level is not meant to be precise that zoning doesn't exactly follow the General Plan. But given, you know given that we're doing these interim amendments and we've, we're doing a change here that we really wanted to try to make the map more 16 conform to reality. And then on, even beyond what is currently developed on the State land there that because it's right around the harbor that does seem a logical use for some kinds of harbor related improvements. So, you know normally, if somebody came in for just to draw a boundary here. These colors here are, the way it's in (inaudible) maps it's not meant to be an absolute boundary. So this indicates a general area of a low-density urban area, this yellow color. But if somebody came in for zoning-. And now you know with GIS and computers it's very easy to overlay these against other, against a map to really precisely look at, the blob becomes very precise. It is never-. When the General Plan-. And most ofthese are really taken, are not changed. A lot ofthe designations are not changed from the original General Plan in 1971, which is mapped again on a very big scale. And they were not meant to be exact boundaries. So, here, so you could have, you know if you had a proposal that looked like a good zoning proposal and you went slightly beyond the boundary of the low-density urban area as shown on this map you could still consider that as being consistent with the General Plan even though it didn't exactly match up. I can show you, there are a lot of examples of this kind ofthing. Let me give you another example. If you look at the Industrial areas that are mapped in the Hamakua Coast they meant to indicated where the existing mills were. But if you actually take them on a map like this now they don't line up with the mill sites. They were just meant to indicate that in this general area you have the mill and you have an industrial area So, converting those as we did to a GIS format makes it look more exact than it was meant to be. ALAMEDA: Thank you. IWASHITA: I guess given all that you know you said about that is the National Park comfortable with expanding that Urban area you know up to the National Park boundary? Because I guess for purpose of future development if it's a frizzy line and you keep the line on the road and then you pretty much would limit-. If the intent is to keep that, to have development along the road down to the harbor I don't have any problem with that. But the way that you know it has been redrawn it goes right up to the boundary of the park and I don't know if that's, you know if that's really what's wanted if you-. Seems like you want to keep sort of an open buffer area from the boundary of the park you know to whatever commercial uses are going to be built along the road. YUEN: I don't think we specifically went to the National Park with this General Plan amendment. Let me close this and pull up something else and then I can talk about what would actually have to happen before there was anymore development on this side. Because typically and then one of the reasons why there's not a public notice to neighbors required in General Plan amendments. And the reason is that typically there will still be a follow-up step before anything happens that's based on the General Plan amendment, whether there'll be a rezoning or there'll be an SMA permit or the like. So I can pull up the current and I'm not sure what the current zoning is in the area, I can pull that up right now. IWASHITA: I appreciate the, you know the different steps involved in what would be required for ultimate development but I guess my-. What I'm trying to clear up is that if you know we got this fuzzy line and that's how it is that if you keep that line right on the access road and that's fuzzy enough to allow future commercial development on the road I don't see why we need to change that whole open area you know to the Urban area And that if you just kept it the same way this development still could you know, could occur down the road. So, that's my only point and I understand that further steps would be necessary. But I just don't see that given that, that is a fuzzy line that we really have to make this change. 17 YUEN: Well you're right we really don't have to. But what you're looking at is, you know we're looking at the area, we're working on the area now and we see this discrepancy. We wouldn't always just try to fix everything but it's, then now because it does look like the road is a boundary, it is open to argument on that point. So, that's why I'm suggesting it. What I wanted to do here was just to pull up-. Where are my parcels? I just wanted to pull up the zoning in the area ALAMEDA: Mr. Director, we have a request for a 5 -minute bathroom break. Let's take a 5 - minute recess. RECESSED: The Chair called for a recess at 1:31 p.m. The meeting was reconvened at 1:36 p.m. ALAMEDA: The Hawaii County Planning Commission now return to order. Continue Mr. Director. YUEN: Well when I pulled up the zoning I got a little surprise cause the whole area is actually zoned Open. I believe the explanation is that the facilities were developed under an exemption when the State DOT Harbors was in charge down there. I'm not sure as to what is-, I'm sorry if I-, and I also may have said that there were warehouses. I'm not sure there are. I think there's a boat storage yard, an open boat storage yard within the area but I'm not sure what else is exactly there. So, at any rate the area is currently zoned Open and the facilities were done some other kind of provision of law. ALAMEDA: Follow-up questions on that? Any further questions fellow Commissioners? Seeing none. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I'd like to move that the Interim General Plan Amendments Hearing be closed effective May 1 of 2006. ALAMEDA: Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? IWASHITA: What's the motion? ALAMEDA: Repeat the motion. WATANABE: The motion is to close the Interim General Plan Amendments Hearing effective May 1, 2006. IWASHITA: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Discussion? Seeing none, Staff? HAYASHI: Commissioner Watanabe? Im WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI: Sony I didn't get who seconded it. Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Aye. HAYASHI: Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI: And Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA: Aye. HAYASHI: Mr. Chair motion passes and the hearing will be closed on May 1, 2006. ALAMEDA: Okay. Thank you very much fellow Commissioners. This discussion ended at 1:45 p.m. Respectfully submitted, U Lyndtte Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary 19 PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 7, 2005 A regularly advertised hearing on the GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS INITIATED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR was called to order at 1:14 p.m. in the County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda ABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea Fred Galdones Bill Graham Andrew Iwashita Jeffrey McCall Rene' Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 8 people from the public in attendance INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. ALAMEDA: Agenda Item No. 4, New Business. Initiator is the Planning Director, and this is the General Plan Interim Amendments. We will be taking testimony on this as well. And this is part of our continuation on our last week's workshop, if you will. And just for the testifiers, I want to give you a heads up that, if we can keep the testimony specific to the proposal that the Director will be sharing with us today and not try to go off on anything else. So we ask that you pay attention to this part of the proceedings at this time; and I'll turn it over to Mr. Director or staff. YUEN: I'll take it over. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you. YUEN: Good afternoon, everyone. This is actually the first public hearing on a set of interim amendments. Most of you were here last week. We did a workshop on these amendments where these amendments were the only item on the agenda; and we went through them one by one. I'm really at the pleasure of the Commission as to whether the Commission wants to start with that kind of a presentation. It did take a couple of hours last time. I think maybe the better thing to do would be to go directly into questions that the Commission has about particular amendments and talk about them in more detail. And unless the Commissioners, we're here, we're ready to do the overall presentation if the Commissioners would like to see that. I wanted just to say a little bit about the process here. The ordinance now has a timeframe for the Planning Commission to consider these amendments. I believe it's 60 days from the, what we would have you do is at the end, certainly at the end of today, is continue the hearing because we want to have at least one hearing on each side of the island. But the ordinance says that you have 60 days to conduct your hearing on the Interim General Plan Amendments; and then you have, after the close of the hearing you have 30 days to make your recommendation to the Council. So that would be a 90 -day time frame to make a recommendation to the Council. Like all General Plan Amendments, this is a recommendation from you to go up to the Council. And I did request earlier that the Commission hold that action on that item regarding roads in Waimea. We've also done a little, a couple of things that the Commission had asked for at the last meeting. We did an overlay of the flood zones on the proposed changes in Hilo. ALAMEDA: Okay. YUEN: And I think that map has been passed out to you. We made a slight change to the North Kona 2 Map that I had discussed at the workshop; and that is to add an Urban Expansion area on the north side of Honokohau Harbor. This was a request of DLNR; and although it's shown Open on the current General Plan, there are some industrial facilities already on the north side of the Harbor there. So there are those two changes. I did want to make a couple of things clear. For the purposes of assisting the Commission, the public, the Council, in understanding where these map amendments are, we have most of these overlaid with a parcel data layer. If these are enacted, the General Plan Maps themselves do not have the parcel, layers and overlay. So those would come off. Also, we do not have the flood zones on the General Plan Maps. So this map that you have with Hilo showing the flood zones, this is informational. If this was enacted in the General Plan, then the flood zone layer would come off and we would map it without the flood zoned. So that is really up to the Commission whether you want to go directly into questions, or whether you want me to start a presentation, and also when you want to take public testimony. ALAMEDA: Thank you, Mr. Director. Commissioner Graham, you have any thoughts on that? GRAHAM: Sure. I did attend the last workshop meeting; and it was very good. So it's valuable. But since I already saw it I just assume not do it again. ALAMEDA: Right. GRAHAM: And since to me much of what's there are really sort of relatively free- standing individual changes here and there, it would seem to me like a format that might work would be for those that are here to give testimony, who will probably give testimony about something specific, maybe they could give their testimony about something specific; and then the Planning Director could just give his rationale for why he did this and that; and then we could have any questions; and then move on, and move through it that way. So that's one alternative. ALAMEDA: Okay. Let's see. Mr. Director, how does that proposal sound to you? YUEN: That's fine with me. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Siracusa and then Commissioner Watanabe. Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Yes. This morning we got another copy of the public facilities fire station volunteer existing map; and last time, on the 3l't at the workshop I had noted that the Ainaloa volunteer fire station wasn't on the map. And so I looked especially at this time to see if it was there now and it still isn't. So, for the sake of accuracy -. ALAMEDA: Okay. You're still checking or -? YUEN: We're still working on the Ainaloa, I'm sorry. ALAMEDA: Okay, thank you, Commissioner Siracusa for bringing it up again. Commissioner Watanabe, you had a comment? WATANABE: I have a procedural question. So what you're suggesting is if we would want, the Commission would want to ask questions of you at this point and then take public testimony, I'm assuming then that this would be the only opportunity to ask questions of staff and yourself, for the most part. YUEN: No, well, there will be the Kona meeting. WATANABE: Well, what I meant was for this meeting. YUEN: For this meeting, I think Commissioner Graham's suggestion was that we let the public testify, and then I could provide any further response to the public testimony, and then the Commissioners would start questioning me. WATANABE: Question then, oh, okay, okay. ALAMEDA: Yeah, so there will be opportunity for us to question even the testifiers as well. Yes, Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: I would just like to add to that that since we have some members who weren't at the workshop that we allow them the same, you know, so they can fill in from any questions that they may have as well to you. ALAMEDA: Sure. Very well, then I'm leaning towards having our testifiers come forward. And, I guess, Mr. Director, you can kind of make yourself comfortable. How about Dr. Billy Bergin? Will Dr. Billy Bergin, please come forward. PUBLIC: He's not here. ALAMEDA: Oh, he's not here right now. Okay. How about Bob Hunter. PUBLIC: He's outside. ALAMEDA: Oh, Dr. Bergin, he's outside. I wonder if the speakers are on outside? NOMURA: Let me turn it on. ALAMEDA: Okay, now the speakers are on outside. Dr. Billy Bergin? BERGIN: Yes. ALAMEDA: Aloha. You want to provide testimony today? BERGIN: If I could. ALAMEDA: Sure. Come forward, have a seat. BERGIN: I left some copies. I think they should have been adequate for everyone. ALAMEDA: I believe we got that. Have a seat. Michael Gomes? Is there a Michael Gomes? No? How about Margaret Wille? Come forward please. And we have room for one more. Seems a little crowded up there, Mr. Ely. There's actually a chair right there. Okay, let's start then with Dr. Billy Bergin. Could I swear all you folks in at this time? Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawaii County Planning Commission? TESTIIERS: I do. