Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2011-02-03 TPDPUNACDPExhibitB WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI‘I HEARING TRANSCRIPT FEBRUARY 3, 2011 PLANNING DIRECTOR A regularly advertised hearing on the applicationsofthe RELATING TO THE PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN, was called to order at11:59 a.m. in the County of Hawai‘i, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawai‘i, with Chairman Zendo Kern presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Zendo Kern, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo, Wallace Ishibashi, and Stephen Ono STAFF PRESENT: Julie Mecklenburg (Deputy Corporation Counsel), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Maija Cottle (Staff Planner), and Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner). And 9 people from the public in attendance. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Rell Woodward APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR INITIATED Ordinance amending the Puna Community Development Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 08-116 and amended by Ordinance No. 10-104, relating to mass transit Hele-On service to the Hilo and Keahole International Airports. APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR INTIATED Ordinance amending the Puna Community Development Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 08-116 and amended by Ordinance No. 10-104, relating to Transportation. APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR INTIATED Ordinance amending the Puna Community Development Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 08-116 and amended by Ordinance No. 10-104, relating to Community Parks. APPLICANT: PLANNING DIRECTOR INTIATED Ordinance amending the Puna Community Development Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 08-116 and amended by Ordinance No. 10-104, relating to the Hawaiian Beaches Neighborhood Village Center. KERN: Okay, we’re going to be doing all of these at the same time so we can get public testimony and have everybody do what they need to do so they can go home about their business. So one of them is amendment to Puna CDP’s mass transit, amendment to Puna CDP’s transportation, which neither of those we have public testimony signed up for, and amendment to the Puna CDP’s community parks, and the big one which everyone signed up for, the amendment to the Hawaiian Beaches NVC. So we’re going to ahead and start. I’d like to just have the public be able to do their testimony. We’ll get that so they can go; and then we’ll get the applicant to come up and do her testimony; and then we can move forward. So we’re going to do three minutes on the testimony. You’ll be notified, then quick summary. And I’m going to call everyone up four at a time. We’re going to go with Charlene Hart, Pat Ketcham, Mary Anne De Mey, and Wallace Patch. You all come have a seat up here. If I can 1 EXHIBIT B get you, will you all please raise your right hand. Do you affirm or swear to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. I do. KERN: Okay, very good. And as you recall that’s how it will start. And if you can start with your name and address, and then you may begin. HART: Hi. I’m Charlene Hart, 15-2797 Popaa Street in Pahoa. And just as a matter of declaration, I sit on the Planning Appeals Board and I also have known Mr. Ishibashi for 15, 20 years. As a resident of Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates, I request that the Windward Planning Commission leave in place the text and map (Figure 5-9: Hawaiian Beaches Neighborhood Village Center) from Section 5.2.3 of the Puna CDP. First, the prior testimony that was given by the Association against that part of the CDP was given without ratification by the membership. An undated memo to Rachelle Ley of the Action Committee, states that, “The Board of Directors for Hawaiian Shores Community Association resolved, though a motion, to submit a proposed amendment for consideration.” According to Rule 1 (General Rules) of the Planning Commission, “If testimony is being submitted on behalf of an organization, documentation showing membership ratification should accompany the testimony.” As a member of that Community Association, I was never offered an opportunity to ratify any recommendation for or against a village center on the property commonly referred to as “the stables.” The second thing I want to comment on is Hawaiian Shores Community Association is a 501(c) (4) organization. And, as such, the IRS requires that we “must permit the general public to have access to any common areas it maintains.” In actuality, the use of our recreational facilities is “limited to Hawaiian Shores Community Association Members in good standing.” And that’s on our website. So it’s actually run like a private club. So my feeling is that a neighborhood village center serving Beaches, Shores and Shores Rec.Estateson “the stables” property would be good for our association in that it complies with the IRS requirements regarding general public access to common areas, and it could help us retain our nonprofit status. So my appeal is please leave as is the text and map (Figure 5-9: Hawaiian Beaches Neighborhood Village Center) from Section 5.2.3 of the Puna Community Development Plan. I haven’t read the entire plan myself but I think it’s a good working document; and I commend the people for all the work they put into it. Of course, it’s not a perfect plan, but I’m sure we’ll revisit it from time to time. