Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-04-21 Tgp-amendment 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 AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: William R. GrahamJeffrey McCall Rodney H. Watanabe Andrew Iwashita Fred Galdones 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: PLANNINGDIRECTOR 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 LandUsePatternAllocationGuideMapandFacilitiesMap.Theprocessforthiswillbeour Director will be sharing with you some highlights of the proposed changes and then we€ll move intotestimony.Ihave7testifiersandwe€vereceivedalotofwrittentestimonyuptothispoint as well as the additional testimony presented here today. I will be asking for those of you who providedwrittentestimony,abriefsummarykindofhighlightingyourthoughtssowecanmove this process along. But first I€ll turn 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 EXHIBIT D 1 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 andthey 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 rd to the close of the public hearing. That 60 days began March 3 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, thisis 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 ththth have in May are May 5 and May 26. The May 26 meeting, if the hearing were closed th effective today the May 26 meeting would be outside of our 30-day window. I€ve discussed this with Corporation Counsel and it would be consistent with theway 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 th 1. When the Commission, on the May 5 meeting, the Commission can vote on the recommendations or can vote on some of the recommendations. If its unable to, by taking this th May 1 effective date for the close of the hearing you open up May 26 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 beforetheseallgouptotheCouncil.Sothat€sourrecommendationofwhatorasuggestion about what the Commission should do today. As far as our presentation to the Commission, becausewe€vehadaworkshopwherewewentthroughallofthesebeforemysuggestionisthat now we take some time for us to answer questions that the Commission may have on the particularamendments.Wehavethecomputersetuptobeabletoprojectaslideofanytext amendment or any map amendment so we can follow it together. After we take that time then wehaveapublictestimony.Afterpublictestimonyifthere€sanythingtheDepartmentwould like to say on, to clarify issues raised in the public testimony then we€ll go ahead and do that. Andthenwe€llagaintakequestionsfromtheCommissionthatmaybesparkedbythepublic testimony or may be, may have come up in the Commission€s mind just in the course of the day. EXHIBIT D 2 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 GeneralPlandesignationofHokulia.Hokuliaisnotreallysetasideonthemapspecificallyasa 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 EXHIBIT D 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 GeneralPlanamendmentprocessbefore2005hadrequesteda1,000-footelevation.Sojustto 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 EXHIBIT D 4 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 up on 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:Nobecausethechangeinitselfdoesn€tchangeyourzoningandwhatyou 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 EXHIBIT D 5 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.Whydon€twemoveintothenextstageofthisprocess.I€dliketo 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 t EXHIBIT D 6 EXHIBIT D 7 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. I am 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 usMy great-grandfather, Henry Nicholas Greenwell, began farming 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 farming 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 l000 foot corridor can only sustain periodic grazing. I ask for your favorableconsiderationtoexpandtheDirector€srequestE-6,7&8furthersouth,atleastthroughour lands, if not further than Napoopoo Road. The rationale used in the Director€s request and as detailed aboveforourfarm,appliesequallytotheselands.Weareframersandsupportthedesignationof protection of Important Agricultural lands, but feel the designation should be based on realities of Agriculture,consistentlyappliedacrosssimilarlands.Werespectfullyrequestyourfavorable consideration of this request. Thank you for this opportunity to provide testimony on amendments to the GeneralPlan. EXHIBIT D 8 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 propertyneedstobenothigherdensitybutnohigherthanit€scurrentlypermittedforwhichisatotalof37 lots between this entire subdivision. The totality of this subdivision needs to consider the traffic. With 33 lotsonthenorthernhalfofthislandand4lotsonthesouthendyou€relookingatapproximately74cars minimum coming on the Napoopoo. A very busy road that is speed posted at 20 to 25 miles per hour, the averagespeedis45to50milesanhour.I€vehadthepoliceouttheremanytimesjuststandingbytheroad and in horror at the amount of traffic going through there. So we need to have a lot of traffic work in there. EXHIBIT D 9 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€tintentional 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 theplans 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 affectedcould more readilyfind 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 further eliminate what is in that ordinance. So, I wish you would have had that discussionherebeforeyouallwhat€sgoingon,onthissoyouseewhathappensaftertheaftereffect.Justa last thing I included, so I included my, a letter I wrote to the Mayor on this, that issue. And I also just as backgroundforBobHunter€sdiscussiononprotectingthepu€usputinabackgroundmemooftheLand Conservation sub-committee and our work in trying to get the community to work on that proposal. Lastly oneofthepointsintheGeneralPlanis,talksaboutisthewaythere€snozoningorconservationzoningthat would allow sort of multi, multi-faceted uses where you could have agriculture conservation, Hawaiian EXHIBIT D 10 customary uses and recreation. And that€s really what we€retrying 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 up on 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 Tarnas? 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 Tarnas. 