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Dr. Bergin, could you please state your name and address just for the record? BERGIN: Yeah, Dr. Billy Bergin, Kamuela, Hawaii, 62-2279-B Kanehoa Drive, Kamuela, Hawaii 96743. ALAMEDA: Dr. Bergin, are you aware of the specific amendments made to the, proposed by the Department to the General Plan? BERGIN: Yes. ALAMEDA: Okay; and you can provide your testimony at this time. BERGIN: Thank you. For the sake of clarity I thought I better go ahead and read it. ALAMEDA: Can you use the mike? 19 BERGIN: If that would be okay? ALAMEDA: Sure. BERGIN: It's addressed to yourself as Chair and Mr. Chris Yuen as Director regarding the Proposed Hawaii County General Plan Amendments. Dear Mr. Alameda and Mr. Yuen: Thank you for this opportunity to speak. I would like to confine my comments to the portion of the proposed General Plan amendments related to the South Kohala District. My wife and I are property owners of an 11 -acre mango orchard in Lalamilo Farm Lots, which is a 500 -acre fee simple agricultural park developed by the State of Hawaii in the early 1960s to provide rich and fertile lands for intense truck farming and other diversified agriculture in a temperate region which is ideally suited to high -demand vegetable, fruit and flower crops. This is an intensive agricultural region — described in various documents as the most extensive truck farming in the County. Many believe Lalamilo is one of the most successful ag parks ever developed by the State. Consequently, over the years, the State has invested more than $50 million in taxpayer dollars in Lalamilo Farmlots for access roads, water resources, crop research and a co-operative cooling plant. This is an investment of public funds that has been more than repaid by private investment by the 35 farm owners, who have poured about a half billion dollars in private funds over the past 45 years into this area. The private investment reflects the fertility and sustainability of this area and why the region provides employment for about 150 people. But — Lalamilo Farmlots is not reproduceable. Why? Primarily because there are no comparable, appropriate lands available that enjoy similar climatic conditions and are not impacted by urban encroachment. More importantly, to develop additional or replacement acreage today would be cost prohibitive. So, my first message is to point out that in the language of the Hawaii County General Plan, which clearly stipulates as County -wide course of action priorities: 1) To protect important agricultural lands from urban encroachment; and encourage buffer zones of compatible uses between important agricultural lands and adjacent uses. 2) Encourage buffer zones of compatible uses between important agricultural lands and adjacent uses. Given these two priorities which are clearly enunciated as community priorities in the General Plan, and the tremendous public and private sector investment in diversified agriculture, in the Lalamilo Farmlots area, I'm here to urge that the Planning Commission accept the Planning Director's recommended course of action to delete from the General Plan the following language only. And that would be Item b) the County's extension of this road, between Mamalahoa Highway and Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Waimea Transfer Station. The road extension or connector referred to above does not belong in the General Plan both because the GP is a general planning document and being this specific ties itself to the hands of County planners in doing what's best for the community. More importantly, this connector road as proposed will force farmers in Lalamilo Farmlots to significantly reduce or abandon farming in this region. Why? Clearly, the new federal guidelines mandated by the Food Safety Act and food security measures, Clean Air Act, are very specific on limiting exposure of food crops to dust and particulates, such as those that are kicked up by roads and auto emissions. Cars and food crops do not mix and the farmers in the Lalamilo region are convinced that neither of the two routes currently being considered for the roadway can be adequately buffered. Because of this, the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee recently voted to urge Mayor Kim and the Hawaii County Department of Public Works to revise the Hawaii County Long Range Transportation Plan to protect the Lalamilo Farm Lots from being forced out of agriculture by the proposed connector road. As you may know, the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee serves in an advisory capacity to County and State agencies. It is a grassroots -initiated organization that meets monthly to discuss the transportation concerns and safety issues in the South Kohala District including Waimea, Waikoloa, Kawaihae and Puako. This same committee is officially recognized by both the State and County; and its meetings are regularly attended to by representatives of related agencies as well as community residents. Consequently, their recommendation to the Mayor and to DPW to revise the County Long Range Transportation Plan represents significant opposition to a connector road that would significantly impact Lalamilo Farmlots. I might add here that my wife and I have been members of the Lalamilo Farmlots Association and are very aware of the traffic congestion and life-threatening safety concerns that Waimea's current roadway system presents. We're not opposed to connector roads in general, but urge the County to look at alternatives that are sufficiently removed from the Lalamilo Farmlots as to not to curtail intensive agriculture in this region. There may be a possible connector route closer to town and there may also be a possible connector route further south. But, for the immediate future, we strongly believe that a Mud Lane to Kawaihae bypass is not just critical but an emergency priority, always with the proviso that the intensive agricultural activities of the Pu`ukapu farmers and homesteaders be protected. But short term solutions are needed and we would like to urge the County to seriously consider using the remaining $9 Y: million in bonding funds currently available to address a series of specific suggestions to expedite the flow of traffic around and through Waimea. Please see the attached suggestions which we have also shared with the South Kohala Traffic Safety Committee. We also intend to share these with the planning consultants, Parsons Brinckerhoff, which are currently preparing a traffic study of Waimea for the County of Hawaii. Thank you for your time. We urge you to remove the above referenced language, for sure, Item b) from the General Plan and to urge the County to work with the agricultural community in all of Waimea to find alternative solutions to traffic and public safety. Be assured that the members of the Lalamilo Farmlots pledge to work collaboratively with the County and the community to find solutions to traffic and life safety, while also protecting some of the State's most productive agricultural lands from urban encroachment. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Thank you. BERGIN: You can see that I did attach several items. I think there are probably about 12 or 15 of them that really are input items that came from different members of the community over the last year where different ideas came from community members, the small changes, like a left -turn pocket here and there. A right -turn lane, an extended right lane, would hugely gain the ability to flow traffic through Waimea. Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Thank you, Dr. Bergin. Questions for our testifier? Commissioner Siracusa? SIRACUSA: Well, it's not exactly a question. I just wanted to comment that so often people come before us and they say do this, you know, we agree with this, or don't do that, and yet they will not come up with a proactive alternative suggestion for us. And you have done quite a few here; and I want to thank you for that because it opens up the possible alternatives that can be considered. Whether they will be implemented or not, it's not for me to say. But at least it puts more ideas on the table. So thank you for that. BERGIN: Thank you for your observation. ALAMEDA: Also, Fellow Commissioners, you know, I'm thinking too as I'm making my notes here for questions that I would want to actually present them to the Director when he gets back up. In my own mind I'm thinking that's the best route to go, rather than to go from the testifier to the Director, back to the testifier again, but I don't know -. Commissioner Graham, what's your thoughts on that, or -? GRAHAM: I had a comment to make to the testifier but I want to understand your procedural thing. Your procedural feeling is like maybe we should let the Director respond and then afterwards we come with our questions, is that what you're thinking? ALAMEDA: No, I just was thinking maybe we should let the testifiers testify -. GRAHAM: Oh, all of them? ALAMEDA: Yeah. We make notes, if not written mental notes, and then when the Director comes back then we can pretty much address all of it at once, rather than go back and forth. GRAHAM: Well, I think Ms. Wille and maybe the other gentleman all want to testify on the same topic. If that's the case, it sounds very reasonable to do what you say. But if somebody is testifying on South Kohala and somebody else wants to testify on Hilo it seems like maybe we should get the Director and the questions in between. ALAMEDA: One at a time. Okay, that's fine. GRAHAM: So, anyway -. WILLE: I'm on the same topic. GRAHAM: So maybe it would be good for her to go forward, too and then we'll do -. ALAMEDA: Okay, okay. All right, very good. Moving forward, would you please state your name and address for the record. WILLE: Yes. Margaret Wille, a resident of Waimea, 63-1316 Lihipali Road, Kamuela. ALAMEDA: All right, you may proceed. WILLE: And I'm here to also speak about the mini bypass/connector road which has two legs; and Dr. Bergin was speaking about the Lalamilo leg. I want to first just convey that there are really two questions. The first one is do we need some kind of connector road to address the traffic crisis in Waimea? And that's why I'm here — like please. And the second is how and exactly where that alignment is is the second question? And I just want to acknowledge all of the input from the Lalamilo farmers, and we've been communicating, just that the community shares the concern to protect that agricultural land. We are a community, we're trying to work together on this and not be against each other. I handed out a little pamphlet and I just want to point a couple -. ALAMEDA: Sure. I wonder if our staff could give you a mike. Is there a mike up there? Thank you, Ms. Kawaha. WILLE: Just that I think it might be quicker just to show it on a picture. And let me just say what I handed out is just, first page; but the map that you got last time are those here, showing the plan where this connector road would be located. And then there's a tax map which is showing the Lalamilo section, a portion of which is right here. This is where the Lalamilo connector road would go right now. These are the Lalamilo Farms, this is Parker Ranch land, and this is the Highway. Okay? So, currently, the alignment is and has been since the 1950s going along the edge of the Lalamilo Farmers land. There's an 80 -foot dedicated strip already provided there with a 20 -foot easement in addition. Following the farmers' presentation to the Safety Committee, and they acknowledged that there's a problem. We're working on, well, is there a way to put what we call an Alignment D perhaps going along on the other side of the ironwoods as I call it, on the Parker Ranch edge of this boundary? So here's the Lalamilo Farm Lands, we want to keep them out of the loop. Back in the 1950s it was, well, we'll put it along that edge and that's good enough. Well, time went on and now they've dug up all the stones and rocks. So, in my mind, speaking from the, just trying to voice the public concern, we need this road; let's hammer out that alignment, not wait two years fighting back and forth. And, basically this would cost very little to do on the farm side. But if there's a will, and the Mayor has supported their concerns, okay, it's going to cost something, but let's do it along here. The key point is that it connect -- to me what makes it real, it's coming down like south of Sandalwood near the transfer station; it will then, here's the Lalamilo Farmlot, here's the Parker Ranch land -- that these connect together, that you have one intersection, then going across here on the Parker Ranch 2020 Subdivision and out by Kamamalu. And here, my understanding from just talking is this would become the main road, and make a smaller Kamamalu so that you don't have heavy traffic going into the Hawaiian Home Lands there. So what I'm saying is, you know, don't delete it, we really need it. In fact, we want it in two years. This is a specific mandate in there, there was a lot of work done to get that specific mandate. And it's just, as the FEDEX man said, we're raising our times, we need to get through Waimea every month now. It's getting worse. I've put in this packet, just sort of showing this has been going on for so long. I yesterday bumped into someone in the copy business office, and his name was Pete L'Orange. And he said we worked on this plan in the 1950s; and he said we worked, this was the number three road priority in the State or territory; and there's always some group that opposes it, and then everything caves. So what I'm asking you is sort of leadership. There are issues. How do we work this? Right now Parker Ranch wants a lot of things. Can we negotiate that, Chris Yuen, kind of thing into that plan and see this road through? The Parker Ranch area, they're fighting having to put in any of the road which originally it was planned to be put in before there was any of this development; and then they got an incremental concurrency accommodation; and now that goes on and on. So I just want to try to ask for your help to try to promote working through these issues and not -. I included in here some of the development phases that are already planned to come in, thousands of new houses right in the immediate area that are going to impact on that. And I also wrote up a little blurb of what sort of just primarily as a public person, to promote this. And it just seems each time this road disappears, it's not even on this transportation roadway map in your plan. It just seems like it just keeps disappearing. Now it's going to disappear from the General Plan. So I ask for your help there. I did want to mention one other, I'm going to switch to the other mike, just on the other provision of the plan implementation and the proposed deletion, and just make a comment. I totally understand that that's a great deal of work trying to be accountable, which is really what that provision is. You know, how are we going to be accountable under this General Plan, where have we made progress? I want to encourage addressing the Planning Department's need for additional manpower, or perhaps utilize the public and send out copies of the courses of action and get their feedback, but not to just remove what is sort of the public accountability provision in the policy. ALAMEDA: All right. WILLE: Thank you. Any questions, specific? Yes, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: I was going to go back to Dr. Bergin's testimony to begin with. But were you also going to speak on the South Kohala issues? BERGIN: Just barely, and then I'll get off on a little tangent here. GRAHAM: All right. So maybe I'll go ahead with my question then. BERGIN: Sure. 0 GRAHAM: I think I understand your concern, Dr. Bergin, about the impact on farmers and all. But given what Ms. Wille has said and with the way I read what's in the General Plan, somehow it feels like your concern is greater than what it would seem to me to be called for by the words I see here. So let me just flesh that out and hear what you think. The words say "to relieve traffic congestion, implement construction of," and then there's an A and a B. And A is the Parker Ranch Road that runs from Kamamalu Street to Mamalahoa Highway, which is not the part you're concerned with. And then B is the County's extension of this road between Mamalahoa Highway and Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Waimea Solid Waste Transfer Station. So it seems like what it's saying is it is the direction of the County and the plan of the County to make that connector road across that section. And obviously Lalamilo Farmlots are in that area where the connector is going to be, but it has not given any specific location or it has not given any specific plans on how it will be built or not be built. So my sense is if the road is really needed, which I think we all agree it really is, that there does need to be a good bypass road. The specific issues will get worked out, not at the General Plan level but before anybody starts digging and bulldozing and things like that. So unless it's clear to you that there's no way it can get worked out, it seems to me that it's good to leave it in there cause it's a real need, and this is a way to address that need. So do you feel real clear that there's just no hope for making this section of the bypass without doing bad damage to the Lalamilo Farmlots? BERGIN: Some information that might help you understand the gravity of the situation is that if I include it today this is probably the 12`h meeting that I've been to with some form of regulatory or government agency. And most repeatedly in those presentations that are given in regard to the pathway of a connector road, Lalamilo to Kawaihae, there's Plan A and Plan B. Plan A would be attempt to utilize the restricted by State covenant an 80 -foot pathway, a paper road going down there. That would be