Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-05-22 TPUNACDP PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 22, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANwas called to order at 4:13 p.m. at the King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Takashi Domingo ABSENT & EXCUSED: C. Kimo Alameda Shelly Ogata Lani Bowman Alvin Rho (Left at 6:07 p.m.) Andrew Iwashita Rene’ Siracusa Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Maija Cottle, Staff Planner Larry Brown, Planner, Planning Department Jon Olson, Chairman, Puna Community Development Plan Steering Committee And eight people from the public in attendance. PUNA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Review of the draft Puna Community Development Plan submitted by the Puna Community Development Plan Steering Committee and its Consultant, PlanPacific, Inc. WATANABE: We are on Agenda Item No. 3, which is the Puna Community Development Plan. And with that, I think I’ll turn it over to Mr. Hayashi. HAYASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. As you recall, the Planning Commission had a th hearing on the Puna Community Development Plan at its last meeting on May 8, and that was held at the Keaau Middle School Cafeteria. At that meeting the consultant as well as the Steering Committee Chair and Mr. Brown from our office gave a presentation. Also at that hearing there was a number of individuals from the public who presented testimony; I think we had over 25 people that testified at that hearing. So at this time, although we do have Mr. Olson and Mr. Brown here for this meeting, perhaps we could dispense with a presentation by them unless the Commissioners -, and this will be at your discretion, and perhaps leave it up to the Commission as to whether they would like to ask, if you have any questions, to ask all to these individuals. EXHIBIT C 1 WATANABE: I believe most of the Commissioners that are present went through the presentation. But is there any Commissioner that will object to dispensing with a presentation? Hearing none, then I hope, though – because we did not have a chance, as I indicated earlier, to discuss any concerns we may have with the Development Plan draft as presented – I hope that you all will be willing to stick around till after the public testimony; then maybe we can have some deliberation. As you recall on that May meeting it went into 4 hours of just simply testimony, yeah. BROWN: That would be fine, yes. I -. WATANABE: I appreciate that. BROWN: Okay. I did have just some brief remarks to address one of the primary concerns that was repeated at the last hearing. And then Jon and I, like Mr. Hayashi mentioned, we are here to respond to any questions that the Commissioners might have, and of course to hear the public testimony from any citizens from West Hawaii or those that came over from Puna today. WATANABE: Thank you. Would you like to then continue with -, you had some brief remarks, you said. BROWN: Thank you. One repeated concern expressed at the last meeting had to do with a perceived lack of detail or local planning sufficient to prescribe the -, or to implement the village center concepts that are described in the Puna Community Development Plan. One of the things that we have to recognize or remember is that the Puna CDP would need to address really huge obstacles and shortcomings that are a result of over a half century of unguided subdivision and development in over nearly 500 square miles of the Big Island. And this is -, a significant amount of the development that has occurred and the subdivisions that have been created in this half century are in really high hazard zones, whether they be tsunami, lava, inundation, etc. Most of the actions in the CDP that are called from the CDP do require subsequent planning activities and legislative actions. It would be the responsibility of lead agencies and partners working in collaboration with the proposed community implementation committees, which are now being identified as action committees, and the local communities, the stakeholders within those communities to carry out these actions. This will require coordination and prioritization for each CDP project area as well as between the various CDP project areas for CIP funding and the utilization of County and State resources. At some point it will be necessary to initiate amendments to the GP and the County Code to allow implementation of some of the CDP actions. I’m sure this will be true for Kohala, North and South, as well as the Kona CDPs. The CDP provides suggested guidelines and locations for village centers, but it does not establish village center boundaries; it does not establish village center permitted uses, setbacks, building size limitations or design guidelines. The CDP does define three types of village centers with different size and range of uses according to their intended function or suggested guidelines – key words being “suggested guidelines” for scale, uses and general design characteristics. Typically all village or town centers in the Puna CDP will require a local community planning effort to create a master plan that will identify such things as a village or town center boundary, design standards or permitted uses. So it is something that maybe was not clearly articulated in the language of the CDP as it has been submitted. And we are working with John Whalen, the EXHIBIT C 2 planning consultant, PlanPacific, to offer some additional amendments or recommendations for the Director to consider, and to submit to the Planning Commission at the next hearing, that will address the concern. So it is very clear that this Puna CDP does recognize that additional local community planning efforts will be required subsequent to adoption of the Puna CDP to identify the parameters and the boundaries for proposed village or town centers, and these will be done at the local level for those individual village centers at a time that is appropriate for those specific areas, whether it be in one of the subdivisions such as Leilani, which may have a village center in 20 years, 30 years or maybe never; it’s up to that particular community to make that decision. But others such as Keaau, Pahoa and Hawaiian Paradise Park are probably more likely to happen sooner rather than later, and it will probably require initiation by the County with extensive participation by those local communities. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Brown? Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Brown, are you saying that this Community Development Plan should be adopted by resolution? BROWN: No, it should be adopted by ordinance. DOMINGO: So then you are deferring further implementation of the CDP Plan to your individual planning group on various issues by the community themselves? BROWN: Correct. For village and town centers in particular, those would need to be done at a later date by those individual communities at a time that’s right for them. DOMINGO: When they do consider those issues, are there any guidelines stipulated in the Community Development Plan as to how they would go about and what considerations they may have with regards to the planning effort? BROWN: There are guidelines in the Puna CDP to provide guidance – guidelines to provide guidance – for the size, the scope, the scale of an individual community or village center depending upon whether it’s one of the three different classes that are described in the CDP. The CDP doesn’t give guidance as to how to go about community engagement or the master planning effort; but that would be something that would be worked out in collaboration between the action committees or community implementation committees as well as the Planning Department. OLSON: If I may. DOMINGO: Jon. OLSON: If I may use an example of Hawaiian Paradise Park. They’ve already had three rounds over the last twelve years of the planning process. And we pretty much just adopted their plan. They have a well-organized lot owners’ organization; you know, 8,000 plus lot owners belong to the association. They send out a quarterly newsletter. So they already have a process in place. And that is true of most of what you will see in the plan, is that we looked at what the community had already done, the validity of what they’ve done, and if it would looked EXHIBIT C 3 like a sound process, we adopted it; you know, we said we’ll put this in the Plan. So Ainaloa, Nanawale, Leilani, Kehena Seaview, they’ve all had planning processes; some of them were facilitated by the County, some of them have brought in, you know, planners to help them do the work. So from that perspective our work has been pretty easy because all of these documents exist and time has vetted them, and there it is. BROWN: Could I just add -, there has also been some misunderstanding or misperception by some folks that the Puna CDP would have an impact on the existing land use entitlements. And other than the proposed downzoning of certain agricultural parcels in that provision in the Puna CDP, it would not impact any of the existing commercial or industrial zoned lands in Puna unless those parcels were included in a village or town center bubble, if you will, or boundary. And then if a zoning designation for that village or town center was adopted that was either one of the other existing zoning designations under Chapter 25 or a newly created floating zone designation, which is something that is suggested in the Plan, if that were adopted for that area, that then would impact the existing zoning designation. WATANABE: I might comment to that, Mr. Brown. I’ve read through the CDP, and I don’t see where you specifically identify any particular parcels. So it’s pretty broad, the statement about downzoning to whatever it is “appropriate zoning.” Do you get what I’m saying? I think that’s why, you know, you have this so-called wide-spread misperception. But you don’t have any particular list of any properties that -, which makes it finite. BROWN: Right. What the downzoning refers to is Ag zone parcels to prevent extensive further subdivision of large agricultural parcels in the district, the fear being that there would be additional substandard subdivisions being created. There are additional lots that really aren’t even needed in an area with 50,000 buildable lots already. WATANABE: I understand, and as Mr. Woodward pointed out, 80 percent of the 40 some odd percent of the land that can be transferred because it doesn’t belong either to the Fed or the State is Ag. So there is a lot of stuff that’s Ag that’s already residential. Right? Am I not correct on that? BROWN: Yeah, a lot of the lots that are zoned agricultural are in reality being used for residential purposes. WATANABE: My point being it’s still a taking. Any time you downzone and you reduce already approved entitlement, it’s going to cost you money. Or do you think everyone is going to just willingly downzone? BROWN: Perhaps Chris will help me out on this. But I think that the recommendations that the Director made to amend the Puna CDP’s provisions for downzoning the Ag lands wouldn’t be constituted as a taking. YUEN: Yes. Just a downzoning itself is not a taking. You can downzone and reduce the development intensity of a piece of property without it being a taking under constitutional provisions. EXHIBIT C 4 WATANABE: So that means if I have RS-15 now, and you downzone to – I don’t know what a good example would be – that’s not a taking even though I can build less than half the homes there? YUEN: That’s, say, giving you an example of cutting it in half, no, that’s not a taking. WATANABE: I don’t know. I think you’re going to test that in court. YUEN: I did write a – maybe I didn’t send it to the Planning Commission – I did write a memo on this for the County Council in connection with the Kohala LLC project, and if I didn’t send it to the Planning Commission, I’m sorry. But generally, yes, you can change the zoning on a piece of property and reduce the ultimate level of development that can be made on it without constituting a taking. You have to leave the landowner some economic use of the property, and you can’t interfere with what are called vested rights. But in a case of property that’s not subdivided, generally you would not be talking about the rights having vested in the property. There are -, you know, you can get to really specific factual circumstances where somebody might have a vested right, but generally these properties we are talking about wouldn’t be vested. In terms of Puna, when we are talking about changing the zoning would be on properties that are in the agricultural district that are currently zoned, you know, something, there are -, in addition to all the subdivided lots in Puna there are very large areas that are zoned, which could be subdivided into much smaller lots, that are currently in large lots. For example, there are about 6,000 acres that are zoned Ag-1 that have never been subdivided to the 1-acre lots; a lot of these are in parcels of several hundred acres.So the Development Plan has a downzoning proposal for those that is pretty drastic. I have proposed an amendment that is still a downzoning but less drastic. In any case the Council -, the Plan itself does not accomplish the downzoning; the downzoning would have to be done on a property by property basis with notice to the property owner, and give them an opportunity to contest it at the time it went forward. WATANABE: Okay. My real concern here is not so much whether it’s appropriate to downzone or not, okay? If the community wants to downzone, maybe that’s appropriate. That’s not my major concern. My general feeling – and I’m not an attorney, and haven’t studied case law on this – is that it constitutes taking, which means somebody has to pay for this. And my general concern is that while I’m on record saying that this is one island, one county, we should remain one county, you know, and I have no objection to subsidizing Puna or Kau or whatever for essentials. I don’t consider downzoning, especially if it’s a taking, as an essential, nor do I consider for that matter – I’m getting ahead of all of this – providing free wireless internet access as an essential. And you know, the thing that I have a problem with is how do you pay for all of this, especially when you have a community that is largely retired, predominantly agricultural. Now, we all know we’re going to support agriculture by