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, Ma’am, name and address, and you may begin. KETCHAM:Hi. My name is Pat Ketcham. I live at 15-2790 South Mano Street in Pahoa. I’m a resident, a member in good standing, and a former board member of Hawaiian Shores Community Association. I would like to see the Puna Planning Commission leave the Hawaiian Beaches Village Center and the parcel as it was passed, or alternatively change it to be subject to community input. First, the members of HSCA were not given the opportunity to vote on this request that was given to you by the Board of Directors. 2 EXHIBIT B Second, the 2006 Board proposed, and members ratified,a community center on that very parcel. That community center would have served the entire community. Third, as a senior citizen I can foresee the need for supportive services, closer than Malama Market Center or Pahoa Town. Fourth, in a democratic society it is only right to allow the membership of HSCA as a whole to have a say in the future use of this property. And a village center should be left as an option as none of us can say what the future would hold. In conclusion I would like to see the Planning Commission retain the option for a village center on the parcel. Thank you. KERN: Any questions? Seeing none -. DE MEY: My name is Mary Ann De Mey. I live at 15-2778 Popaa Street, Pahoa. I also am a member in good standing of Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates. I also am a former Board Member and I was the chair of the 2006 Board. And I brought to submit the annual membership meeting minutes that show that we did in fact approve a community center at that time. The vote was 211 yes votes, 94 no votes. The proposal that was submitted to the Windward Planning Commission from the Hawaiian Shores Board of Directors was, as the two former ladies spoke, not shown to the membership. We didn’t have a right to have input on that. The 2006 (sic) Board of Director envisioned a community center to serve everything from baby showers to senior activities; and we felt that not only would it provide a gathering place but it would also, as Ms. Hart said, serve to reinforce our tax status; and at this point, again, they’re running it like a private club. And the Hawaiian Beaches, Hawaiian Parks, Hawaiian Shores are not included in our recreational facilities. If we had the community center our Board felt that all of the community should use that. One of the things that was in the testimony from this Board was that the traffic, we felt that the communities, if they stayed in their own community there wouldn’t be traffic out that critical curve on Kahakai Boulevard. So I feel that this area is suitable for a village center. It would benefit the entire community. And I ask you to leave in place the CDP just as it’s written. Thank you very much. KERN: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, you may begin - name and address. PATCH: My name is Wallace Patch. I live at 15-2778 Papio Street in Hawaiian Shores Rec. I’ve lived there for over 30 years. I’m a semi-retired realtor; and I’ve been on the Board twice over the years. And we have such problems with the immediate board. It’s splitting the community. It’s sad to go to a meeting and listen to what’s happening. And to make this short, since nothing can be done with the stable anyway without HCA’s approval, why change the designation? So I say pass this proposed motion with a negative recommendation. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, you all may have a seat. Thank you very much. All right, calling forward Liz Kellogg, Erica Johnson, and Eileen O’Hara. Is there a Mrs. McDonald? MCDONALD: Yes. KERN: And you’dlike to testify? 3 EXHIBIT B MCDONALD: On a different amendment. KERN: That’s okay. Yeah, we’re putting them all together right now for theirsake. So you’re welcome to come up. Please do. Okay, you may begin. Name and address, and go for it. KELLOG: Okay. My name is Liz Kellogg and I live at 15-117 Papio Street. I’m a member in good standing of Hawaiian Shores; and I oppose removing the village center designation. th In our Articles of Incorporation, our 4section, it states that no activities of the corporation shall consist of propaganda or attempting to influence legislation, which I feel they’re doing. The dysfunction of our board, in what the judge called a frivolous lawsuit, has diminished our funds by $165,000. And only two of our eight board members right now have been elected. Every time somebody leaves, they put somebody