to the immediate east, immediately windward, of all of these farm lots that parallel that boundary. GRAHAM: So this is an alternative way to deal with traffic that's not what's talked about in the plan, is that what you're saying? BERGIN: It is a description, if you let me finish, it's a description of two proposed routes of the connector road. And for the sake of clarity, let's not use the term bypass because that's well out of town and not immediately an attempt, I think a very noble attempt, to try and get traffic through Waimea. So as I was beginning to say Connector Road A would parallel the eastern border, boundary of 7, or 8, or 9 lots. Okay? Connector Road B would utilize the existing Lalamilo Farmlot Road, which is a farm road that carries a lot of very slow tractor traffic. Many of the tractors are pulling large booms that are used to extend the arm of pesticide sprayers or fertilization. There's horse traffic on that road. It would be, I think, a huge setback for the farming community to put it there. The risk exists even with Connector Road A, if you carefully read the Food Safety Act. And their imposition of what they describe as a buffer is a deep buffer; and that, again, would probably cause the reduction of that degree, that depth of farming within that area to comply with Federal law. So the reaction of the farming community has an awful lot to do with the imposition of the Food Safety Act, to be in compliance of that. This is predominantly a leafy vegetable community. Many of those products go directly from the farm after being processed only by washing, and not cooking and heating into the mouths of our community. And that's the nature of the Food Safety Act, is to go ahead and protect those types of foods that don't go through any process that would sterilize it or at least minimally reduce the contamination. So I think the general community of farmers are really trying to 10 prepare to live in compliance. And the proximity of Connector Road A and B which has very clearly been repeatedly handed to them despite their concerns for possible Connector Road C or D that puts it far away from that boundary, we'll go right back to a meeting, it will be Connector Road A and B. So that would be, it's a very well -described connector road, both A and B, one of them right through the middle of Lalamilo Farmlots and the other would be along the eastern boundary, which again being windward is an issue. And I think to what might help you understand the position is that the farming community would have no objection if they could distance that connector road. They're for a connector road. They want to get around town, they want to have emergency flow of appropriate vehicles happen, too. But get it to a degree that separates it from the Lalamilo Farmlot community that would comply with the Food Safety Act. In a simple sentence, that would do. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM: Yes. So, I don't want to paraphrase you but I did ask you a specific question. And what I'm gathering, let me try to paraphrase and you correct me, is that you're not specifically saying that it's impossible to do this without harming the farming community; but what you are saying is the specific plans that have been put forward to do this are all kind of problematic for the farming community. BERGIN: Yeah. I agree with that statement. If the term vicinity could be quantified then that would be clearly a huge step forward. But the way it is, vicinity in your mind and mine might be completely different; and that raises the concern. So rather than watch, we decided to go on record expressing concern for the lack of definition. And yet the only described routes happen to be A and B. GRAHAM: Yeah, I would think maybe in general with ordinances or laws or, I don't know, in general if we were writing conditions on some permits that we were granting or something, you know, we might say something like provided that there is minimal adverse impact to the farming community or something; and we could leave this general statement of what we want in but have that proviso in or something. Does that sound like a workable path? BERGIN: Yeah, if it was quantified to fall within Federal law, I think that could be lived with. And that's the big clinker, is Uncle Sam's definition of what food safety buffer zones are; and that needs to be examined before these definitions come to pass. Another important issue to be clear on this is that when we say that we're not so much concerned with Item A, that would be the Kamamalu to the cooling plant portion that is in Parker Ranch lands that I understand to be protected by ordinance. That's not our kuleana. Our kuleana is where it comes and abuts against the farming community. And that's why we're not taking on both, just the one that does in fact by the ambiguity that the term vicinity causes to, out of responsibility, I wanted to respond to that. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Let me ask Commissioner Watanabe and then Commissioner Siracusa. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Iwashita. ALAMEDA: I mean, sorry, Commissioner Iwashita. Sorry. 11 IWASHITA: Dr. Bergin, did you go to any of the same meetings that Ms. Wille talked about where the Route D was discussed? BERGIN: Yes. IWASHITA: So is Route D, would that be in your experience, meet the Federal guidelines? BERGIN: We should give credit to a fellow named David Gomes who came up with that and he had a list of 8 or 9 different reliefs that Schedule D would create; and I think that's a very logical document. Where the community of Lalamilo Farmlots Association drew concern was that at the very tail end of it where it would begin to approach what we called the Waimea Transfer Station area, it intersects one Lot 27, a very productive intensive lettuce farm. And to that degree, wanting to be pure in our definition of protecting agriculture, it was smarter that we not necessarily take a position. Now, now with that said though, that if that tail end, the last few hundred yards of that leg which does provide relief could be moved in an easterly direction, north and easterly direction, that would certainly be something that I think, provided it falls within the buffer zones allowable by the Food Safety Act, I think that could be a digestible resolution. There is also too a former military road that goes even further east that goes right through Parker Ranch's Pau Opelo, and I think that was C. So many ideas have come forth, but some of them are more viable than others. IWASHITA: Well, thank you for coming and expressing your very important views. And it really sounds to me like we ought to be able to come out with some protective language so that your concerns can be addressed and still maintain, make it clear that this connector road should, is going to be done. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. Do the guidelines for the Food Safety Act get into any details specifying how wide a buffer zone should be, or (...inaudible), or what type of materials should be used in a buffer zone? BERGIN: Yes. SIRACUSA: Could you give us a little information about that, please. BERGIN: I have to go purely by memory so I stand to be correct. Some of them were at a minimum 300 feet, some of them were 300 yards. So depending on the nature of the farming operation with wind density, with wind in particular, particulate matter taken under consideration, that would quantify and define what the buffer zone would be. But they were greater than I had imagined it would be. SIRACUSA: Thank you. And I imagine it would also vary whether it was a dirt road or a paved road, because with a dirt road you would get the additional problem particulates. BERGIN: Correct. 12 ALAMEDA: Okay, Fellow Commissioners, let me ask also Commissioner Graham, now I'm thinking it might be appropriate for the Director to respond or -. Fellow Commissioners, if there are no objections I would like to ask Director Yuen if he could respond to this South Kohala issue before we move to Mr. Hunter's testimony. Is that okay? MCCALL: Okay. ALAMEDA: Okay. Maybe if you can take a seat right there, in the corner there; and you could share the microphone with Mr. Hunter. Thank you. YUEN: Well, as I said at the last meeting, this is an item that I'm simply suggesting that the Commission defer until the Parsons Brinckerhoff study. Now the Parsons Brinckerhoff study actually only deals within the Waimea section, rather than the Lalamilo section. Just one more comment on, and this relates to what Commissioner Graham was saying about how specific is the General Plan in this. The General Plan was not meant, when you have language in a General Plan like this for road or when you have the road on the map, the Facilities Map, when you were talking about a proposed route, it's not meant to be, to lay out an exact alignment or to specify one alignment. It merely says that, the idea being in concept there ought to be a road that goes around Waimea on the Lalamilo side from the Mamalahoa Highway, as it says from the Mamalahoa Highway to the Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the transfer station. It doesn't mandate a particular alignment. My thinking right now is that the lower section is something that will definitely be needed. I noticed the resolution of the committee asking the State to expedite the construction of both the Mudlane to Waimea and the Waimea to Kawaihae Bypass. I believe that the Mudlane to Waimea section is budgeted at something like $60,000,000 and the Waimea to Kawaihae section, last estimate from the State DOT, was in the $90,000,000 range. I'm sometimes chastised for being too pessimistic. But I think that if we get the Mudlane to Waimea portion built in the decade of 2010 to 2020 we would then be fortunate to get the Kawaihae to Waimea portion built in the decade of 2020 to 2030. The reason I say this is that you can project what money is available from the Federal aid to highway fund for the State. For the State there is a set amount. For at least six years we know what the funding is, it's renewed on a six-year basis. The County typically gets 16 percent of that, the County of Hawaii. So we can expect roughly $25,000,000 a year from this Federal aid highway for the island as a whole. If you look historically at the use of that $25,000,000, then with the local funding it would go to about $30,000,000 a year. If you look historically at the use of that funding, only less than half, perhaps 25-30 percent has been used for new road construction. The bulk of that money typically goes for safety improvements like guardrails, realigning bad curves like on the Kohala Mountain Road, fixing bridges, that sort of thing. So you can project out that you're only going to do a very few major projects within the span of any ten years. We have lots of other things that are on books that are going to be worked on, like Queen Kaahumanu widening to the airport for four lanes. We have needs in the Puna area, for example, on this side of the island. So I think that there will be some lower section of this bypass necessary. Now that lower section though does not make any sense to do until you have a road around Waimea, until you have the upper section done first, either the full bypass of the State DOT Bypass from Mudlane to Waimea, or the shorter Parker Ranch Bypass, the shorter Parker Ranch Bypass Road. The reason 13 is that the lower section doesn't do anything. Once you're through the Lindsey Road intersection bottleneck in Waimea, you've made it; and there's no point in going out to Lalamilo and then turning right and coming back down to the Kawaihae Road. So one of those two would have to precede the other. So that's my thinking right now. My recommendation to the Commission is we'll defer this and we'll take this up to in the summer after Parsons Brinckerhoff has given their preliminary findings. ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioners, any questions for the Director? Yes, Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM: So, Chris, my understanding then is if we defer for now it means we don't delete it from the General Plan but we keep it as an active item that we may choose to delete in the summer or some other time. Is that correct? YUEN: That's right. GAHAM: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Any other questions, Fellow Commissioners, for the Director on that particular item? I see Dr. Bergin would like to say something. In terms of protocol, I want to ask Ivan if our testifiers can ask questions or are they just supposed to provide testimony and that's it? TORIGOE: Well, generally speaking, this is public testimony and they can -. I don't know if there's a question that he wants to direct to the Planning Director or what. I mean, he can do that off the record as far as talking to the Planning Director. BERGIN: It was a very simple questions, question. And it would be to do with what would be the finding of Parsons Brinckerhoff that would in fact impact the decision whether delete or keep? ALAMEDA: Okay, that's fair enough. Mr. Director? YUEN: Parsons Brinckerhoff is looking at, these things are linked because they're in one General Plan. But Parsons Brinckerhoff is only looking at the Waimea side. My feeling is that if Parsons, and they are looking at a number of the kinds of things that you're talking about. My understanding, you know, is that this is what they're supposed to do. They'll look at are there relatively small things that you can do at intersections, can you convert what is now say a right -turn exclusive lane to a through lane, that kind of thing. But they'll also look at the basic concept of their being a parallel road that swings around Waimea, whether it's Kamamalu, or Pint Kukui, Puiki, rather, out to either Kaumoloa or toward the race track. You know, they'll look at that and they'll say is that a viable concept, or is that a necessary concept. If they conclude that we need that, then I'm going to definitely drop the part that deals with the Waimea side of the connector. I'm going to leave that in the General Plan. That would be my feeling on that. BERGIN: Thank you. 14 ALAMEDA: Thank you. BERGIN: Thank you for the opportunity. ALAMEDA: Very well. Any other questions for this particular item, South Kohala, to our two testifiers? All right, you may be seated. Mr. Hunter, it sounds like you also have a powerpoint? No? HUNTER: Yes. Just a real quick one. ALAMEDA: Okay. HUNTER: I'm Bob Hunter. I'm from Waimea, 65-1116 Hokuula Road in Waimea. I'm the Chair of the Waimea Community Development Plan Committee of the Waimea Community Association. So I, when I came the last time and talked for myself I expressed I thought it was wise to wait until after Parsons Brinckerhoff had done some of their work. And our committee is working really hard to make sure that everyone's voices are heard and that everyone understands when all these meetings are so that they can participate. So that was what we were doing. When I made my presentation last time Chris Yuen indicated that he was open to the idea that I also presented to the members about if you're going to make an interim change to the General Plan one of the long-term goals of the Waimea community is to change the zoning of the Puu behind Waimea. And so I gave each one of you a copy now of the official letter of the Community Association asking that you help by paving the way with the General Plan change, then we could work on a zoning change for the puu that would preserve its existing uses but prevent building. And we have a quick powerpoint. ALAMEDA: You can sit by it. That will help. Is this a slide -by -slide powerpoint or is it just a presentation, I mean -? HUNTER: It's a slide -by -slide really quick, about five minutes ALAMEDA: Okay, sounds good. HUNTER: The parcel that we're talking about here is shown on the tax map key above Waimea. You can see Kawaihae Road running through the area; and then the Waimea neighborhood is there underneath the green line. Above it is a paper nonsubdivision that the community hopes some day is taken of the TMK maps because it doesn't actually exist. But it has been scaring everyone for 30 years now. When I moved into town I was sure there was going to be a subdivision and I thought, well, I'm a townee, I'll live in the middle of town instead of on the edge. This is what the parcel looks like from about half way up Hokuula, the Puu there, looking across the area that you see is zoned Ag -la. It's a very tempting area to develop possibly and it's one that is within the community's viewshed. And as our Hawaiian community explained to the community association last night, it's vitally important to their cultural practices, and access, and gathering rights. So I got interested in coming today. It's a leased parcel to Parker Ranch. You can see that the zoning for that southern portion of it is Ag - 1 a. The lease will run out in 2011; and we know things take a little time around here so we're planning ahead to be ready for when that happens. And you can see the pink area there is the State land parcel. On the right-hand side to the east of Puukee is the water treatment plant, so 15 that's not within the parcel. But the parcel has, it was the site of the first battle, the decisive battle, in the first war of Maui and Hawaii. That battle gives the place names of many of the Puus and other areas in Waimea. So it's a very important part of our history and on our viewshed. We also looked at State Land Use. You can see the parcel, on the State Land Use district it's in an Agricultural district. That means that's the white big parcel right north of Waimea there, the Urban area on the other side of the black line, south of the green. So that whole area is State Ag. And all we're asking is that the County change the zoning from Ag -la to some Agricultural, some zoning category that would allow its current uses which includes grazing and it not be Ag -1 a any more. That's what it looks like if you overlay the tax map key and the zoning map. It's outside of the Urban boundary. It's a Hokulia in the making. So the General Plan unfortunately extends the Urban boundary out there where it really doesn't need to be; and the community hasn't wanted it to be for 30 years. But that's it. Thank you very much. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Commissioners, you have any questions about the powerpoint or you, any interest to revisit some of those slides? If not, any questions for Mr. Hunter? Oh, Commissioner Graham, sorry, and then Commissioner Siracusa. GRAHAM: So in terms of the specific text that's in front of us now, which is the General Plan, the General Plan LUPAG Map for that area currently is Agriculture, I presume. HUNTER: No. It's not. The Urban boundary goes into that area. GRAHAM: So you're asking us to move the Agricultural boundary further south into that area or -? HUNTER: Right. GRAHAM: Okay. ALAMEDA: Okay, Commissioner Siracusa. SIRACUSA: And also that it not be Ag -I a, but it be something like Ag -20 or Ag -40? HUNTER: We were suggesting something like, since the parcel size is 420 Ag -500. The community just doesn't want to see a house up there even if one person bought it. SIRACUSA: I understand that, you know, whenever I drive through Waimea I always look at the pun and I think how beautiful it is and how great it would be if it would stay like that forever. And so I have a question of the Director then. And it's what would he see as a viable process for making this happen? ALAMEDA: Mr. Director? YUEN: Well, my first step would be to write DLNR and see if they would have an objection to the County initiating a rezoning of it, cause I don't know what their plans are. I don't think that they have any plans for the area but I don't know that specific -. E SIRACUSA: So would you do that? Could you do that, or would you need some kind of a directive from the Commission, or what? YUEN: No, I don't need a directive from the Commission to do that. SIRACUSA: Good. ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: And then Chris, as a follow-up, then if in fact they had no objections to doing that then we still have the General Plan issue that Mr. Hunter spoke of. Is that something that the County would want to address at that time and not now, or -? YUEN: The objective that they want of taking it off the books as a one -acre area can be done through rezoning. Then at least you would have to go through another rezoning to do anything in there, unless the State invokes some kind of pre-emption. This gets to a really complicated area because there are situations where the State, because it is State land the State could possibly pre-empt County zoning, for example, to do an affordable housing project in the area. If that's what they wanted to do, they could, regardless whether it was zoned Ag -500, or Ag -1, or whatever. There are provisions in the State laws where that sort of thing can happen. But leaving that aside, -. GRAHAM: Yeah, I wasn't talking about zoning. I mean I think what I understood him to say is that this is part of General Plan Alternate Urban Expansion or something around Waimea town, so that if the State had no objections then maybe we would change our General Plan so that it's no longer Alternate Urban Expansion, or whatever category other than Agricultural it now lies in. YUEN: I wonder, Alice, could you pull up the -. You know, we had the General Plan on this -? KAWAHA: Yes. YUEN: Could you pull that up for Waimea. And these are situations where the General Plan is not meant to be completely scalable and parcel specific. So you don't want to fool around with just the boundaries of the General Plan involving a few hundred feet, to give you an example, because it's not meant to be so exact. So could you -? HUNTER: Down a little, right -. YUEN: Down Alice, right there. And then do we have, Alice, we have the contours on this, could you put the parcel layer on it? Okay. KAWAHA: USGS Map. HUNTER: That's pretty close. 17 YUEN: The parcel is -. HUNTER: It's that big one there. YUEN: This is the parcel, right? HUNTER: That's the parcel. YUEN: All right, all right. You see, I would not, I mean -. HUNTER: Go for it, Chris -. YUEN: Well, I don't know. I -. GRAHAM: I would think that the operative issue would be is if somebody wanted to go in and make Ag -1 acre parcels there, would you require them to do a General Plan Amendment? YUEN: No. GRAHAM: So then maybe we should change the General Plan so that in fact they would need to do that. YUEN: Well, no, because it's zoned. I say no because of the zoned Ag -L Now let's, you know, for the State to do a housing project in there, there's a series of steps that would have to happen. They would have to do an environmental impact statement, there's a series of things. But say if it was a private piece of property that was zoned Ag -1 and somebody came in to subdivide it, all right, we would let them do the subdivision based on the zoning, regardless of what the General Plan designation was, because they're zoned for that particular use. So I'm not enthusiastic about trying, you know, in the course, let me give you an example. In the course of doing a community development plan, my hope is that the community development plans will take a really hard look at an area like this; and they might say we want to stop the Urban area of Waimea at the existing, at the top of the subdivided lots here. All right? But in doing a General Plan, all you're, what this signifies in the General Plan is that there's an area around the existing area of Waimea shown in yellow, roughly, into which further Low Density Urban Expansion can occur; and the specifics of that are decided at a zoning level. So leaving aside, you know, is it a good thing or a bad thing? All right, to do this, just on a General Plan level if somebody came in right here, all right, just outside the yellow, you would say that could be considered Low Density Urban, because it's not meant to be a line that you precisely scale off like this. You know, when these things were, Waimea is not the best example because we did make some changes in 2005. But there are areas where we made no changes in 2005 from 1989 and in turn not changed since 1971. They were not done, laid out, they were not plotted against a layer of parcels like you're seeing here. All right? The General Plan when it was done in 1971, and redone in 1989, and for the most part in 2005 were, there's a general area of uses, like a general area around Waimea town, that's for the expansion of Waimea town. It was not laid out to say, oh, exactly, you know, 400 feet from this lot line is going to be the town limits and that's it. They were never done with the idea of that being that exact. So that being the case, I would I-V not see a big need to shave this down to this point in the General Plan. I see the point about not liking the Ag -1 zoning. ALAMEDA: Follow-up, Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Well, your comments sound reasonable to me. I just wondered, Mr. Hunter, does that sound like we're on an okay course? Are you sort of satisfied or -? HUNTER: Yes. We would be. The letter specifically focuses on zoning and we're here just because we thought you had to do a General Plan change before you did a zone change. But if Chris says we don't, that's fine. GRAHAM: Okay, good. ALAMEDA: Other questions on this particular item, or for our testifier, or for our Director? Seeing none, thank you very much for your presentation. We appreciate that. We have another testifier. Final testifier for this particular agenda item, Bob Ely, or Eli. ELY: Ely. ALAMEDA: Ely, okay. I believe I already swore you in; and we do have your name and address already. Again? TORIGOE: That's fine. ALAMEDA: Okay. You may proceed with your testimony? ELY: All right. We were here this morning, we, Orchidland Community Association, for another matter. And several of us picked this General Amendments up and looked at it, and said to ourselves -- What? We were not aware of the extent of this change from Rural to Medium Density Urban. We had been informed before that something like this was in the offering; and it was described to us verbally, or in writing, but without a graphic as a change along of Orchidland Drive between 35`h and 36`h. We responded to the Planning Department with a letter saying that we suspect that this is a typographical error, that what you really mean is between 34`' and 35`h because there are existing houses between 35`h and 36`h and there are already some special use permits granted between 34`h and 35`h. I don't believe the Planning Department ever said yes, no, or maybe to our comments. But I would like to emphasize that this does comes as a surprise to us to see in this more detailed map that this change not only still goes between 35`h and 36`h but it also now goes down some of the side roads, 35`h Avenue specifically. Those side roads are something that Orchidland has to maintain. There are existing houses that will now be surrounded by this change from Rural to Medium Density. And my own feeling is that it's sort of unfair to retroactively go and change the zoning on somebody, particularly somebody that has built a house within the last few months. This change will facilitate the process of getting special use permits for commercial activities next to residential houses. Bear in mind that Orchidland was formed in the 1950s. We have no common areas for the development of commercial activities as Ainaloa or Hawaiian Paradise Park do, we have none. We have no covenants and codes and restrictions. We have 19 one lot that we purchased ourselves. And the wording of the rationale is to allow future commercial development for Ainaloa Subdivision and other subdivisions; and yet it's intended to be placed in our subdivision. Those other subdivisions have got community property where it can be done. So that's basically what I've got to say. ALAMEDA: Very good. Well stated. Any questions for Bob? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM: Just so that, I'll try to be clear cause I didn't realize there was an issue here. But the Planning Director is proposing a sort of large Medium Density Urban area in your subdivision which is considerably larger than what you had assumed, might be the case given the general direction the County was taking. So the location is appropriate but the size is much larger than what you feel is appropriate? Is that kind of the gist of it? ELY: That's basically correct, it intrudes further into the subdivision into areas where there are new houses that have already been constructed, and it also goes down side roads, which we did not anticipate. GRAHAM: In other words, you only anticipated it going along Ainaloa Boulevard? ELY: Either, there are two, numbers A-1 and A-2. A-1 goes along Ainaloa Boulevard and it is five lots deep into the subdivision. That was not expected. And it also goes along Orchidland Drive; and that goes three lots into the subdivision. And it also goes past 35`h which we did not expect. GRAHAM: So maybe we should pass the ball to the Planning Director and he can give us a little background as to why it got the extent that it has here in the proposal. ALAMEDA: Mr. Director? YUEN: Well, early on in the formulation of this proposal, we did send a proposed amendment on Orchidland Drive to the Community Association with a map, and we got a letter back from the Community Association December 15, 2005 saying that "We agree with the change in designation to Medium Density Urban; however, we think it should be limited mid- way between 34`h and 35`h and not between 35`h and 36`h. Perhaps this was a typographical in the plan. Please be aware that there are three new residences under construction in the first half block between 35`h and 36`h. It would not be fair to them to change the designation after the fact." In response to that I wrote a letter which was dated February 26`h to the President of the Community Association saying "Thank you for your comments." I'm going to skip some of it. It says, "I've revised the proposed amendments. The proposed Medium Density area stops before these houses." I didn't change it as much as the Community Association requested in their letter, but it was revised so that it stops short of three houses that have been built between 35`h and 36`h. And then it goes on to say, "The map is not meant to be exact however. So it's possible that control types of commercial uses could be considered in the general area of Orchidland Drive in 35`h to 36`h Street through special permits or rezoning." And so we did have this correspondence. I did not do exactly what the Community Association requested in their prior letter, but we did cut it back somewhat. 20 ALAMEDA: Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM: No, I don't have any particular follow-up. Maybe the only thing that I have, Chris, was how about the width, like he's saying like on Ainaloa Boulevard it's, one, two, three, it looks like six lots in; and on the other one it's however many lots it is. Was that ever in dispute or was that available to the Community Association when you wrote that letter? YUEN: I certainly thought that we had sent the maps to them, but I'd have to go back and double check on that. They're making their objection now and, no, we don't want to make too big a thing of who did what, when. You know, they're saying their objection. I understand the objection. We can discuss this further. Understand that this is just meant to expand the potential area for special permits or commercial type rezonings along Orchidland Drive; and that if the General Plan were passed you would still have to look at site specific issues, like the adequacy of the road, if somebody were to come in for a use along the side road. GRAHAM: Would it not also open it up so that, like in our subdivisions with Greg Mooers down along Kawaihae Road or something where we have concurrent State Land Use boundary amendments and rezonings, because now this goes into Urban we don't have to deal with special permits anymore? We could have a concurrent thing for a 14 -acre parcel to rezone it into some Commercial use and do a State Land Use boundary change at the same time, no? YUEN: That would definitely be a potential in these Medium Density Urban areas and may be a better way even to do it than by special permits all the time. You could do a boundary amendment; and then what I said rezoning before, it would have had to be accompanied by a boundary amendment. You could do, the General Plan designation would support concurrent boundary amendment and Urban type rezoning. GRAHAM: All right. YUEN: But the specific infrastructure requirements could be set and should be set at the time of that action or a special permit action as to what kinds of improvements should be made. GRAHAM: And so as far as our testifier, if in fact he and Orchidland people are not too happy with what they see, what they should do at this point is just gather their forces and come speak to you about an alternative that's more suitable to them? And that could presumably come about before it gets to the Council? YUEN: Right. They can, and I think I have a meeting with the Community Association set for the next couple of weeks. But they, I mean, we may end up having a different point of view as to how large this area should be in Orchidland, along Orchidland Drive. GRAHAM: Thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Seeing no further questions, thank you very much, Bob, for your testimony, and Mr. Director. Now that there's no further testimony protocol wise, Ivan, Mr. Torigoe, do we need to take a motion or -? 