Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-07 Tgp-amendment PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAI€I HEARING TRANSCRIPT APRIL 7, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS was called to order at 1:14 p.m. in the INITIATED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR County Building, Councilroom - Room 201, 25 Aupuni Street, Hilo, Hawai€i with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Allen Salavea Fred Galdones Bill Graham AndrewIwashita 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 1EXHIBIT C maybe the better thing to do would be to go directly into questions that the Commission has about particular amendments and talk about them inmore 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 PlanningCommissionto consider these amendments. I believe its 60 days from the, what we would have you do is at the end, certainlyat 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vealsodonealittle,acoupleofthingsthattheCommissionhadaskedforatthelast 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 2EXHIBIT C 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 st volunteer existing map; and last time, on the 31 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 letthepublictestify,andthenIcouldprovideanyfurtherresponsetothepublictestimony,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,CommissionerSiracusa? SIRACUSA:Iwouldjustliketoaddtothatthatsincewehavesomememberswho 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. 3EXHIBIT C 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.Youwanttoprovidetestimonytoday? BERGIN:IfIcould. ALAMEDA:Sure.Comeforward,haveaseat. BERGIN:Ileftsomecopies.Ithinktheyshouldhavebeenadequateforeveryone. 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 forone 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? 4EXHIBIT C 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 temperateregionwhichisideallysuitedtohigh-demandvegetable,fruitandflowercrops.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. 5EXHIBIT C 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 tiesitself 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 federalguidelines mandated by the Food Safety Act and food security measures, Clean Air Act, are very specific on limiting exposure of food cropsto 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 consideredfor 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 CountyandStateagencies.Itisagrassroots-initiatedorganizationthatmeetsmonthlytodiscuss 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 Ÿ 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. 6EXHIBIT C 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 quiteafewhere;andIwanttothankyouforthatbecauseitopensupthepossiblealternatives 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. 7EXHIBIT C GRAHAM:So maybe it would be good forher 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 doweneed some kind of connector road to addressthetrafficcrisisinWaimea?AndthatswhyImhere„likeplease.Andthesecondis 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, 8EXHIBIT C and make a smaller Kamamalu so that you dont have heavy trafficgoing 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, kindofthingintothatplanandseethisroadthrough?TheParkerRancharea,theyrefighting 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. 9EXHIBIT C 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,ƒ 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 startsdiggingandbulldozingandthingslikethat.Sounlessitscleartoyouthattheresnoway 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 th situation is that if I include it today this is probably the 12 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:Itisadescription,ifyouletmefinish,itsadescriptionoftwoproposed routes of the connector road. And for the sake of clarity, lets not use the term bypass because thatswelloutoftownandnotimmediatelyanattempt,Ithinkaverynobleattempt,totryand 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 10EXHIBIT C 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,IdontwanttoparaphraseyoubutIdidaskyouaspecific 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. 11EXHIBIT C 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 thatdegree,wantingtobepureinourdefinitionofprotectingagriculture,itwassmarterthatwe 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 Puu 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. 12EXHIBIT C 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.Justonemorecommenton,andthisrelatestowhatCommissionerGrahamwassaying 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 13EXHIBIT C 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sright. GAHAM:Thankyou. ALAMEDA:Anyotherquestions,FellowCommissioners,fortheDirectoronthat 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 Puu 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. 14EXHIBIT C ALAMEDA:Thank you. BERGIN:Thank you for theopportunity. 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 CommunityAssociation.SoI,whenIcamethelasttimeandtalkedformyselfIexpressedI 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-1a. 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- 1a. 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 15EXHIBIT C 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-1a to some Agricultural, some zoning category that would allow its current uses which includes grazing and it not be Ag-1a 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 oryou,anyinteresttorevisitsomeofthoseslides?Ifnot,anyquestionsforMr.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-1a, 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 puu 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 -. 16EXHIBIT C 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:Theobjectivethattheywantoftakingitoffthebooksasaone-acrearea 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. 17EXHIBIT C 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:Iwouldthinkthattheoperativeissuewouldbeisifsomebodywantedto 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-1. 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 18EXHIBIT C 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:Otherquestionsonthisparticularitem,orforourtestifier,orforour 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 thth along of Orchidland Drive between 35 and 36. 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 thththth between 34 and 35 because there are existing houses between 35 and 36 and there are thth already some special use permits granted between 34 and 35. 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 thth map that this change not only still goes between 35 and 36 but it also now goes down some of th thesideroads,35Avenuespecifically.ThosesideroadsaresomethingthatOrchidlandhasto maintain. There are existing houses that will now be surrounded by this change from Rural to MediumDensity.Andmyownfeelingisthatitssortofunfairtoretroactivelygoandchange the zoning on somebody, particularly somebody that has built a house within the last few months.Thischangewillfacilitatetheprocessofgettingspecialusepermitsforcommercial activities next to residential houses. Bear in mind that Orchidland was formed in the 1950s. We havenocommonareasforthedevelopmentofcommercialactivitiesasAinaloaorHawaiian Paradise Park do, we have none. We have no covenants and codes and restrictions. We have 19EXHIBIT C 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sbasicallycorrect,itintrudesfurtherintothesubdivisionintoareas 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 th along Orchidland Drive; and that goes three lots into the subdivision. And it also goes past 35 which we did not expect. GRAHAM:So maybe we should pass the ball tothe 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 amendmenton 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- thththth way between 34 and 35 and not between 35 and 36. Perhaps this was a typographical in the plan. Please be aware that there are three new residences under construction in the first half thth block between 35 and 36. It would not be fair to them to change the designation after the th fact. In response to that I wrote a letter which was dated February 26 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  beforethesehousesIdidntchangeitasmuchastheCommunityAssociationrequestedin .€ their letter, but it was revised so that it stops short of three houses that have been built between thth 35and36.Andthenitgoesontosay,Themapisnotmeanttobeexacthowever.Soits  possible that control types of commercial uses could be considered in the general area of thth OrchidlandDrivein35to36StreetthroughspecialpermitsorrezoningAndsowedidhave .€ this correspondence. I did not do exactly what the Community Association requested in their priorletter,butwedidcutitbacksomewhat. 20EXHIBIT C 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 MooersdownalongKawaihaeRoadorsomethingwherewehaveconcurrentStateLandUse 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 -? 21EXHIBIT C 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 decisionwithin60daysfromthetransmittalof,fromtheDirectortothePlanningCommission. YUEN:Ithoughtthecloseofhearingis60daysandthentheyhave30daysto-. 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. 22EXHIBIT C 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 giveussomeideasonwherewereat,andhowfaralongintheprocess,andwhatkindof 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 23EXHIBIT C 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 motiononthetabletocontinuethisagendaitemtothenexthearing,motionmadeby 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, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 24EXHIBIT C