of their own in there. This request from our board doesn’t show the opinion of our wider community who didn’t get a chance to vote on it. Nothing can occur on the property without the members approving it. So there’s no negativity by leaving the designation village commercial center there. We don’t want to foreclose our future options, which we would be doing if you voted for that. And as a resident, I would like the Commission to give a negative recommendation to our board to remove the village center designation. Thank you. KERN: Any questions? Seeing none, Ma’am. JOHNSON: My name is Erica Johnson. I live at 15-119 Kuna Street. I’m an HSCA Member in good standing. I don’t want you to change the designation of the village center because it’s not in -. I was on the planning committee, on the Village Center Committee. And when those designations were made they were primarily as placeholders so that the community as a whole could decide where a commercial area could be. And without, that was the only 10-acre spot in the development that wasn’t encumbered. So it was chosen primarily because it didn’t affect a specific landowner. You know, the community association is a number of landowners. So the community needs to have commercial area and by moving it, the amendment doesn’t put it some place else. So without having some place to have a commercial area in our neighborhood, it goes against the principals of the community plan. Thank you. KERN:Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, Ma’am, name and address and you may begin. O’HARA: Aloha Commissioners. I am Eileen O’Hara. I live at 15-2782 Papio Street, Pahoa, a member of the Hawaiian Shores Community Association, as HSCA. I have lived in the community for 30 years and have been a resident of Hawaiian Shores since 2003. I am familiar with the community based planning process having served as a VisionKeeper for the Envision Downtown Hilo 2025 Plan. I am opposed to this amendment to remove the Hawaiian Beaches Village Center designation from the Puna CDP. I also submitted through Sharon written testimony by another HSCA Member, Dick Munday, architect. Mr. Munday is unable to attend today’s meeting and he asked me to submit his written testimony. 4 EXHIBIT B The designated area already supports non-residential development. Under an old special permit, there was a commercial horse stable built on the HSCA property decades ago. The Stable is now rotted and due to be removed. Da Store has been operating within 1000 feet of the area for decades. Keonepoko Elementary School was built at this location, I think, about 20 years ago. The access road, Kahakai Boulevard, is hazardous with a dead man’s curve just before Keonepoko School and another blind curve at the Stables that have invited many fatal accidents thru the years. If the area is developed, it will not only bring more services to the community, it will force improvements to this roadway. Objections raised by the HSCA board do not justify changing the village center designation. Any development will be permitted by the County. The Planning and Public Works Departments will require access along Kahakai be improved for public safety. The HSCA water well and the commercial well serving Hawaiian Beaches are located mauka of the site. They can be protected by requiring appropriate wastewater systems. Under code, an anaerobic septic system is required within 1000 feet of a potable well. These development requirements would actually improve the long-term benefit to the community. The Hawaiian Beaches Village Center concept is based on wide community input. The HSCA Board’s March 2010 amendment was not ratified by the membership which is nearly 1200 members. HSCA is not a lobbying organization by charter. Plus, the subdivision Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates is only one of the four subdivisions in the area that is often referred to as Hawaiian Beaches. I urge the Commission to listen to the greater community voice that spoke thru the planning process that resulted in the Puna CDP as adopted. We need to listen to the community’s voice on the matter of designating Village Centers. This area is suitable for a Village Center and could provide much needed services to the community. Leaving this designation in the CDP does not negatively impact HSCA and allows for consideration of future options that will be of benefit to the overall community. Thank you for allowing me to testify and I urge the Commission to pass this proposed motion with a negative commendations. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions? I have a quick question. If you wouldn’t mind telling me the four different associations within that area. O’HARA: There are no other associations -. KERN: It’s broken up into four different subdivisions. O’HARA: It was. It was four different subdivisions originally –Hawaiian Shores, Hawaiian Recreational Estates, Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates. DE MEY: No, no, no. HARA: Is that right? DE MEY: Hawaiian Beaches and Hawaiian Parks. O’HARA: Hawaiian Parks, Hawaiian Parks, okay. KERN: And HSCA represents just the Hawaiian Shores? O’HARA: Hawaiian Shores Recreational Estates. 