21 TORIGOE: Let's see, Chris, we're planning to have another hearing in Kona on this? YUEN: Yes. You know, we can take further questions today. We definitely, well, actually, what we would want the Commission to do is definitely have at least one more hearing on this at Kona. If the Commission is ready to stop after that, then we would ask the Commission to close the hearing and then we would schedule it for action. Norman, you know, we should put it on the agenda for the next meeting as well. HAYASHI: It's already scheduled. YUEN: Okay, for May as well, yes. HAYASHI: I don't have it on for May yet. YUEN: But put it on for May. HAYASHI: It may expire, I have to look at the timeframe. I thought we had to make a decision within 60 days from the transmittal of, from the Director to the Planning Commission. YUEN: I thought the close of hearing is 60 days and then they have 30 days to -. HAYASHI: Oh, okay, you're correct. YUEN: They have 60 days from the commencement of the hearing, right? HAYASHI: Yes. YUEN: It says from the first hearing, 60 days to conduct the hearing. HAYASHI: That's correct. Sixty days to conduct the hearing and 30 days after the close of the hearing to make a decision. YUEN: So I would take it that this is the first hearing and then we'll, at the end of today you'll continue the hearing, and then what you'd do, Norman, is to continue to put this on all the agendas. Okay? Because if the Commission is ready, if they feel that they've had enough hearings at the end of, we would not ask you to vote at the end of the next meeting. We would ask you to close the hearing and take action at the next meeting. If you want to continue having hearings on it, you have at least one more and possibly two more that you can have hearings before you must close the hearing; and then you have, once you close the hearing, you have 30 days to vote on your recommendations. ALAMEDA: Okay. Commissioner Graham, any thoughts? GRAHAM: So if it's appropriate I guess I can move that we continue this agenda item? ALAMEDA: Sure. 22 GRAHAM: This agenda item, the General Plan Interim Amendments initiated by the Planning Director, I move that we continue this item until our next meeting, which is in Kona. ALAMEDA: Is there a second? WATANABE: Could I, I thought we were going to have an opportunity to ask question of the staff? ALAMEDA: Sure. WATANABE: I've got only one and it, I guess, that was with regard to the extension of Kealakehe Parkway that is planned. And I was wondering if, you know, when we go to Kona you would have more information for us, available for us, so you could tell us, you know, like, or give us some ideas on where we're at, and how far along in the process, and what kind of timeframes we're looking at since the Palani Road bypass that is proposed in the General Plan is something that is certainly not near-term. YUEN: Before the Kona meeting, I'll look for more current information. I can give you basics on that. The overall master plan for the Villages of Laiopua project which is in the Kealakehe ahupuaa included a mauka-makai road, the Kealakehe Parkway, which is planned to go from Queen Kaahumanu Highway up to roughly Palani junction as the main spine access road for that whole project. The State started construction on it from Queen Kaahumanu going up and stopped where it stops now; and that's enough to do the Villages. Now the Villages themselves had some problems with going ahead because of a ceded lands lawsuit. And eventually most of the area has been turned over to Hawaiian Homes, and now Hawaiian Homes is continuing with the development of Kealakehe ahupuaa. The State did an environmental impact statement for the extension, the mauka extension of the road. So, and that's one of the prerequisites to actually doing it. So at this point the environmental impact statement has been done, it gives the general alignment, not an exact alignment. The project is not currently funded. I believe there is planning money, and I'll double check this part, planning money in what's called the STIP or the State-wide Transportation Improvement Program. And the planning money would just do things, I'm not sure exactly what it would do for this road but typically it does things like archaeology, determining a more exact alignment. The next stage is design money; and design gives you your exact plans, you know, what the grades are, how wide, what the cuts are and gets you to the point where the project can be bid out. And then finally in order to build something you need the construction money for it. I believe this project only has, I believe, it was off the STIP for a while completely, and I believe it has planning money on the STIP, and I`ll double check that. So it's a long range project for funding. But given that it exists under, the State has, besides what you see as a Facilities Plan, the State has a long-range transportation plan that includes a number of roads. The Kealakehe Parkway extension is on the long-range transportation plan. It does make sense as a mauka-makai route; and so we did want to put it on a General Plan Facilities Map as a proposed future road. WATANABE: Yeah, it was more of a follow-up question because of some of the comments that, you know, like Fred Galdones had at the workshop, you know. And I'm wondering how, you know, I know it takes time and everybody is trying to be patient but the 23 problem still exists. So I guess, you know, I'm just trying to see if there's anything to move things along faster. YUEN: Well, you know, what we're doing is, you know, in putting the roads on the Facilities Map, it's important as far as really covering the basis on funding a road, and actually showing County support for the road. Because if somebody went to the, say this was, and the Legislature gets involved in this, you know -. But say it was an issue at the Legislature over specifically appropriating money for this road and then somebody said, well, gee, this road is not even on the County General Plan how come you appropriate money for it, that would be the good objection. I think actually verbally it's on the General Plan but I don't think it's on the General Plan Facilities Map. So it should be on the map. And then funding is another, you know, we only can do so much here. You know, our part is to make sure that the roads that people have in mind, it makes sense, they're on the Facilities Map as proposed roads; and then that's one step that helps to get them funded eventually in the long run. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. ALAMEDA: Thank you. Any further questions of the Director? All right, there's a motion on the table to continue this agenda item to the next hearing, motion made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI: You could do just a voice vote on this. ALAMEDA: Oh, all those in favor say aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. ALAMEDA: All those not in favor say nay? Motion passes. Thank you. The discussion ended at 2:38 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 11�ta-Lc� rn . Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary FM PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII MINUTES MARCH 31, 2006 The Planning Commission met for a workshop on the General Plan Interim Amendments at 9:00 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii, with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda Fred Galdones Bill Graham Rene' Siracusa Hannah Springer Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Andrew Iwashita Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Jeffrey McCall Allen Salavea And approximately 20 people from the public in attendance. Workshop on General Plan Interim Amendments, which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. The Chair introduced the Commissioners and staff to members of the public. Mr. Yuen gave some background information and presented a workshop on the proposed General Plan Interim Amendments (SEE EXHIBIT A�. He noted that the Commission will hold hearings on these amendments at its April 7t Hilo meeting and April 21't Kona meeting. He explained the three types of amendments which were to the Text, the Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps and the Facilities Map. For Commissioner Springer's information, Mr. Yuen said he will research her question if there was a volunteer fire station at Kalaoa Makai, at the bottom of Kaiminani Street. Commissioner Siracusa said the facilities map still shows the old alignment of Red Road down by Pohoiki. Mr. Yuen said although the Department tries to be accurate on how the General Plan Facilities map shows the alignment of roads, the alignments are conceptual and not meant to be scaled out exactly where the road is to go. Regarding Item 6 on Page 3, Course of action (g), the Director recommended the Commission not act on this item and defer any action until the Parsons Brinckerhoff study for circulation in the area is completed. Commissioner Graham said he sees things going into the General Plan as a positive kind of thing that can fall by the wayside as although there is a plan it may never actually be implemented. Mr. Yuen said the reason things are put in the General Plan is the County would be adopting it as a basic concept, such as having a connector road. He said, as an example, if Parker Ranch Trust proposed an amendment to their rezoning ordinances that did not have a connector road and the General Plan showed the connector road, then that change to the current zoning ordinance for Parker Ranch should not be passed since it would be inconsistent with the General Plan. He clarified that it is true that just taking the connector road out of the General Plan amendment would not eliminate the requirement in the rezoning ordinance, as an amendment could be made to ordinance to include the connector road. In response to Commissioner Springer's inquiries, Mr. Yuen said he did discuss with Parker Ranch a road that goes through neighborhoods rather than a bypass type of road but he has not seen any concrete plans. He said the Napoopoo-Mamalahoa intersection will be a major intersection with people going south on the Hokulia bypass will be the through traffic at that junction and people on the old highway going south are going to be stop controlled, noting he was not sure if the signal there is planned in the first round of improvements. In response to Commissioner Graham's inquiry, Mr. Yuen said he currently would not want to cancel out commercial zoning along the bypass through Waimea town at the moment. In response to Commissioner Siracusa's request to avoid ill feelings, Mr. Yuen said the Department will notify property owners of the General Plan Amendment in the area of the Ainaloa Boulevard -Highway 130 intersection. Regarding the new course of action for the Waiakea House Lots area, Mr. Yuen said the amendment is intended to have medium density areas for commercial developments focused on the major streets, Kekuanaoa, Piilani, Manono and Lanikaula, while interior blocks should be zoned primarily for single- and multi -family residential uses. Commissioner Siracusa questioned how one measure progress toward achieving the goals, objectives and policies of the General Plan. Mr. Yuen said there are a lot of goals and policies in General Plan that is difficult to measure progress, but an annual review of rezoning actions and other land use changes, or an annual review of progress on capital improvements could be and has been done, noting he would rather not hire a new staff position just to work on annual reports. In response to Commissioner Springer's suggestions, Mr. Yuen said he thought it was a good idea perhaps a year before the GP review begins to have a report of preparedness that the County is on track and ready to begin the 10 -year review at a 10 -year time. 2 Regarding South Hilo District, B-1, Rural to Low Density Urban, Commissioner Siracusa questioned whether the Department in changing the density of an area considers the green belt areas to absorb some of the flooding waters. Mr. Yuen said this was a concept and the LUPAG maps are meant to represent an overall land use pattern to develop an area. Mr. Yuen said they will comply with Commissioner Springer's request to produce a map which shows the FEMA map floodways overlaid on a slide for this area at the public hearing. Regarding Page 2, B-6, the Big Island Candies area, Commissioner Siracusa expressed her concern of having a General Plan amendment to benefit a private commercial business, referring to spot zoning and showing favoritism. Mr. Yuen said it would be too inflexible and not usable to the community to say the General Plan will not be amended because it happened to be a landowner's idea. Mr. Yuen noted the impetus for changing the General Plan did come from Big Island Candies but the Department felt the request was appropriate, noting there is a also property along Kekuanaoa that's covered by this Amendment that is not owned by Big Island Candies. Mr. Yuen said the better way to deal with this might be to introduce more flexibility into the way the Zoning Code is written as to terms of uses within different zoning districts, adding the Department would not initiate an amendment if they did not feel it should be amended. Commissioner Siracusa said she agreed with Commissioner Iwashita that there should be a community development plan so that it is consistent with the will of the community. Commissioner Springer said she did not think this was a matter of spot zoning since the lands contiguous are already zoned high density urban, but that she concurred with Commissioner Siracusa regarding the community sense of disenfranchisement and wondered if there was any notification protocols similar to the ones discussed earlier that would be triggered by this action. Commissioner Graham spoke in support of the Director's proposal, noting if the Big Island Candies facility was not in existence he would not support the Director. Commissioner Watanabe had no problem with the Director's proposal as this area has been in mixed commercial uses for a long time, and he anticipated it will continue to be so. Mr. Yuen said it was a question of do you make mixed use work and a lot has to do with Mr. Yuen added that if the Department is going to say they want mixed use, then they have to learn how to control mixed use so that it is compatible with people staying in residential areas, noting he would need to work on this more himself. Commissioner Siracusa felt what needed to be done was to relook at what is being allowed in each zoning category to resolve the concerns. Commissioner Springer felt if a community buys into the concept and the vision to the extent they are part of the planning process, it will just be more successful than what appears to be dictated to them. Regarding Page 3, D-1, Commissioner Graham said the proposal sounds reasonable as a concept but questioned whether people in the Malin Ridge Lots would want to subdivide their 3 -acre lot to Rural 1 -acre where it would be difficult to do with Important Ag lands? Mr. Yuen said the text description that talks about rural does not imply support for further rezoning but is meant to recognize what exists there; and he agreed one could