providing the low real property tax rates; I’m not opposed to that. And we also know that we’re trying to support the elderly, the retired or who are on limited income, I’m not opposed to that, with the property tax deductions. But all I see here is a lot of things that to me increase expenses and decrease revenue with no logic on how we’re going to finance all of this. You know, my concern here is the unintended effect of adding all these expenses is the burden will be carried by the working force that is non- agricultural, and older will still get a free ride and agriculture will still get a free ride. And once again, I’m not opposed to agriculture or the elderly getting subsidies. EXHIBIT C 5 SIRACUSA: But I want to -. WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Point out that not all the funding has to come from the County or from our tax dollars. For example, the USDA has a special program called rural electrification and they have other programs that give very large grants to communities to upgrade, to put in electrical energy and other utilities such as WiFi and that sort of thing. So it doesn’t have to necessarily come out of our tax dollars. But those -. WATANABE: I agree -. SIRACUSA: But those grantors would not consider a grant application for something like that unless there were some kind of documents that authorize the community to initiate that sort of a program such as the Puna Community Development Plan would do. So just to answer that part of your question, there is more than one way to skin a cat. WATANABE: I agree. The Community Development Plan, though -. SIRACUSA: And I hope my cats don’t hear that. WATANABE: The Community Development Plan, though, is not specific to that. And it’s my understanding that it at some point becomes ordinance. And then what? It’s not like it’s saying subject to any available funding from wherever; it just says go do it, and we have a timetable to do it. But I don’t see anything in there that says and this is how we’re going to fund it. That’s where I have a problem. Not with the actual goal, okay, but how are you going to fund it. OLSON: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Olson. OLSON: We had a great deal of discussion on that very issue, and our conclusion on that was what is going to happen, if we don’t do that. In other words -, let me give you some figures we worked with: the total numbers of parcels by district, okay, as of 1999 there were 16,600 parcels in Kau, there were 5,205 parcels in South Kona, 15,300 in North Kona, South Kohala had 7,500, North Kohala had 2,800, Hamakua had a total of 3,450, North Hilo 1,273, South Hilo 19,327, Puna 56,989. Now, that’s pieces of land that people own already. And if we add another potentially 20,000 lots, which is about a number that could be, if you took all of the Ag parcels that could be zoned Ag-1 or Ag-2 or Ag-5, and let that happen. I mean, the consequences to the County -, do you really want to have six council people elected from the district of Puna? I mean, that’s -, politically it becomes the gorilla in the living room – police, fire services, schools, all of those things. It just -, I mean we’ve already got a monster, and if we don’t do something about what we can do something about -. We can’t do anything about the 60,000 lots that are there, right? EXHIBIT C 6 WATANABE: I can appreciate what you are saying, and I think that’s true throughout the island not necessarily just in Puna -. OLSON: But we, you know -. WATANABE: We spent -. OLSON: Three times a number of lots of any other districts. WATANABE: Mr. Olson, we spent from this morning till 4:00 o’clock this afternoon – and we continued Agenda Item No. 2 – and that was Kona stuff, okay. So it’s not about just Puna; every Community Development Plan is going to -. OLSON: Have the same impact. WATANABE: Right. So how do you pay for it? That’s all I’m saying. I’m not saying it’s wrong; I’m saying how you pay for it. May I propose something, yeah? Why don’t you all create one tax increment district, meaning, okay, if Puna wants to buy up 5,000 acres of land, great, you guys go get a bond, agree to increase your property taxes and you pay for it. And if Kona wants to buy up whatever thousand acres, they do the same. OLSON: Well, I mean, in part we’ve of course listened to Corporation Counsel, we’ve listened to the Director’s discussion on what a taking constitutes; and that did impact our decision. And we did at least in principle agree to his amendment to our Plan, although we weren’t able to vote it. And as far as the tax increment, financing, I mean that is -, given the recent land values increases, I don’t think -, no one that I’ve talked to has any problem with that. We are certainly in the position at this point to pay for our own infrastructure, if the County Council would quit giving the money away. So it isn’t like we’re hat in hand anymore; that day has come and gone. Our land values and population are such that we have a significant tax base in and of itself; so that’s not a bad idea. WATANABE: Okay, well, I’m not following my own advice and I’m dominating this. So I’d better cut it out. Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You know, 3-10, the Plan says downzone all agricultural zone parcels in the State Agricultural District in Puna. When you say downzone, what are you implicating? OLSON: Well, I mean basically we are looking at those parcels that are -, the State I think has a designation that are -, that a true agricultural parcel is really 5 acres or more, as I recall. I don’t remember the figure that we used. And some of the large parcels, 300 acres here, 1,000 acres there, they have Ag-1 zoning. They could conceivably -, I mean, right now today, if they came into the Planning Department and agreed to putting in the infrastructure on, say, 1,000 acres that has Ag-1 zoning, if they place the infrastructure on that property as the law requires, there is nothing the Planning Department could do to prevent them from building that subdivision. They would simply hand in the papers and say thank you, have a nice day. EXHIBIT C 7 DOMINGO: You know, it says lots of 100 acres or more to Agricultural-20 acres. OLSON: Right. DOMINGO: So what does that mean? Okay, if you own 100 acres of agricultural zoned property -. OLSON: And it’s zoned 1, Ag-1. DOMINGO: And it’s zoned Ag-1 -. OLSON: Yeah. BROWN: Zoned anything less -, anything with a greater density than Ag-20, the way it is written in the CDP, if you had a 100-acre parcel -. DOMINGO: We’re talking about -. BROWN: We are all aware that the higher the number -, like AG-20 is a lower density than Ag-5, right, because Ag-5 means that you can create lots 5 acres in size, in Ag-20 your minimum lot size is 20 acres in size, right? So the higher the number, the lower the density. So if you had 100 acres and you are zoned at a higher density than Ag-20, you would have to have your zoning changed to Ag-20. So if your zoning was Ag-10, Ag-5, Ag-1, any of those zoning would be changed to Ag-20. As Chris says, it requires -, the adoption of the CDP doesn’t make that happen automatically. There is a subsequent action that has to happen, right? DOMINGO: What action you perceive will be taken? You