5 EXHIBIT B KERN: Recreational Estates, okay. O’HARA: And then there’s a Hawaiian Shores without the Recreation, I think. KERN: Very confusing. O’HARA: Very confusing, I agree. KERN: Yeah, it’s even more confusing when you drive there and see a white sign. O’HARA: You see the private, private road, yeah. I’m sorry. KERN: Yeah, it’s like weird. Okay, thank you so much. O’HARA: Yeah, sure. KERN: Just for point of record, all the last testifiers that we had were for the Puna CDP amendment to the Hawaiian Beaches NVC. Now this testifier, Patrice MacDonald , is testifying on the community parks. Name and address, and you may begin. MACDONALD: My name is Patrice MacDonald. My primary residence is 16-1800 O‘o‘a‘a Street, Hawaiian Acres. I’m sorry, you guys, I just was in the hospital this morning and got called to come to this meeting as no one else could make it. The amended amendment is actually on my phone because we have no Wi-Fiaccess in Hawaiian Acres. I would like to be able to get some addresses to mail you a better version of what we have. I’ve been on the boards in Hawaiian Acres and a number of communities over the last 30 years. I have lived on this island for over 50 years. So our resolution, Aloha’s Board of Directors moved to submit an amendment for a proposal to the Puna Community Development Plan via the Action Committee. The proposed amendments are: A), to remove the planned Hawaiian Acres Community Parks, (See pages 3-17:Action 3.5.3.c), and that is amended to community parks and roads. Rationale: Hawaiian Acres already has three designated community lots, on Road B and C, and two parks near the highway donated on Road B. These designated areas by the PDCP are all on the same road, and they make no sense for connectivity. They’re all in area, 1, Area 3. They are all connected to F Road; and they were voted against by 2,010 residents or 90 percent of the residents living there now. This is the oldest subdivision in Puna and the largest. We actually had written the original grants for the Waiokele Forest Reserve, which is half of Hawaiian Acres. This is the oldest native forest reserve, I can’t understand his writing, has grants written --Ilost it, my apologies. It’s really hard to do on an i-phone. -- to designate this area as a protected area, see the PDCP Chapter 5, Section 5.1.1. Resolution: We ask that our current zoning and roads remain unchanged. B, to remove all proposed connector roads and highways in Hawaiian Acres from the PDCP. Delete the words Hawaiian Acres from Chapter 4, Section 4.3.3a. Rationale: The proposed takeover of F and 1 road does nothing for our residents. Hawaiian Acres is designed perfectly for only our number of residents. It is not conducive to propose to 6 EXHIBIT B take our best roads and leave landowners to deal with the flooding and deforestation of our remaining roads. There have been no surveys indicating that any more roads would be eminent domain by the county for connectors or highways. (We have not been paid the proposed 2 million per mile for 8 Road since 1998). All other subdivisions opted out for connectivity and so do we. See traffic counts, accidents and deaths on Moho Road. I have submitted this 400 times to the County Council and the -. KERN: Would you please summarize. MACDONALD: The original working transportation group has submitted the traffic counts by the Honu Club: The traffic counts cutting through from Ainaloa, to 8 Road and out Kua‘uli. This is not local traffic but heavy equipment, trucks, tourists and others trying to circumvent Highway 11 to Highway 130. I’ll make it short. The first eminent domain road, Moho Road, has cost our subdivision over $150,000 a year. We pay the intersections, the road signs, all the accidents. It’s an agreement according to Corporation Counsel for an easement only. So basically we would like it removed from the original CDP as no one was ever notified that any of this was going in there; and put it in the subdivisions that asked for it. Fern Acres, Ainaloa, Orchidland, they all use our roads as their emergency access. They’re more crowded, they have no forest, put the roads through their subdivisions. Thank you. KERN: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, you all may have a seat. Thank you very much. My Fellow Commissioners, two of us have some obligations later here today and I’m wondering if it would be possible if we could take maybe a quick recess and then try and push through this and wrap up this last item on the agenda -? DOMINGO: Yeah. KERN: To the best of our ability. Is there any, is that okay with everybody pretty much? DOMINGO: I call for a recess. KERN: Yeah, let’s do a ten-minute recess. Ten-minute recess. RECESSED – The Chair called a recess at 12:25 a.m. RECONVENED – The Chair reconvened the meeting at 12:35 a.m. KERN: Let’s call the meeting back to order. Calling the meeting