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 an RFP 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 archaeologicalsites.Sothealignmentasitisonthemapmaynotbethefinaloneaftertheseconsiderations. On the LUPAG map this would be on page 4 of those proposed amendments, which is E4 open to urban expansionlocationsintheareaofHonokohauHarbor.ThisrationaledescriptionI€dliketoprovidea comment on that and then a comment on the LUPAG map. Under the rationale, the description says the Stateplanstoexpandtheharborandhavesomeassociatedcommercialandgolfdevelopmentssurrounding the harbor. The developments include coastal open space buffer exact dimensions to be set time of zoning. EXHIBIT D 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 golf but really a mixed-use development. Master Plan Mixed-Use development, which includes hotel, time-sharecomponents. Transient accommodations are going to be important for the economic viability of the developer to be able to achieve and build these public infrastructure 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 rd this land. I appreciate the corrections that the Director has made in terms of the April 3 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 Vermillion, 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 certainly 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? GRAHAM:David? 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 infrastructure 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. IntheKtoKplantheareawhichistheDepartmentofHawaiianHomeLandsareaisrecognizedasa Regional Urban Center that would be north of Kailua-Kona that could help to relieve some of the urban pressureonKailua-Kona.AnditwasenvisionedasIsayaRegionalUrbanCenter.There€sthedriveas well and an open space in the shoreline. The Director€s recommendationto change some of that open area tourbanexpansionIthinkdoesrecognizethaturbanuseofthelandsandithasasubstantialcoastalocean buffer. So in principal it follows the same, the Director€s recommendation follows the same EXHIBIT D 12 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 successisprovide for transient accommodationsand 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€retalkingaboutwhatisthat132lotsandonthe66acres.Andthenwehaveanadditional26acresifwe make that rural and we go half-acre lots, which rural says you can have. Gone is all the Important Ag lands, there€s52otherpeoplethere.BythatIcountaboutahundredandeighty-fourlotspossiblethere.That,half of those lots would be on the floor plane, a flood location. Impossible to keep those people from being hurt andfrom,theirhomesfrombeingdestroyedwhenwehaveareallybigfloodcausewe€vehadafew through there. And as far as not being able to have Ag in there, there€s presently on the corner of that EXHIBIT D 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 if we 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 wecan find. We also have a traffic problem. I€m really concerned about 38 parcelswith 76 carsI 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 if we 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. Vidgin you can please state your name and address for the record. VIDGIN:Hi, my name is Rick Vidgin. I live at 78-630 Ihilani Place in Kona and I€m here representingCaptainCookRanchwhoownsthelandunderquestion. ALAMEDA:Okay.Youmayproceed. EXHIBIT D 14 VIDGIN:I€d just like to, you, I believe you received a letter from Captain Cook Ranch from th the manager Mike Gibson dated April 18. 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. In a 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 further 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 drainageissues and we€ll beabsolutelycertain 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:YesIwantedtobring,pointouttotheCommissionthatwedidmakeaslight change on the map from the amendments that we showed you earlier. And this is as a result of testimony thatwasmadeearlier,intheearlymeeting.InHonokohauHarborarea,letmetrytofocusthisalittlebetter. This is the Honokohau Harbor here. Queen Kaahumanu Highway here. And this is the road going into HonokohauHarbor.ThisisStateland.OneithersideofHonokohauHarborthereisHawaiianHomesland in this area here. What we had in the, actually it was in the 1989 General Plan as well. The area just north EXHIBIT D 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 Tarnas, had indicated that a General Plan in the RFP would require that there be some at least Resort in that areasouth 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 Resorton 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:Sohowdidthathappen? YUEN:WellI€mnotsurewhatthezoningisforthearea.Butifyou,therearemany examples where because the mapping on the General Plan level is not meant to be precise that zoning doesn€texactlyfollowtheGeneralPlan.Butgiven,youknowgiventhatwe€redoingtheseinterim amendments and we€ve, we€re doing a change here that we really wanted to try to make the map more EXHIBIT D 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 alogicalusefor somekinds 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 of these are really taken, are not changed. A lot of the designations arenot 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 GeneralPlan even though it didn€t exactly match up. I can show you, there are a lot of examples of this kind of thing. 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 fuzzy 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 futurecommercialdevelopmentontheroadIdon€tseewhyweneedtochangethatwholeopenareayou know to the Urban area. And that if you just kept it the same way this development still could you know, couldoccurdowntheroad.So,that€smyonlypointandIunderstandthatfurtherstepswouldbenecessary. But I just don€t see that given that, that is a fuzzy line that we really have to make this change. EXHIBIT D 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. RECONVENED: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 anexemption 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. GALDONES:Second. 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? EXHIBIT D 18 WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Sorry 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, Lynette Marushige, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT D 19