know, concerning our land use laws right now, someone has to initiate that. BROWN: That could be a Director initiated zoning change. DOMINGO: You love your Director? You can imagine how many people own properties with 1-acre zoning and live in a larger parcel, you know; and if he says, okay, we’re going to rezone your property, we’re going to downzone your property to 20-acre, therefore 1- acre is not appropriate for you to put a dwelling on top, you are denying that individual the right to build on his 1-acre zone parcel because you are taking away the zoning and you are bring it up to 20-acre zoning. BROWN: Under the Zoning Code, you are only allowed to put 1 dwelling on 1 lot, regardless of what -, if your zoning is Ag-1 or Ag-200 and you have a 200-acre lot, you can only put 1 house on that lot. You would have to subdivide it to put additional dwellings on there; and I’m overlooking the additional farm dwelling provisions and things like that, but, okay? SIRACUSA: Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa. EXHIBIT C 8 SIRACUSA: I would like to point out the scenario that was given of a 1,000-acre parcel zoned Ag-1, most of Puna, especially the middle and lower Puna, is a total cul-de-sac, and a lot of the subdivisions within that part of Puna are cul-de-sacs within cul-de-sacs. And yet not too long ago, you know, and still now actually, we have lava coming down in Royal Gardens. It’s really crucial for people to be able to evacuate. The roads aren’t getting any wider. We still have one road in and out, and State DOT has no plans to do major widening. In some places we have two or three roads leading into that 1 road, which makes a real evacuation nightmare. So trying to reduce the number of available, buildable lots is really – besides everything else – is a major issue for public safety. And I just wanted to put that out there before I ask my question. WATANABE: You have a question also. Okay, continue. SIRACUSA: Okay? All right. WATANABE: I did overuse my time anyway, yeah. SIRACUSA: We at the Planning Commission have had a lot of applications from people in Puna – Special Permit applications – people who wanted to do rather the stuff that would go really in a light-industry zone, auto repair shops and things like that; and tentatively rd they have been getting Special Permits of a limited 5-year period on 33 in Paradise Park. They back up against the highway and you’ve seen those warehouse structures – and you’ve seen them because a lot of them haven’t really complied with the Rule 17. But be that as it may, we have been hoping -, we have been giving only these limited permits with limited time periods because we kept waiting for the Puna Community Development Plan to come out and designate some areas where this limited industrial development could take place, so that we could say to those people, no, we are not going to grant you this bar here because there is an area where you can do it, that’s already been approved for that. So my question is -, it didn’t seem to me in reading this that this Plan really helps the Commission determine where to put light-industrial zoning in Puna. Could you -, am I reading the maps wrong, or -? Could you explain that, please? BROWN: I’ll try. I admit that the Plan probably isn’t as clear as it could be on that issue. I’ve had discussions with John Whalen, the planning consultant, on this very subject. And he explained to me that the intent was that the industrial, light-industrial zoning should be located in Pahoa and Keaau within the regional town centers for those two village areas. And I explained that, according to the language in the Plan, it’s very restrictive in that it doesn’t allow for any zoning for commercial or industrial uses outside of the designated village or town centers, and that that wouldn’t provide any kind of wiggle room to allow for a community plan rd such as HPP’s master plan where they do have that industrial, light-industrial area on 33 designated; and so he’s working on some language to allow for that. WATANABE: Thank you. Can we -? Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Just one -. WATANABE: Real quick one, then. EXHIBIT C 9 SIRACUSA: Okay. Because I’m looking at the map here on Page 5-9, which is the Pahoa regional town center, and I don’t see the color code for the various areas; purple is industrial zone, but I don’t see any purple in this map at all. And yet, I have been thinking all along that an ideal area for an industrial or light-industrial zoning would be on Apaa Street by the -, as you go up to the Pahoa Solid Waste Transfer Station. And no one lives up there; so we wouldn’t be impacting anybody, and it’s close enough to town, and it has a lot of other good things that were recommended like a lot of weed trees and nothing really good stuff. So could you explain how come we don’t -? BROWN: Certainly. Quite frankly, the color coding on these maps, all of the colors except for blue indicate what the current zoning designation is. So the reddish or orange-ish or brownish, depending on how good your color copy came out, is commercial zone that’s existing zoning. The yellow is your existing residential, and the purple is the existing industrial zoning; there isn’t any in Pahoa at this time, and so that’s why you don’t see any purple in there. The blue is, basically what it is is it’s existing agricultural zoning, but it’s indicated in blue by the consultant to indicate the areas that he identifies as possible areas to be included in the village or town center area that would then have its zoning changed to whatever zoning designation that’s deemed appropriate for that particular community, okay. So now your suggestion is one that is worth merit, and it would be something that the Pahoa community and all the stakeholders involved in creating the master plan for the Pahoa village town center – okay, I used the right term – the Pahoa village town center, that would be one option that they should take a serious look at. Another one that we’ve heard came from Council Member Naeole on the 100-acre Hawaiian Home Lands parcel immediately makai of the new fire station, which is another good option in my opinion, perhaps even a better one. But that’s for the Pahoa community itself to decide when they create their master plan. SIRACUSA: Then I would suggest when you create the final draft, that these maps have a little, you know, something on them saying that this is the existing zoning because otherwise it’s going to come up again; people are going to misread the maps and misinterpret them. WATANABE: Okay. I think I started something that I -, it’s my fault; I take blame for this. You know, we have seven people who signed up to testify. We did indicate at the beginning that we would have a brief discussion. And like I said, I take responsibility for that; I think I opened it up and maybe a can of worms along with it. So if the two of you would kindly remain, so that we could continue this discussion and for those -, that would allow us to get through the seven testifiers who have been patiently waiting all day. Thank you, Mr. Brown. Okay, let me call up the first four testifiers: I have a Dan Taylor, Pamela Sullivan, Jeffrey Mermel and Steven Lim. Dan