back to order cause we have time constraints. And, okay, here we are. So the way that this was on the agenda, we got them as separate initiated amendments tothe CDP. But what we received was basically a package with all these in here so we, as far as I’m, on the understanding that we either vote on them all together or we can bifurcate, and do them separately. I would like to hear what the Planning Director has to say. LEITHEAD TODD: I was going to say, what you could do is you could pull one out separately, vote on the other three, if you folks are thinking you’re inclined to go the same way on them. And then the one that had the testimony which was the, which is listed as Item No. 6 on yours, 7 EXHIBIT B the Hawaiian Beaches Neighborhood Village Center, you could pull that one out and vote on 3, 4 and 5 together if you wanted to. KERN: Okay. LEITHEAD TODD: Or you could vote on them individually. KERN: Right. I personally would like what the Planning Director has said. Do I have a motion to bifurcate that one, if we want to? DOMINGO: A motion to bifurcate this or take it all -? KERN:Well, we can,we either do them all together, or we can bifurcate each one. Or since the one had a lot more public testimony and might need a little more attention, we could just bifurcate that one,and then vote on the rest of them as a package. DOMINGO: I would agree with you, Mr. Chairman. KERN: Okay, is that a motion? DOMINGO: Yes. KERN: So to be clear, that is a motion to bifurcate Agenda Item No. 6 and leave the rest of them as a package, right? DOMINGO: Right. KERN: Great. Second? ONO: Second. KERN: Seconded by Commissioner Ono. All in favor aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. KERN: Any opposed? Seeing none, okay. So let’s go ahead and do the other three as a package, and go ahead and have the applicant -. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, I’m the applicant. KERN: Hey, applicant. LEITHEAD TODD: And basically these were proposed amendments to the Puna CDP that were suggested by the Puna CDP Action Committee. And I had a choice of initiating them and then having them go through the process of going up to County Council, or I could, if I didn’t agree with their recommendations then I don’t do anything cause they cannot of themselves initiate. You can either have the Council initiate or the Director. And because I thought at the time that these were reasonable, I let them know that I would initiate them. But because some of the language in Bill 194, which had all of those other changes, would change some of the language in the proposed amendments, we held them back. We waited for Bill 194 to go forward, and then we initiated these. And these came at the request of the community and the request of the Action Committee. 8 EXHIBIT B KERN: Okay, thank you, Madam Director. We’ve had public testimony; and I guess we can make a motion on this. Is that right, yeah? LEITHEAD TODD: Yes. KERN: So I’m willing to entertain a motion. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Chair, I guess somebody would need to make a motion to approve Items 3, 4 and 5 on the agenda. KERN: I’d be willing to entertain a motion to approve the Items 3, 4 and 5 on the agenda. Thank you. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman? KERN: Yes, Commissioner Domingo. DOMINGO: I move that we approve Items 3, 4 and 5 on the agenda and recommend approval for adoption to the Council. KERN: Any second? ONO: Second. KERN: Seconded by Commissioner Ono. Any discussion? Seeing none, Jeff? Oh, excuse me. Were you going to say something, Commissioner Domingo, or you’re just holding your microphone?Taka, are you going to say something or you’re just holding the mike? DOMINGO: No, no, No. I just - KERN: Just ready. Thank you. Go ahead, Jeff. DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the Hawai‘i County Council for Items 3, 4 and 5 on the agenda. With that I’ll take the roll. Commissioner Domingo? DOMINGO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ono? ONO: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? KERN: Aye. 9 EXHIBIT B DARROW: The motion passed five to zero. KERN: You’ll be notified in writing. Okay, next item would Item No. 6, Planning Director initiated ordinance amending the Puna Community Development Plan, as adopted by Ordinance No. 08-116, relating to the Hawaiian Beaches Neighborhood Village Center. LEITHEAD TODD: Mr. Chair? KERN: Yes, Planning Director. LEITHEAD TODD: In light of the testimony of the community, I would like to withdraw Item No. 6. KERN: Withdraw? LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah. KERN: Very good. LEITHEAD TODD: Yeah, you know if the Commission is willing to let me withdraw it, I’ll just withdraw it. KERN: Okay. All those in favor of the Director’s withdrawal on Item No. 6 aye? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. KERN: All those opposed? Seeing none, Item No. 6 has been withdrawn. Okay. The discussion ended at 12:42 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 10 EXHIBIT B