say as an overall matter it would be easier to rezone the land if it was designated Rural. Regarding pages 3, E-2, Commissioner Watanabe said he was not opposed to the proposed change but expressed his concern of people building up the level of the ground and then setting the height limitation from that level for the home. Mr. Yuen said specifically on Kohanaiki covered by SMA Permit there are two controls: one, a viewplane analysis done from the highway where the requirement is that the development conform to what they're showing in their viewplane analysis, being able to look from the highway and see the ocean and an agreement with the current developer to moving the development back from the shore, keeping an open space buffer of the golf course between the first row of houses, and coming in at a density much lower than permitted by their zoning. Regarding Page 4, E-5, Mr. Yuen agreed with Commissioner Graham that the Planning Department does want to set aside lands for parks, and open spaces and that he hopes the location of these areas will be determined during the community development plan process. In response to Commissioner Springer's inquiries, Mr. Yuen said there are State and private lands that he thought should be put in residential expansion and committed to open space, but he did not have a great vision for this area apart from the coastal area being kept open. He added that as far as the ahupuaa that the State owns between Palisades and Kailua-Kona being kept as a type of greenbelt, he hopes this determination will come out in the community development plan process or other kinds of planning. Commissioner Watanabe at this time referred to the Hokulia project and noted one of the terms of the settlement was to seek a rural classification for their lands. Mr. Yuen noted the lands are currently mixed between Extensive Ag and Orchards and he would have to look at the possibility of doing a rural amendment to the General Plan now that the plan is to go to the LUC; noting Hokulia is actually covered in the text of the GP as an approved development but it would be better from the standpoint of map consistency if it were designated Rural in the General Plan. RECESSED The Chair called a short recess at 11:07 a.m. RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 11:12 a.m. On the facilities map, Commissioner Siracusa noted the volunteer fire Dept. in Ainaloa Subdivision was left out. In response to Commissioner Springer's inquiry, Mr. Yuen said he will report back what volunteer fire station exists between the Kaupulehu station and the Kailua Fire Station. Mr. Yuen noted that the Roadway Maps are meant to guide capital improvement projects in the future and be the primary map for County expansion of roads. He explained that an arterial road is a main road that carries traffic from one region to another; a collector road is one that takes people from an area to another but is a lower classification than an arterial as far as the level of development of roads. He said the maps are conceptual and not meant to be exact, and the rationale is to try and connect various roadways. For Commissioner Watanabe's information, Mr. Yuen said the map showing a future collector that bypasses much of Palani Road is not a change but it placed in the 1989 General Plan; and other than a conceptual alignment, nothing has been done as far as land acquisition, design, or anything. On the Kailua to Keauhou area map, B-2, Mr. Yuen agreed with Commissioner Springer that this slide does not reflect the A-7 deletion. On the Kailua to Keauhou area map, B-7, Mr. Yuen gave a status report on the lower section of Lako Street that connects to Alii Drive, noting that Public Works did do an environmental assessment but no design work has been done, and he was not sure if funding has been approved. Regarding the South Kohala District Map F, Mr. Yuen informed Mr. Graham that different segments of the Saddle Road has been funded and the work being done is closer to Hilo. In response to Commissioner Springer's inquiry, Mr. Yuen said that he did not think it was critical to include a cell tower map in the facilities map section, noting the locations do change a fair amount over time. In response to the inquiry of Commissioner Galdones on how it can be determined which are State or County Roads to seek funding from the appropriate agency to improve a certain roadway to address safety and congestion concerns, Mr. Yuen said the Planning Department has information on which roads are County and which are State, and generally major arterial roads are State and local roads are County, noting there are markers on State highways. Mr. Yuen referred to an article he wrote in the Hawaii Island Journal and said that traditionally a major road construction is funded 80 percent by the Federal aid system and the local match is only 20 percent, but the difficulty is available with each island competing with each other. He added that projects such as the Waimea by-pass or Queen K going to four lanes, etc. would wipe out the funding that comes to this island for years, noting much of it traditionally goes to things for safety improvements, like curve straightening, replacing bridges. Mr. Yuen said if the County is going to get serious about funding, Hawaii County is going to have to come up with its own funding sources, whether from property taxes, or increased fuel taxes, or some other source as relying just on Federal aid will account for maybe four major projects in a 15 - year timeframe. For Commissioner Graham's information, Mr. Yuen explained there is a Statewide transportation improvement (STIP) program, involving the State and County agencies and various community groups, that sets funding priorities over the next 3-4 years, but there are chaotic elements to how things actually get built. Commissioner Galdones expressed his frustration of having all these plans to take care of a problem and yet it can sit for years because there are no funds. Mr. Yuen agreed funding as being an issue, but noted some projects such as Phase I of Alii Parkway and Kamanu Street connecting to Hinalani and Kealakehe Parkway are moving forward. Margaret Wille resident of Waimea thanked the Director for responding to the community's concerns about the Parker Ranch's proposed deletion to take out the connector road, Waimea mini -bypass proposal, and referring to a map she submitted into the record (SEE EXHIBIT B). She promoted the County's accountability to the public and referred to two studies for the Lalamilo Farm and Kawaihae Road areas. Bob Hunter encouraged the County to see the wisdom in not changing the General Plan on the connector roads through the town of Waimea; and he noted the strong consensus in the community to change the General Plan and zoning maps so that the pun behind Waimea is not zoned Ag -la. Mr. Yuen said either the State or County could initiate rezoning for the puu area, and there is recognition of the puu in the General Plan; and he requested deferral for the Waimea town portion until after Parson Brinckerhhoff's study. Marrii Herkes spoke of the need and urged passage of the impact fee ordinance. She noted that Makala Boulevard should be included on the maps for the Kona area and money for the Saddle Road improvements will be used on the Hilo side. David Tamas representing Jacoby Development commented on E-4, the State plans to expand the harbor and have some associated commercial and golf development south and east of the harbor and suggested the development should include a coastal open space buffer. He said that the State DHH Lands, which has approximately 200 acres in that area, sought an RFP for a private developer partner (Jacoby Development in February 2004) to develop their commercial property; and that the State DLNR, which has approximately 300 acres in that area, sought an RFP for a private developer to build public infrastructure of a new marina, harbor basin, as well as the connector road which is the extension of Kealakehe Parkway to Kuakini Highway, noting the RFPs were based on the 1989 LUPAG Map. He said the State agencies and developers are moving forward with the mixed use development concept that includes resort components, hotel and time share, as well as variety of other components of a mixed use plan. Mr. Tamas referred to proposed interim GP amendments for the land that is to the north of the existing harbor basin that already is being used for harbor purposes and currently zoned Open. He then said there is another DLNR parcel of land that is approximately 18 acres between the existing harbor and the Queen Kaahumanu Highway north of Kealakehe Parkway that is part of the development agreement from DLNR to Jacoby for commercial development and Jacoby plans in the future to come before the Planning Commission to request a proposed amendment to what was included in the 1989 General Plan Amendment of a resort component to that area. Christopher Robb, representing Lalamilo Farmers Association, opposed the proposed connector road between Mamalahoa and Kawaihae where it would enter Kawaihae Road by the transfer station because of the limited sight distance, as well as the fact that the traffic will end up right in front of the Elementary School. He said Routes A, B, C and/or 0 D would affect the commercial viability of farming within that region which has the best agricultural land in the State of Hawaii for temperate vegetable crops. He said the solution to the problem for the Waimea area is to expedite the State project of the Mudlane to Kawaihae bypass. In response to Mr. Yuen's inquiry, Mr. Robb clarified that their concerns about the construction of roads impacting the farms were that the existing Lalamilo Farm Road is substandard and has never really been maintained, it is one way in and one way out, farmers drive from field to field so there is a lot of mud on the road, and farmers transport their equipment so they drive extremely slow. He added that although they are exempt from dust and DOH regulations, with the prevailing winds in Waimea of 15 to 35 miles per hour, there will be spray drift from the surrounding operations. He said they are hoping to get a 100 -yard buffer around the perimeter of Lalamilo Farm Lots just to perpetuate the integrity of the area as a viable commercial agricultural area. Ken Melrose, representing three Greenwell families south of the Napoopoo area who have been ranching the lands since the 1850s, spoke regarding the map suggestions for E-6, 7 and 8. He asked that the Ag designation be moved up to the 1,000 -foot elevation consistently along their corridor as the rainfall below the 1,000 foot level does not support an active ag use without irrigation, and there is no irrigation source short of drilling wells. Mr. Yuen said he will consider the suggestion but will not make any promises. ADMINISTRATIVE The Commission took up the following at this time: MATTERS Mr. Torigoe had nothing to report at this point. Mr. Hayashi announced that the next meeting is scheduled for next Friday and one of the items to be discussed would be the General Plan public hearing. ADJOURNMENT The meeting adjourned at 12:30 p.m. Respectfully submitted, �t, a -..r,.-- i�� • ��n. c ccti.�. Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary ATT 2 lameda, Chairman Planning Commission GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN DOCUMENT (February 24, 2006) PUBLIC FACILITIES — Protective Services Page 10-11, 10.3.1 Introduction And Analysis: "Fire and Emergency Medical Services There are presently [14] 20 regular fire stations, [18] 22 volunteer fire stations and [2] 1 federal fire [stations] station located throughout the island. The County is uroposina a fire station in the Kalaoa-Mauka area. The [Kilauea Military Camp (KMC) and] Pohakuloa fire [stations are] station is a federally operated [facilities] facility. [KMC provides emergency medical services under an agreement with the County.] The regular fire stations [and three of the volunteer stations (Laupahoehoe, Pahala, Naalehu)] provide 24-hour fire fighting and emergency medical services. The Waiakea and Kailua-Kona stations provide rescue services, the Kaumana [and South Kohala stations provide] station provides hazardous [waste] materials response and the South Kohala station provides air medical services." Rationale: Amendments are updated information from Fire Chief Darryl Oliveira of the Fire Department. Accordingly, the maps for Public Facilities — Fire Station Facilities have been amended. 2. Page 10-14,10.3.2 Policies: "(i) Maintain funding of [two] an appropriate number and type of emergency [medical] helicopters, including appropriate aero medical capabilities." Rationale: Amendment is a recommendation from the Fire Chief Darryl - Oliveira of the Fire Department. PUBLIC FACILITIES — Health And Sanitation 3. Page 10-22,10.5.1 Introduction And Analysis, Hospitals and Related Facilities: "The County's Fire Department also provides ambulance service from the Captain Cook, Central, Honokaa, Kailua-Kona, Keaau, [and] Waimea, Kawailani, Pahoa, Fire Stations. The County's ambulances are first response units for EXHIBIT A these service areas while the ambulances at the Kohala and Ka`u hospitals are the first response units for their respective area." Rationale: Amendments are updated information from the Fire Chief Darryl Oliveira of the Fire Department. TRANSPORTATION — Roadways 4. Page 13-7, PUNA, 13.2.5.1.2 Courses of Action. Add a new course of action as follows: (c) Encourage the State to widen Hi way 130 to four lanes with a median and channelized intersections. Rationale: Rapid growth in the areas served by this highway, and the number of available lots will make these improvements necessary. Page 13-9, SOUTH 1-HLO,13.2.5.2.2 Courses of Action. A. Replace course of action (c) as follows: (c) [A realignment of Highway 200 (Saddle Road) from the Forest Reserve boundary on the south side of Kaumana Drive and along the north side of Puainako Street, intersecting the present Puainako alignment at Kinoole Street and continuing to the intersection of Kanoelehua Avenue should be constructed. Limited access control is recommended with intersections at the major cross arterials serving the various areas of the city.] Improve Puainako Street from Kanoelehua Avenue to Komohana Street. Rationale: This course of action was written before the construction of the Puainako Street extension and is obsolete as written. B. Delete courses of action (i) and 0) and re -alphabetize subsequent courses of action as follows: [(i) Plan for the eventual closure of the Bayfront Highway and the relocation of the existing Highway 19-Pauahi Street intersection to an area in the vicinity of Ponahawai Street, in coordination with the State.] Rationale: This course of action is premature. This decision should follow thorough study. [j Ainako Street should extend across Kaumana Drive to meet the Mohouli extension to provide one of the major mauka cross -city connections.] Rationale: Construction of roadway is completed. [k]fh Improve Akolea Road between Piihonua and Kaumana Drive and construct its extension to the upper reaches of Ainaola Drive to provide a cross -city connection between Upper Wailuku and Waiakea-Uka. [I]M Improve Waianuenue Avenue and Kaumana Drive along their entire alignments, including the acquisition of additional rights-of-way as needed. 6. Page 13-12, SOUTH KOHALA, 13.2.5.6.2 Courses of Action. Delete course of action (g), amend course of action (i) and realphabetize courses of action accordingly as follows: [(g) To relieve traffic congestion through Waimea town, implement construction of a) Parker Ranch's connector road from Kamamalu Street to Mamalahoa Highway; and b) the County's extension of this road, between Mamalahoa Highway and Kawaihae Road in the vicinity of the Waimea solid waste transfer station.] Rationale: Do not lock in this course of action as the solution. There may be other possibilities. Currently, this road is a condition of Ordinance No. 02 25 (Parker 2020), so if the County wants to keep this requirement in place, the rezoning condition will assure it. If the County wants to change the requirement the.rezoning ordinance will still have to be amended. [h]W Construct, at a minimum, one other paved two-lane access road out of the Ke Kumu Housing area onto Paniolo Drive. [i]f Extend Paniolo Drive in Waikoloa north to intersect with the Kawaihae Road and the proposed Waimea-Kawaihae Roadand/or build a road connecting the northern end of Paniolo Drive to the Oueen Kaahumanu Highway to provide an alternate access to Waikoloa Village. Rationale: Waikoloa Village is zoned to potentially become a community of approximately 20,000 people. It should not be a cul-de- sac with only one access point. U]Q Provide traffic signals at the Waikoloa Road-Paniolo Drive intersection. 