Taylor? MERMEL: Dan Taylor has left. WATANABE: Okay. Oh, he had to leave? MERMEL: Yes. EXHIBIT C 10 WATANABE: Frankie Stapleton. Okay. Well, I already swore Mr. Lim in earlier. So would the three of you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Lim, you don’t need to provide your address, but – since you already did – but the rest of you would have to, prior to beginning your testimony. Mr. Lim, do you want to start? I know you guys have waited a real long time, okay. And we provided Puna people with 5 minutes. Can we contain this to 5 minutes, yeah, everyone? LIM: Sure, I’m going to be real short. WATANABE: Thank you. LIM: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Commission. Steven Lim representing W. H. Shipman, Limited. We submitted our May 22, 2008, letter to you today. It’s very short, and essentially I think what we are trying to hit is the some of the main points that we had heard at the last hearing out in Puna. I think what we are seeing as we go through the process seems the Puna Community Development Plan was developed through a lot of hard work by many people. And you can tell that there are a lot of ideas in there that are good ideas, some of the ideas we disagree with; but nevertheless, those made into the plan. But I think one of the things that we heard – and I think we are hearing from the Commission today – is that there’s a lot of questions with the plan. And I think these questions will be exacerbated when you start to look at other Plans because this is just a first Plan that you have before you. So this is the Puna Community Development Plan, and although I’m not, you know, a fan of a lot of paper, that’s equivalent to the Keaau town conceptual master plan just in terms of paper that Shipman had developed over the past couple of years with the community out in Keaau. And then you’re going to be faced with looking at the -, even just Volume 1 of the Kona CDP; and what you’re going to find, I think, when you look at them is that there is a significant difference in structure, in depth and in how they handle what goes forward once the CDPs get adopted. And I don’t know if that was the intent; I don’t think it was. I think that the people on the Big Island across the island should be able to look at these various CDPs, and kind of, you know, follow through and have a relatively similar conceptual framework for looking at these Plans, so you can interpret them. But I think you’re going to find, if you have looked at the Kona one and the Puna one, you’re going to see it’s totally different. So our suggestion I think is, while we do think there are issues, that the Commission and the County Council have to look at them before final adoption because these are stated under the General Plan to be adopted as ordinances, as laws, that will control the rights and duties of parties. I mean, I have heard statements that some of these statements in the Plan are policy guidelines and things like that; but I think you yourself know that if a development is proposed in an area that is not colored the right color, you’re probably not going to get the Planning Director’s support, you’re probably not going to get the Commission’s support. So we have, in the Puna CDP we have – with respect to Shipman anyways – primary concern with the Keaau map that’s on Page 5-8. So I wanted to just go real quickly, what we’ve done is our Exhibit A is a proposed amendment to the description of the Keaau town area to more EXHIBIT C 11 closely what we think match – and it’s kind of a mirror of what’s shown on Page 5-8 of your Puna CDP – we’ve tried to re-characterized the description of the Keaau town center, so that you could take advantage of the regional town center designation. As you’ve probably noticed on the existing Puna CDP that’s before you, the regional town center is not defined on this map, and that was left for later on. We think that’s one of the big things that should be defined in the CDP. And to illustrate the point, as you go through the colored diagrams, the first colored diagram is entitled Draft Community Development Plan Keaau Regional Town Center; so this is a copy of the existing 5-8 map with the red crosshatches showing you the areas that are owned by W. H. Shipman, Limited in Keaau – that’s just for illustrative purposes. As you can see, certain areas owned by Shipman are included, and others in the area are designated by the State Land Use Commission in the Urban District, and therefore already slated for urban development. Large areas of those Urban District lands are not shown as any type of development on this Plan. We understand from the Planning Department staff that the blue color, which on the legend says other zone, that was intended to be agricultural land, and I’m assuming that that’s, that’s what I think Mr. Brown told one of my staffers. So when you turn to the second page that is an overlay – it’s kind of a little bit complicated but – overlay of the yellow and the orange right in the Keaau town center area show the low density urban and the medium density urban in the Keaau town center; and on the left side of the page, which is the west side of the Volcano Highway, is the urban expansion area. These are the current County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map designations; so these are the current law, this was adopted as a General Plan. So when you look at the current Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps versus the first map on the existing Page 5-8, you can see that there are significant differences in terms of what’s proposed in the General Plan currently; and what the Puna CDP proposes to do is it’s going to reduce the developable area down significantly. And the last map is our suggested revision of the Keaau regional town center; this will be a suggested revision to Page 5-8. What this shows is the combination of the existing LUPAG General Plan designations on the east side on the Keaau village side, and on the west side on the left side of the page the Keaau regional town center and the Shipment Business Park. These are areas that include the large areas of already Urban State Land Use District lands and the existing zoning for the Keaau town center and Shipman Business Park areas. We feel that this is a more realistic map as to what is actually planned and already zoned out there, and that the current 5-8 map is very restrictive in terms of both the area designated and with respect to the chart that limits the total number of square footage of commercial uses that would be proposed even if that was a regional town center. So that concludes my presentation for today. We’re going to come back again obviously when we’re going to back out to Puna. I hope that we’ll have more text amendments for you at that time. But I appreciate your attention to this matter, and thank you very much. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Lim? Okay. Yes, yes, Chris. YUEN: I’m not sure why this is a point of conflict. And the reason why I say this is, you know, the question here is the extent of the expansion of Keaau Town within the time horizon of the General Plan or the Community Development Plan, which basically are plans that are renewed on the 10-year basis with roughly a 20-year time horizon, all right? So Shipman on the Mauna Kea side of Highway 11 got State Land Use reclassification of 140 acres in the early 1990s and rezoning of 32 acres of commercial in 2002, not one square foot of which has been developed till today. So Shipman is then saying this 140 acres, which is the amount shown for EXHIBIT C 12 the CDP as the expansion area, is not enough, and that we should have an area of roughly – how many acres will this be, just on the Mauna Kea side, in ballpark 800 acres, 900 acres? LIM: That will be fairly consistent with the -, probably about 800 acres, I think, the 660 acres that was urban plus 200 acres or so in the Industrial Park. YUEN: Yeah, so my question is why this is -, given the pace of what we’ve actually seen, why is this a point of conflict? LIM: I think a part of the reason for the Shipman’s concern over the Puna CDP is that it doesn’t even recognize that growth; I mean, it’s the existing growth on the 5-8 map. Part of the reason for the Keaau town conceptual master plan effort within the last 2 years was to develop through the community’s input what they wanted to see out in Keaau, and the plan as they developed it through the Shipman effort, I think, has been totally or at least partly ignored in the Puna CDP. I agree with you that this plan should show a 20-year build-out; and if all the population projections are correct, the Puna District in say 10 or 12 or 15 years is going to be greater in population than North and South Hilo. Then I think we will need all the facilities and services that are present there today, that we are planning there in the Shipman master plan. I mean, the whole idea of Shipman’s plan is that they will provide these regional commercial services and light-industrial services, so that people didn’t have to go all the way in to Hilo, as they do today. YUEN: Yeah, I agree with that. And I think Bill Walter had a good point on the 250,000 square feet on the regional center. I just question the need for the extent of the future urban area, especially the commercial area, that’s shown in this Plan here. LIM: I believe that you have a good point in that Shipman hasn’t done anything yet. I think this is one of those things where once it goes, it’s going to go relatively quickly. I expect the pace of development, once they get that first anchor tenant out there, to go relatively quickly. But you know, that raises -, I think it highlights my point, which is – you and I are having a very good discussion now – that decision should be made and put in the Plan; right now it’s not. YUEN: Okay, that’s all I have right now. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Mr. Chairman, you know, I have been of the opinion that the Community Development Plan should reflect what is already in the General Plan. And what we are seeing here in the CDP is a change in the LUPAG Map and some of the probably policy statements, like you know, we’ve seen the urban expansion area designations in the County of Hawaii General Plan LUPAG, except where they correspond to the recommended village center boundaries for Keaau and Pahoa. In that sense what I’m looking at is a default rezoning, you know, a default rezoning – in fact, you can say upzoning because you are taking away the privilege of the landowners from developing their lands as they already were entitled to do in the case of the Shipman property. And because they have not taken any initiative to develop it within this timeframe up till today – and I think we accept the fact that marketing, financing and other EXHIBIT C 13 factors that are being involved in the development has not been met; that’s why they have not done anything – but I don’t think that it will be within our jurisdiction to recommend the changes such as this and take away and in essence causing a default zoning by our action and by the County Council’s action. WATANABE: All right. Thank you. Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes, I have a question of Mr. Lim. WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Years ago when Shipman decided to start working on the Keaau master plan, which you referenced, they invited a group of people to sit down with them and work on the plan and gain community input. I was one of those that was invited by Bobby Cooper who was the head of Shipman at that time, and Jiro Sumada who now works with the County was involved in that also. And we had about 5 meetings or so, and then Shipman stopped calling the meetings. And so I was wondering if you were aware that the master plan only partially reflected community input; and at one point Shipman just cut it off, and the rest of it, and what came out of it as a result was entirely Shipman; they took out whatever they didn’t like that the community had put in. I’m sure – cause I never saw the final result – that they did save some of the things, ideas that they liked. But I was wondering if you were aware that the plan had not been totally a community thing, that Shipman had taken it over after awhile and completed it on their own without community input. Were you aware of that? LIM: I was aware that they kept the community involved. I don’t know what particularly happened with yourself; so I can’t comment. WATANABE: Do we have any further questions for Mr. Lim? And I believe it’s Pamela Sullivan. Yes, name and address, please. SULLIVAN: Pamela Sullivan, 15-2759 Aweoweo, Pahoa, sorry. I’m representing Foster Kern here today and my written testimony is a letter from Foster Kern to the Commission, and attached to that letter is a vicinity map of our project, our commercial center project called Ulupono Center in Keaau, so if the Commissioners want to refer to that map to see the location of that property. I just wanted to describe a little bit about the project. Ulupono Center is a commercial development in Keaau located at the intersection of Highway 130 and Milo Street; that’s approximately half a mile south of the Highway 11 and Highway 130 intersection. And Foster Kern has just completed the third phase of this development, which is the third phase, which consists of 12 lots on about 11 acres.The zoning for this phase is MCX-20. The two largest lots in this phase have just been purchased by Long’s Drugs – I’m sure you’ve read about that in the paper. The only business currently operating in the Center right now is CU Hawaii Federal Credit Union. The property also contains an additional 17 acres, which will be Phase IV of our project, and that’s zoned FA-3 currently. We intend to sell the remaining 10 lots of Phase III – the one that was just completed – to small and medium sized retailers and service providers that will contribute to the overall viability and success of the Center. There are comprehensive CC&Rs and guidelines in place to ensure the site will be developed in a consistent manner with EXHIBIT C 14 the goal of an attractive and well-designed center that will benefit the local businesses as well as the community. Ulupono can help achieve the goals of the Puna CDP. One central goal of the Puna CDP is to expand services in Puna, so that the demand for travel to obtain goods and services is reduced. One major challenge identified in the Plan is the lack of available and suitable sites with existing infrastructure that is needed to support the desired development for these services – I think this is something that Larry Brown touched on in his testimony. Ulupono is serviced by overhead electrical service by HELCO, phone service by Hawaiian Telcom, and a 60-foot wide access road soon to be dedicated to the County. Additionally, it is immediately located off Highway 130 and Milo Street where a traffic signal and turn lanes have already been in place. Ulupono Center provides local business owners an opportunity to establish a business in a first rate commercial center with easy access and frontage along Highway 130, the major corridor to lower Puna. Further, it will bring much needed goods and services in the very near future for the underserved residents of Puna. I also submitted another map – I’m sorry, I wanted to refer to Figure 5.8, which Steve had just referred to, which is the Keaau regional center, and point out to you that we are not included in that. Now, I think we all are confused on these designations here and these color codings. Based on Larry Brown’s testimony today, all existing commercial properties, things that are already zoned commercial, should be shown in red. Is that correct? Did I -, I thought that that was something -, or is that the proposed? Because now I’m very confused. I thought at one point somebody just said, when we started this discussion, that the red zone it should be existing. Is that correct? WATANABE: Yeah, I believe he indicated that that’s existing zoning. SULLIVAN: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. You can see that – when you look at our vicinity map as a reference – you can see that our first phase there is outlined in the State Land Use Urban, dotted line; but it’s not color-coded red. So we were essentially ignored in that, and I’m not sure why. I believe that that has been zoned commercial for at least 10 years – that’s what I was told. So why I’m here today is because we want to describe to you why Ulupono is a natural candidate for inclusion in the Puna CDP as a regional or community center, or whatever other commercial center designations happen to be designated in this Plan. Ulupono Center Phase III is already zoned commercial. Infrastructure for the site is already in place. There will be a high profile retailer in the center in the near future. The potential of donated acreage by Foster Kern from Phase IV, which is the currently zoned Ag parcel, could be a viable location for any number of community services including recreational centers, park space, medical facility or park-and-ride. The Ulupono Center can be part of the immediate solution to the challenges facing our community today. Although no specific timeframe has been set for implementation or approval of the Puna CDP and much work will be needed to gain broad support from the community, Ulupono center is positioned to be part of the solution immediately. If the County insists on approval of the current draft of the Puna CDP within a limited timeframe, adoption of the plan by resolution would be a viable solution that would recognize the hard work by so many, while still EXHIBIT C 15 providing the opportunity to make future changes for a more well-rounded and widely accepted plan. Thank you. WATANABE: Do we -? Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Yes. I think that what we are looking at here is, you know, you’ve already got your commercial zoning; I don’t see why you are flustered about it or think that it’s being threatened. I don’t see it that way; I see it as what they are proposing is expanding that industrial and commercial zoning to the other side of the Highway. Nobody is taking anything away from Foster Kern. Ulupono has already been approved. It’s got the zoning. So I think you are misunderstanding the threat to the company that you are representing. And maybe that’s because you had the same problem I did looking at the color coding on the zoning, since none of these maps were labeled current zoning. So everyone thought that was proposed zoning. And I think that really has to be clarified. Would you agree? SULLIVAN: Yes, I do agree that it needs to be clarified. And, but I also wanted to point out that only Phase III, the one that has just been completed, and we have infrastructure for right now, is zoned commercial. And if the whole 28 acres is not included, or at least that’s fine if you don’t want to include the Phase III, but the second phase is zoned Ag right now. So if we are not included in this boundary that we’ve been talking about, we will not be able to change the zoning to commercial; and what we will have is a half of the Center, and it won’t be something that we’ll be able to achieve all the goals that we want to achieve here, and provide all those services, especially 2 to 3 acres for community services whatever you think that might be, the County Council might think that is, whatever the community wants that to be. And I think that’s really important. Thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions? Thank you for your testimony. I believe -, Jeff Mermel. MERMEL: Thank you. Good afternoon. My name is Jeffrey Mermel, P. O. Box 342, Volcano. At the first meeting of this Planning Commission regarding the Puna Community Development Plan, the Volcano Community Association did present written testimony in favor of supporting this Plan by ordinance, not resolution; there is a difference. Today I’m here really as a parent and pretty much speaking as an individual, though I happen to be the president of the Association. I’ve lived a half of my life here; I’ve been here 32 years – You can do the math now. I have three things to say just as an individual. First of all on plans, why bother. I’ll speak to that. I’ll speak to also about that I believe this is as good as a grassroots plan can really be. And thirdly I think it’s already doing its job; it’s already starting to work. Reading from the Plan itself certain points jumped out to me. Puna has the fastest rate of growth on this island. The 2000 census had 31,000 people in Puna, in March of last year 43,000 estimated – that’s a 37 percent increase in seven years – and by 2030 a projected population of 75,000. We need one plan. The key sentence that jumped out to me is that since only a fourth – so it’s only a quarter – of the available lots have been developed at present. It’s clear that these extensive subdivisions – and I would say these subdivisions are, you know, substandard is the word that usually jumps out to people – these subdivisions present formidable challenges to the natural environment and the rational management of development in future population growth. And by example of what’s happening with this kind of growth, I have two pictures that I’d like to give you. (The pictures EXHIBIT C 16 were circulated.) What’s coming around is a half acre of forest. You know, native forest is not limited to Volcano, folks; there is native forest in lower Puna. This is what’s happening, pin to pin clearing of the forest all over Puna. This is a gradual but very systemic thing that’s happening. And when I allude to the second point here about this being a