7. Pages 13-13 and 13-14, NORTH KONA,13.2.5.7.2 Courses of Action. A. Amend course of action (c) as follows: (c) Widen Palani Road between the proposed Keanalehu [(Waena)] Drive and the Queen Kaahumanu Highway or construct the proposed Palani Bypass Highway. Rationale: Due to proposed re -alignment of the roadways, Waena Drive will not connect to Keanalehu Drive. B. Delete and reword course of action (e) into separate new courses of action, and add new courses of action as follows: U [Construct the following north -south collector roadways from Palani Drive and extending north to the proposed University Drive: 1) Ane Keohokalole Highway (Mid-level Road); 2) Keanalehu (Waena Drive); and 3) Kealakaa Street.] Construct Keohokalole Highway (Mid-level Road) from Palani Road to the proposed University Drive. Construct a collector road from Keohokalole Highway extending north to Mamalahoa Highway. f� Extend Kealakaa Street to Holoholo Street. Connect Keanalehu Drive to Manawalea Street to create a connection between Kealakaa Street and Kealakehe Parkway. Connect Kamanu Street ("Main Street") between Kealakehe Parkway and Costco, then extend north to proposed University Drive. Construct Village Bypass from Alii Drive to Kuakini Highway, and from Kuakini Highway to Hualalai Road to meet with Nani Kailua Drive. LL Realign the intersection of Kealakaa Street and Palani Road. W Connect Kanalani Street to Keanalehu Drive. Connect Hienaloli Road from Palani Road to Hualalai Road. (m) Connect Puapuaanui Street from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Hualalai Road. EI (n) Encourage the State to widen the Oueen Kaahumanu Highway from Henry Street to Kamehameha III Road. Rationale: These new courses of action reflect more recent planning for the area. C. Delete existing course of action (g), amend new course of action (r), and re -alphabetize the courses of action accordingly, as follows: [f](o) Construct the proposed University Drive between the Mamalahoa and Queen Kaahumanu Highways. [(g) Widen Hina Lani Drive to four lanes between the Queen Kaahumanu Highway to the proposed Ane Keohokalole Highway.] Rationale: This course of action is not a priority. It will not be necessary if Kealakehe Parkway is extended to Mamalahoa Highway. Mf i� Construct the proposed Shore Drive from the Old Kona Airport Park to the Kealakehe Drive intersection. [i]JM Construct the Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Alii Highway) from Queen Kaahumanu Highway to Keauhou. [(j)]U [Construct a scenic road from Keauhou above the Kealakekua cliffs to Napoopoo.] Construct the Mamalahoa Bypass Highway from Keauhou to Captain Cook. Rationale. The highway should not go as far as the Kealakekua Bay cliffs area. The construction should follow the recently established alignment, as covered in 13.2.5.8.2. [(k)]JsJ Provide vertical connectors from Alii Drive to Kuakini Highway. [(1)]M Improve that portion of the Mamalahoa Highway extending from the North Kona to the Ka`u District[s]. [(m)]Lul Support the installation of suitable bikeways and/or jogging paths. ROW Develop a roadway circulation plan for the area between Palani Road and Kamehameha III Road, in cooperation with the State Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration, and the affected communities. [(o)](w) Extend Lako Street to connect to Alii Drive. [(p)](x) Work with the State and the adjacent landowners in establishing the old railroad right-of-way as a pedestrian and bicycle right-of-way. 8. Pages 13-15, SOUTH KONA, 13.2.5.8.2 Courses of Action. A. Delete course of action (a): [(a) Construct a scenic road from Keauhou above the Kealakekua cliffs to Napoopoo.] Rationale: This course of action is covered by 13.2.5.8.2(c). Current wording suggests these are two separate roads. B. Replace (a) with new course of action as follows: (a) Extend Haleki`i Street to connect to the proposed Mamalahoa Bypass Highway, Rationale: This course of action reflects roadway planning for the area as well as to provide mauka-makai road connection to Hokuli `a project. C. Amend course of action (c) as follows: (c) Construct the Mamalahoa Bypass Highway between Keauhou and Captain Cook as a Scenic Corridor, with limited access and without commercial development. Rationale: Commercial development along the Bypass Highway should be prohibited so that the existing commercial areas along the Mamalahoa Highway, and at Keauhou remain strong. Otherwise, commercial development will try to migrate to the new highway, _ compromising its usefulness as a through route, and detracting from its scenic qualities. LAND USE 9. Page 14-12, Table 14-5. Urban, Rural, Industrial & Resort Areas by District. For the Puna District, add "Ainaloa" to the list of Urban and Rural Center. Rationale: To allow future commercial development to service the residents of the Ainaloa Subdivision and other nearby subdivisions. 10. Page 14-28, SOUTH HILO,14.3.5.2.2 Courses of Action. Add new course of action (f) as follows: (f) Within the Waiakea Houselots "medium density" area, commercial development shall be focused on the major streets --- Kekuanaoa, Piilani, Manono, and Lanikaula, while the interior blocks should be zoned primarily for single- and multi -family residential use PLAN IMPLEMENTATION 11. Page 15-4,15.3 ANNUAL REPORT [The Planning Department shall prepare an annual report to monitor progress towards achieving the General Plan goals, objectives, and policies. To the extent possible, the annual report should develop measurable indicators related to the policies. The Planning Department shall submit the annual report to the Mayor for review. The Mayor shall submit the annual report to the Council together with the capital and operational budgets in accordance with the budget submittal timetable set forth in the Charter. The annual report and CIP shall be the means to reconcile and prioritize competing community needs from a County -wide perspective. The Planning Department may organize an interagency committee to provide input for inclusion in the annual report.] Rationale: The compilation of the monitoring progress for each goal, objective and policy as listed in the General Plan and the preparation of the annual report would be a huge task and require many man hours by the department staff. This is a workload problem far the department. GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE (LUPAG) MAP (February 24, 2006) PUNA DISTRICT A-1 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Along the north (Kea`au) side of Ainaloa Boulevard within Orchid Land Estates near the intersection of Ainaloa Boulevard and Kea`au-Pahoa Road, leaving a landscaping buffer along the Kea`au-Pahoa Road Rationale: To allow future commercial development to service the residents of the Ainaloa Subdivision and other nearby subdivisions. A-2 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Along both sides of Orchidland Drive within Orchid Land Estates Rationale: Expand the existing Medium Density Urban area from the location of the existing Wiki Wiki Mart to the area along 35`h Avenue. This area would allow future commercial development to service the residents of the Orchid Land Estates and other nearby subdivisions. SOUTH HILO DISTRICT B-1 Rural to Low Density Urban Location: Area mauka of Sunrise Estates between Kaumana Drive and Waiakea Uka Rationale: Current rural designation may imply that this area should be in extremely low density large lot development. This area is suitable for the future expansion of the residential area of Hilo with lot sizes to be determined at time of rezoning. B-2 Rural to Medium Density Urban Location: Makai of Mohouli Street Extension Rationale: The area below Mohouli Street should be medium density urban, consistent with current zoning. The 2005 LUPAG map currently has a small triangular area as Rural. B-3 Low Density Urban to Important Agricultural Lands Location: Area mauka of Wainaku Avenue and between Wailuku River and Kaiwiki Road Rationale: The area currently shown as Low Density Urban is much larger than realistic for the future urban growth of Hilo in this area. Access into much of the area is difficult because of streams and existing road cuts. Most of the area is classified as "Prime" agricultural land in the ALISH system. B-4 Industrial to Important Agricultural Lands Location: Area surrounding Pepeekeo Mill Site Rationale: The new proposed industrial area would be the same as the 1989 LUPAG map. The expanded area in the 2005 LUPAG map was based on a proposal that is no longer being pursued, and the area currently zoned for industrial use is adequate. The area proposed far "Important Agricultural Lands" is mostly classified as "Prime" agricultural land in the ALISH system. B-5 Industrial to Medium Density Urban Location: Waiakea Houselots area between Kekuanaoa and Lanikaula Streets and Kanoelehua Avenue and Laukapu Street Rationale: There is a housing shortage in the Hilo area, and ample land designated for Industrial. Further housing development would be more compatible with this area, which consists entirely of single-family homes. B-6 Medium Density Urban to High Density Urban Location: Waiakea Houselots area immediately around the High Density Urban at Big Island Candies _ Rationale: To allow a greater range of uses consistent with the immediately adjacent High Density Urban area. HAMAKUA DISTRICT C-1 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Paauhau Camp Rationale: The former Paauhau camp area is similar to many of the areas classified Rural in the 2005 LUPAG map because it consists of small non -conforming lots, with a mostly residential character, within a larger mostly agricultural area. Because it has already been subdivided into small residential lots, it is not likely to be used primarily for agriculture in the future. NORTH KOHALA DISTRICT D-1 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Maliu Ridge Subdivision Rationale: The proposed map change would recognize the existing Maliu Ridge subdivision, which consists mostly of lots of two acres. In the 2005 LUPAG map, most such existing subdivisions were classified as Rural. This amendment recognizes existing zoning and does not imply support for future rezoning. NORTH KONA DISTRICT E-1 Urban Expansion to Conservation Location: West of Makalei Estates Subdivision Rationale: To recognize and protect an area of native dryland forest, while retaining a potential corridor for a future road connection mauka to the Mamalahoa Highway. E-2 Resort, Medium Density Urban, Low Density Urban and Open to Open, Low Density Urban and Urban Expansion Location: Kohanaiki Rationale: Increase the Open designation to protect and preserve cultural and natural resources, provide coastal open space buffer for public recreational uses and open space. This amendment is meant to allow the development as currently approved under the 2003 Special Management Area (SMA) Use Permit. The 1989 LUPAG map would allow major development closer to the shoreline than the 2003 SMA Use Permit. E-3 Urban Expansion to Conservation Location: East of Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision and south of Hina Lani Street Rationale: To recognize and protect an area of native dryland forest of about 150 acres. The mapped area is not precise and the "Conservation" designation is intended to allow a future corridor for the "Mid -Level Road", which is not yet designed but will have to go through this general area. E-4 Open to Urban Expansion Location: Area south of Honokohau Harbor Rationale: The State plans to expand the harbor and have some associated commercial and golf development south and east of the harbor. The development should include a coastal open space buffer, but the exact dimensions can be set at the time of zoning. E-5 Open to Urban Expansion Location: Southeast of Kealakehe Parkway between Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway and Kealakehe High School complex Rationale: The area is State owned land which the State granted an Executive Order to the County for the planned Kealakehe golf course. The area was designated Open in the 2005 LUPAG for the golf course; however, the golf course may not be feasible, and the proposed Urban Expansion designation would allow more options for the future use of the property. E-6 Extensive Agricultural and Orchards to Important Agricultural Lands Location: Area between the 1000' elevation and Mamalahoa Highway, from Keahou to Hokukano Rationale: In this area of Kona, the lower limit of the "Important Agricultural Lands" should be the lower limit of the "Coffee Belt. " In a prior council resolution, this was identified as the 700' elevation. However, after receiving testimony from kamaaina landowners at the workshop, the Planning Director believes than the 1000' elevation is a more accurate level for the dividing line. E-7 Orchards and Important Agricultural Lands to Extensive Agricultural Location: Area makai of the 1000' elevation between Keauhou and Hokuli`a project Rationale: See rationale for E-6. E-8 Important Agricultural Lands to Extensive Agricultural Location: Area makai of the 1000' elevation, north and adjacent to the Hokuli`a project M Rationale: See rationale for E-6. SOUTH KONA DISTRICT F -i Extensive Agricultural and Orchards to Conservation Location: Keopuka/Kealakekua Bay Areas Rationale: To protect the quality of the nearby ocean waters and Kealakekua Bay, to retain the present open space along the shoreline, to protect and preserve cultural and archaeological sites, burials, important natural features such as lava tubes and lava feeding channels, and scenic vistas from Napo `opo `o. F-2 Important Agricultural Lands to Rural Location: Mauka of Kealakekua Bay Rationale: The area is within the State Land Use Urban District, County zoning is Residential and Agricultural -2 acre, and there is a pending subdivision for two acre lot sizes. Therefore, this area would be more appropriate within the Rural designation. This amendment recognizes existing zoning and does not imply support for further rezoning. KA`U DISTRICT G-1 Extensive Agricultural to Conservation Location: Kahuku Ranch mauka of Hawaii Belt Road and adjacent to Hawaiian Ocean View Estates Rationale: This area is now part of the Hawaii Volcanoes National Park and will be managed as a natural area. KAILUA AAU KEAUHO T.VI PAHO r -f KA.POHO KEALAKEKUA NO i Mow" KALAPANA )LEAN VIEW NAALEHU 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Miles Island Map Date* February 24, 2006 N PROPOSED AMENDMENTS TO THE LAND USE PATTERN ALLOCATION GUIDE MAP WE COUNTY OF HAWAII S 2005 GENERAL PLAN LEGEND 11� Conservation (� Extensive Agriculture High Density Urban HAWI Important Ag. Lands Industrial Low Density Urban Medium Density Urban l Open Area MAHUKON Orchards Proposed Conservation HONOKAA Proposed Extensive Ag Proposed High Density PAAUILO Proposed Important Ag Lands Proposed Low Density Urban � Proposed Medium Density Urban KAWAIHAE WAIMEA • -► LAUPAHOEHOEx'.;� Proposed Open Area Proposed Rural f WAIK LOA Proposed Urban Expansion Resort Node Resort Rural Urban Expansion University Use PEPEEKEO u i HILO KAILUA AAU KEAUHO T.VI PAHO r -f KA.POHO KEALAKEKUA NO i Mow" KALAPANA )LEAN VIEW NAALEHU 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Miles Island Map N Date: February 24, 2006 W '' E Ainaloa Blvd. - Puna S LEGEND Extensive Agriculture Rural Proposed Medium Density Urban ORCHID ESTATE Rural to Medium Density Urban AINALOA SUBD. HAWAIIAN PARADISE PARK Mw 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Puna -7 N W E S �J Date: February 24, 2006 Orchidland Dr. - Puna A-2 Rural to Medium Density Urban ter ORCHID LAND ESTATES s�h� a@ LEGEND Medium Density Urban Rural Proposed Medium Density Urban HAWAIIAN It PARADISE PARK ,A a� o� �o d0, zo Q� 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Puna - 2 W S E Wainaku Area Low Density Urban to Imnnrfnnf An I •%"Ar, Wai/Uku 0 Date: February 24, 2006 LEGEND Conservation High Density Urban Important Ag. Lands Low Density Urban Medium Density Urban Open Area Proposed Important Ag Lands (river) Resort Node ® Urban Expansion 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 Miles S. Hilo - 2 Pepeekeo Area Industrial to Important Ag. Lands PEPEEKEO 0 Date : February 24, 2006 LEGEND Important Ag. Lands Industrial Low Density Urban Medium Density Urban Open Area Proposed Important Ag Lands 0 0.2mor5 0.5 1 1.5 2Miles Pepeekeo Mill Site S Hilo - 3 N W+ r E S 0 0 Date : February 24, 2006 Waiakea Houselots Industrial to Medium Density Urban FB -5 Medium Density Urban to High Density Urban CB -6 U) Q 0 M cu M Y 2 :.,kuanaoa St. cn 0 0 co Lanikaula St. LEGEND = Conservation OW High Density Urban Industrial Medium Density Urban Open Area Proposed High Density Urban Proposed Medium Density Urban 0.25 0.125 0 0.25 0.5 Miles S. Hilo - 4 N W r E S Paauhau Area Important Ag. Lands to Rural Date : February 24, 2006 LEGEND Important Ag. Lands Industrial Open Area Proposed Rural PAAUHAU CAMP 0 0.125 0.25 0.5 0.75 1 Miles Hamakua -1 w Maliu Ridge Date : February 24, 2006 LEGEND Important Ag. Lands Low Density Urban Proposed Rural Important Ag. Lands to Rural a 0 ¢moi i 0 0.5 1 2 Miles N. Kohala - 1 �� a N W E S • 46 Date: February 24, 2006 Keauhou - Hokulia Area Extensive Ag. and Orchards to Important Ag. Lands Orchards Important to Extensiv Important,A to Exte n s i v LEGEND 0 Extensive Agriculture Important Ag. Lands Low Density Urban Medium Density Urban Open Area Orchards Proposed Extensive Ag Proposed Important Ag Lands ® Urban Expansion 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles "---\ �q , HONALO �o a- Y N. Kona - 3 Date - February 24, 2006 N Hokulia / Keopuka / Kealakekua Areas LEGEND W E 0 Extensive Agriculture Important Ag. Lands Low Density Urban _ Medium Density Urban S Open Area Orchards Proposed Conservation Proposed Extensive Ag Proposed Important Ag Lands Proposed Rural Resort Rural Y: <7 F.y a ate•` HOKULIA Extensive Ag. and Orchards to Conservation P r\cdidr%crXUd Bav Important Ag. Lands to Rural 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles S. Kona - 1 1 04 k GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS PLANNING DIRECTOR'S PROPOSED CHANGES TO GENERAL PLAN FACILITIES MAP (February 24, 2006) PUBLIC FACILITIES -FIRE STATION FACILITIES MAP, Figure 31 The amendments to the map reflect updated facilities provided by the Fire Department. An existing fire station at Hawaiian Ocean View Subdivision, proposed fire station at Kalaoa-Mauka, and a Federal fire station at Pohakuloa. PUBLIC UTILITIES -ELECTRICITY MAP, Figure 38 The amendments to the map reflect the type of facility, distinguish the facilities between Hawaii Electric Light Company (HELCO) owned versus Independent Power Producer, and updated facilities from HELCO. TRANSPORTATION — ROADWAYS Roads Map A - Keahole To Kailua Area A-1 Show "Main Street" (Kamanu Street extension) as a future collector road from proposed University Drive to Kealakehe Parkway. A-2 Extend Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) from Palani Road to proposed University Drive. A-3 Show proposed collector road from proposed University Drive extending south to Keohokalole Highway and north to Mamalahoa Highway. A-4 Connect Kanalani Street within the Kaloko Light Industrial Subdivision to future Keanalehu Drive extension. A-5 Revise road alignment (mauka portion) of proposed Kealakehe Parkway Extension to Mamalahoa Highway per favored alignment in the Environmental Impact Statement. A-6 Connect Keanalehu Drive to Manawalea Street. A-7 Delete proposed road segment between Palani Road and Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway extension. Roads Man B — Kailua To Keauhou Area B-1 Connect Hienaloli Road from Palani Road to Hualalai Road. B-2 Extend Nam Kailua Drive from Hualalai Road to Alii Drive. B-3 Extend Proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Ali`i Highway) from Kuakini Highway to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. B-4 Connect Alii Drive to Proposed Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Ali`i Highway). B-5 Connect Puapuaanui Street from Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to Hualalai Road. B-6 Connect Lako Street from Hualalai Road to Alii Drive. B-7 Revise road alignment (mauka portion) of La`aloa Street Extension ("Mauka- Makai" Road) to Kuakini Highway. Roads May U- Keauhou To Kealakekua Area C-1 Extend Haleki`i Street to proposed Mamalahoa By -Pass Highway. Roads Map F - South Kohala F-1 Connect proposed northern end extension of Paniolo Drive to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway. All Road Maps Housecleaning: 1) Changes to the Legend for clarification -of arterials and collectors. 2)- Deletion of reference label for changes adopted in February 2005. N W E S lwvl /� MAHUKONA • Kohala Wairt''� KAWAIHAE South Kohala W AIKOLO Kalaoa Mauka Kailua (26J N KAILUA Keauhou KEAUHOU Capt. t KEALAKEKUA MILOLII 4DFire—County (2124106) PUBLIC FACILITIES - FIRE STATION FACILITIES Note: This map was produced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the limitations of the data. Source: County of Hawaii, Fire Department HONOKAA PAAUILO onoka LAUPAHOEHOE Pohakuloa (Federal) 0 PAHALA ,.hahala •VIEW Naatehu NAALEHU PAHOA 4 KMC\ Pahoa VOLCANO 'ANA Park KAPOHO I 0 Fire Station - County (Existing) 0 Fire Station - County (Proposed) 0 Fire Station - Federal ( Proposed) 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 MAea KALAU PEPEEKI O Central iakea Kaumana M O Kawal}an' i aau PAHOA 4 KMC\ Pahoa VOLCANO 'ANA Park KAPOHO I 0 Fire Station - County (Existing) 0 Fire Station - County (Proposed) 0 Fire Station - Federal ( Proposed) 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 80 70 80 MAea Fire Volunteer (2/24/06) N WE PUBLIC FACILITIES - FIRE STATION FACILITIES S Note: This map was produced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the HAWI limitations of the data. Source: County of Hawaii, Fire Department MAHUKONA f Koh a Bch HONOKAA PAAUILO KAWAIHAE LAUPAHOEHOE WAIKOL A j Laup oehoe Wai oa 4age HAKALAU Kona Village ~1.� r/ Four Seasons '�., ikn ;� "��Pe eekeo P PEPEEKEO pulehu KAILUA KEAUHOU KEALAKEKUA Kona Paradise Subd. MILOLII Mllolii (OCEAN *VIEW Kulani Volcano PAHALA /paha -7171 07 j VIEFe Acres PAHOA Fern Forest O Padise Park Hawaiian Beaches Wa'a Wa'a KAPOHO KALAPANA )NAALEHU Discovery Harbour 0 Fire Station - Volunteer (Existing) 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Miles OPUBLIC UTILITIES If N ELECTRICITY Note: This map was produced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning WE purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the limitations of the data. S Source: Hawaii Electric Light Company. (Received 5/6/03) Hawi S Halaula SB Maliu Ridge SB MAHUKONA HILO AREA Waika SB amilo Kawaihae S Wa ea E KAWAI�SB Waiau Hydro HP Ouli OW Mauna Lani SB I Lala 110 Anaehoomalu SB W O] Poopoomino S (SEE KONA AREA) v i am 7uku S P u u Hu'h Puuwaawaa Huehue SB KAILUA Kuakini SB Kahaluu SW Keauhou SB KEAUHOU Capt. C,o& SB KEALAKEKUA Kealiaa-ArFr MILOLII Host Park SB Keahole Airport SB Keahole PP Keahole SW Kaloko SB Kealakehe SB Kailua SB Kapu Ka a Electricity (2/24/06) llk4Vaikii SB �` rr.+i0—homu Hilo Coast Power Co. PP ulu B / = Kauhale S PEPEEKEO B.� Hale ohaVu SB (SEE iakuloa S HILO AREA) Puna PP / Panaew B P H wa l� an Paradise ! Kulani SO Kurtistown ark S MT �awaiian w S Beaches SB Orcl%ilsle SBA' aloa SB o` PAHOA KAPOHO VolcanB Namakani Paio SB oyal Hawaiian Moho SB Wright Road SB oiki SB Kilauea S PAHAL P ala SB �.S B )CEAN Punaluu S VIEW outh Point SB Naalehu SB S NAALEHU maoa PGV GT KALAPANA f Type of Facility: GT - Geothermal (Generation) HP - Hydro Power (Generation) PP - Power Plant (Generation) SB - Substation (Distribution) SW - Switching Station (Transmission) WF - Wind Farm (Generation) • HELCO Owned • IPP - Independent Power Producer 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Miles HILO AREA Kaumana SW Wailuku River Hydro HP Waiau Hydro HP Puueo Hydro HP Hamakua Energy Partners PP Komohana SB Haina SW Kawailani SB Honokaa SW Kanoelehua SW HONOKAA Kanoelehua PP Waipunahina SB Shipman SB AAUILO Ainako SB Ookala SB Wailuku SW eia SB AUPAHOEHOE Paauilo S Papaaloa SB Laupaho oe SB Hakalau S HAKALAU Pepeekeo SW llk4Vaikii SB �` rr.+i0—homu Hilo Coast Power Co. PP ulu B / = Kauhale S PEPEEKEO B.� Hale ohaVu SB (SEE iakuloa S HILO AREA) Puna PP / Panaew B P H wa l� an Paradise ! Kulani SO Kurtistown ark S MT �awaiian w S Beaches SB Orcl%ilsle SBA' aloa SB o` PAHOA KAPOHO VolcanB Namakani Paio SB oyal Hawaiian Moho SB Wright Road SB oiki SB Kilauea S PAHAL P ala SB �.S B )CEAN Punaluu S VIEW outh Point SB Naalehu SB S NAALEHU maoa PGV GT KALAPANA f Type of Facility: GT - Geothermal (Generation) HP - Hydro Power (Generation) PP - Power Plant (Generation) SB - Substation (Distribution) SW - Switching Station (Transmission) WF - Wind Farm (Generation) • HELCO Owned • IPP - Independent Power Producer 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Miles Ni KAIL KEAU KEALA HAWI Date: February 24; 2006 TRANSPORTATION - ROADWAYS Note: This map was reproduced by the County of H Planning Department. It is intended for planni purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the limitations of the data. Source: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Division Reference: Okahara & Associates, Inc. - CAPOHO Engineering Consultants (Saddle Road Alignments) Arterials (Existing) Collectors (Existing) Collectors (Future) Arterials (Future) 0 5 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Miles • Date: February 24, 2006 N Queen Kaahumanu w E Highway S Kona International Airport TRANSPORTATION - (KEAHOLE ROADWAYS Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways A-1 t % , Kamanu % t Street t ti A-2 Kanalani St. t t HONOKOHAU Kealakehe Parkway —. KEAHOLE TO KAILUA AREA ^/ Arterials (Existing) /\/ Collectors (Existing) / %,' Collectors ( Future) .*%,' Arterials (Future) Mamalahoa Highway Nana Street Kaiminani Drive KALAOA — Holohoio Street is � t � A- KeanalehA ` i t t Drive % �.. A-4 t eR %V t %"ALA)CE] Keohokalol A-6 Hwy - t � w � Henry St. °► Kamaka' eha Ave. — Kaiwi St. KAILUA 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 1 Miles Roads - Map A Hina Lani Street - Mamalahoa Highway Palani Road Kealakaa Street Deletion of Proposed A-� Roadway Extensio Mamalahoa Highway Hienaloli Road Date: February 24, 2006 TRANSPORTATION - ROADWAYS Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways N W E S KAILUA TO KEAUHOU AREA /V Arterials (Existing) /V Collectors (Existing) ♦, ' Col lectors ( Future) 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Roads - Map B Palani Rd. ♦ . .00 e iOtt 9 Mamalahoa Highway ILVA Queen ♦ ♦ --� Nani Kailua Drive Kaahumanu -- Hienaloli Road Highway r Kailua 1 Hualalai Road Bay Puapuaanui ` tree ° B-3 , B-2 B-5 r B-4 Lako St. Kuakini Highway ♦ ♦ HOLUALOA Holualoa -J► B-6 Bay Alii Drive 1 1 , ♦ i Kuakini Highway Y / 1 1 B-7 1 1 Kahaluu % Bay King Kamehameha III Road 1 Keauhou Bay KEAUHOU a.. Mamalahoa Highway •I 01 Date: February 24, 2006 r` AEAUHO Keauhou Bay N W+ E Alii Drive S TRANSPORTATION - ROADWAYS Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways KEAUHOU TO KEALAKEKUA AREA /V Arterials (Existing) /V Collectors (Existing) /v Col lectors (Future) 0 0.5 1 2 3 Miles Roads - Map C Mamalahoa Highway HONALO I Kuakini Highway N. Kona Belt Road • ♦oun K ua dary Haleki' i S. �Distriit B •mow a ..�..— �` •r•.�,,..•-; forth and S out o �,.� .a•• . KEALAKEKUA C-1 Mamalahoa By-pass= Highway CAPT. COOK Puuhonua Road N. Kona Belt Road is Napoopoo Road Kealakekua Bay Middle Keei Road Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways Waianuenue Ave. Ponahawai St. Mohouh S. Komohana St PIIHONUA Ainako Ave. Akolea Road ♦ Kaumana Driv KAUMAN i Kupul ♦ i Road- Puainako St. Hoaka WAIAKEA - UKA Malaai Road — "aola Dri SOUTH HILO DISTRICT J* Date: February 24, 2006 — Mamalahoa Hwy. TRANSPORTATION - HONOLII ROADWAYS 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 Mites Hilo Bay N KEAUKAHA WE Kalanianaole St. Lo � Kanoelehua Ave. ,Hilo International Airport ! aim 1 WAIAKEA 1 Kawailani St. u 1. 461 Arterials(Existing) IV Collectors (Existing) ,%,-Collectors (Future) Roads - Map D KEAAU Volcano Roams--- Qp' ! — Volcano Road 1 ` Keaau By -Pass Hwy. — ttekau to Pahoa Rd. s"" KURTIS G ,b �,� MT. VIEW . �C' Volcano Road FERN FOREST N �bI ` W E S KEAAU Kaloli Pt. AiIAN PARADISE WN PARK ORCHIDLAND HAWAIIAN w AINALOA ACRES. HAWAIIAN °r�� • BEACHES PAHOA Date: February 24 2.006 TRANSPORTATION - ROADWAYS 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source: County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportati Honolulu Landing Highways 0 KAPOHO Cape Kumukahi Pahoa - Kapoho Rd. Pohoiki Ro t� POHOIKI b° OpibAao Road `'� � OPIHIKAO PUNA DISTRICT Pahoa - Kalapana R -'. /VArterials (Existing) /^/ Col lectors (Existing) ♦,'Collectors (Future) Roads - Map E Date: February 24, 2006 Kohala Mountain Rd. Kawaihae Road --� N VAIMEA' •� N KAWAIHAE ♦ ♦ LA>'�AND .... "UBD. W TRANSPORTATION i + % go ROADWAYS PI TAKO � � 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Miles S O U H -;1 SOUTH KOHALA DISTRICT NVAIROLOA 9 VILLAGEO H A L A �t /V Arterials (Existing) .:j /\/ Collectors (Existing) Anaehoomalu D I S I C T %'Collectors (Future) Bay aft •mss `�-•' Waalcoloa Road �� , %,' Arterials (Future) Kohl -�..• - �r a and N`"`••«:. �a j N O R T H `% `M alahoa Queen Kaahumanu Hwy. �` F g way H A M A K U A WAIKII i •.� D I S T R I C T i PUUANAHULU d ; ' • . K O N A e�,•�••••., . t Saddle Road .� Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary �'� i MAUNA KEA interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the ♦• STATE PARK POHAKULOA �.— -•...i Source: ,�, ♦•',� + ♦� County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works,.j�a�' •�' Engineering Division ,ko t �� % .� D I S T R I C T State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, �• j Highways ♦.• � Hamakua N. Hilo District Boundary- Reference: Okahara & Associates, Inc. - Engineering Consultants Roads - Map F (Saddle Road Alignments) Date: February 24, 2006 HAMAKUA DISTRICT /V Arterials (Existing) N /\/ Collectors (Existing) W E , %, * Co 1 lectors ( Future) S ,%,' Arterials (Future) Waipio Bay ]NBC. 1 1 1 1 � Honokaa Waipio Road—J 1 • �. Hawaii Belt Road—, ♦ �LAKELAN SUBD. �. F � s TRANSPORTATION - ROADWAYS 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 nim I Miles Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source - County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways HAINA .0 ` • PAAUHAU HONOKAA Old Mamalahoa Hwy. AHUALOA KALOPA PAAUILO MAUKA Hawaii Belt 491 Roads - Map G Date: Februanl 24, 2006 Hawaii Belt Road Hawaii Belt WAIOHINU NAALEHLI —+ 00 • ,r Am on 60 South Point Rd. PAHALA N W E S TRANSPORTATION - PUNALULT ROADWAYS Note: This map was reproduced by the County of Hawaii, Planning Department. It is intended for planning purposes only and should not be used for boundary interpretations or other spatial analysis beyond the Source: HONUAPO County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Engineering Division State of Hawaii, Department of Transportation, Highways KAU DISTRICT /V Arterials (Existing) /\/ Collectors (Existing) ,%,'Arterials (Future) 0 0.5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Miles Roads - Map H �v L;J S 0 Date: February 24, 2006 Pepeekeo Area E LEGEND Important Ag. Lands Industria( Low Density Urban Medium Density Urban Open Area Proposed Important Ag Lands Industrial to Important Ag. Lands (B-4 W 0 1i I . �\ Tr 1 1� Ill 1 "'` �_--------- \ 1. M 0 0.25 0.5 1 1.5 2 Miles Pepeekeo Mill Site SHilo -3 PROPO D ROAD PROJECTS V pwx�v_ Waiaka Bridge , wo -Intersection hoa \ ` 1, >� Repig,cerrsent v ent&\ J- A) v t -Pi L A 1 JL—UIU LL -VM �077 —V x k v alr� onne alaho 4. aihae.Rd onne N, Lindsey Rd con AI Extensiqyr' L.Waimea Bypass a Ka aihailRd Note: Alignment studies are �rv-��gres Bypos -boen sel ed. —K0jjjV-- No preferred alignments ha �ct MMMM�fs low Prowsed RoWs Carni r4o.1 w E 900 2,700 16M A#�1erofLwV$�pvA,ChhVc1uro Canj�daf& Waimea Townu..,,y ., C4140-0 F3e.*tqoy + 0 0.050.1 0.2 03 0.4 0 5 0.5 M 6-