grassroots plan, there were four kickoff public meetings 300 people came to. These are statistics from R&D Department. Three hundred people came before kickoff public meetings. And then there were 130 small group meetings; 1,152 people came to those smaller group meetings. And they were pulled on a very small personal level in people’s living rooms, community centers. And when they were concerned about the land, the number one thing that kept coming up was grading and grubbing. And it’s a reaction and notification of what these pictures are showing here. And there were two more of large public meetings; 250 people went to those. Then there were Working Groups; they talked about land use and then transportation, natural resources. Those were the major issues. They went into sub-groups, a thousand fifty-three hours. Then the Steering Committee, I think it was 12 dedicated people hours upon hours; they put in 1,400 hours. The hours of just people volunteering to produce the paper as the Plan totals up, from R&D here, 5,600 hours. Folks, you know, if there isn’t a more grassroots effort that put this Plan here, yes, with all the imperfections and zoning issues and this or that, I don’t know of anything else there is. And for my children and hopefully my grandchildren, should I live so long, you know, we need one plan. My last point is that in some ways I believe this Plan is already working because on Monday of this week, before the Council Committee interdepartmental committee, Brenda Ford chairing, a petition was presented to the Council folks by 700 residents of Puna, saying you’ve got to do something about the grubbing and grading. Twenty people spoke for nearly two hours, seven of the nine Council folks stuck it out from 4:30 to 6:30. And there were testifiers, no not just tree huggers from Volcano, they’re people who care about the grubbing and grading issues island- wide; people from Kona came, people from Waimea, people from lower Puna, upper Puna. Two of the Council folks said, hey, give us some wording, give us some language. I know previous Councils have tried to -, certain folks have tried to get this Chapter 10 revised. But this is how a plan is supposed to work is that I feel this is the voice of the people, there is a momentum building; so already it’s happening towards amending Chapter 10 at the Council level. So that’s just my take. And I would say one last thing. I don’t think anyone has any problem with Shipman doing a regional center; I don’t think anyone has any problem with the woman to my left, on that regional center. But we do need smaller regional village centers around Puna, close to home that maybe we can walk or bike to or not get in the car so much. So I think it’s not either or. I don’t think Shipman really has in my personal opinion anything to be that concerned about. And you know, Bill Walters, I heard that he was involved in the work at the Working Group level many, many, many, many times and always welcomed. So I don’t want that impression or to be implied that Shipman wasn’t involved; they certainly were. Thank you so much. WATANABE: Any questions? Thank you. MERMEL: Thank you. EXHIBIT C 17 WATANABE: Ms. Stapleton. STAPLETON: Good afternoon, Members of the Commission and ladies and gentlemen of the public. My name is Frankie Stapleton. My address is 14-803 Crystal Circle in Nanawale Estates, Pahoa. I am speaking on behalf of myself; however, I am a volunteer with AARP, I’m a member of the Nanawale Community Association, the League of Women Voters, PATH and Friends of Puna’s Future. I am a published author. And I’m retired from 30 years as a journalist and a public school teacher on this island. And I only give you that background because I couldn’t believe my ears when I went to the first hearing and I was listening to the first four speakers who kept saying that they had not been invited to the CDP process, and that the Puna CDP does not reflect the needs and wishes of the people of Puna. I am here to absolutely refute that on record, sworn testimony. I felt so strongly about this that I’ve driven all the way from Puna today and sat here through all of this. I feel that the Puna CDP does reflect the needs and wishes of the Puna community, which is the fastest growing district in the State. Not only Puna district, which is already more than the size of the Island of Oahu, but it also has the least infrastructure of any area in the State. I joined the CDP process the same month I retired from the State DOE, August 2006, and I went to all of their meetings. I’m not on the Steering Committee. I didn’t expect to be on the Steering Committee. And I had to find out about the meetings just the way the rest of the public did, which was a website and public notices. People who expressed the idea that they should have had special invitations -, I’m sorry, but I never saw the lady from Foster Kern at any of our meetings. I did see Mr. Bill Walters at our meetings. I never saw Mr. Arakawa at our meetings. And Mr. Arakawa, I had to tell him, “When I first moved to Hawaii, I lived in Waipahu three years; you couldn’t get into or out of Arakawa Store or parking lot.” And Waipahu is an even bigger mess today. So what I’m trying to tell you about this process, I worked on the Transportation Working Group, we were -, the Working Group – back up a second. Since we are the first one to have come in with our completed Plan to you all, I wanted to explain a bit about the process we went through because I hear these misconceptions from you all. And I’ve heard misconceptions stated here. We had to first take into -, we were directed in all of our work by County employees. Now, Mr. Kim (sic) mentioned all these different documents – he showed the size of the Puna CDP, showed the size of the Kona one, Volume I, and he showed the Shipman regional plan; and ours was the smallest. We kept getting instructions that we needed to synthesize, synthesize, synthesize. We weren’t supposed to give specifics. You do need to realize that each one of these regional groups is getting a different directive from their County representatives who are telling them what to do. We had the ground shifting under us all the time. When I joined the -, there was a huge meeting in Pahoa, August 2006, and that was where a lot people jumped on the bandwagon. And I must say that over the years of covering public hearings here in Hawaii County, that I have been so pleasantly surprised by what came out of the Puna public this time around. Back in the ’70s and ’80s, we were a joke, you know; I mean, everybody had fun making fun of the speakers who would come out from Puna to testify in public hearings. Well, we aren’t going to win any fashion awards, and we aren’t status oriented with cars and all of that; and our status orientation is really going towards the sustainability thing. All of those big mega-mansions that are coming up along Keaau-Pahoa Road do not represent what most of Puna thinks like, okay? EXHIBIT C 18 And I just want to tell you that, No. 1, the maps were wrong in this. Right, John? We were told way back when, and we told -, it was our understand that John Whalen‘s contract ran out December 31, 2007; and he has had to put all this stuff together now. We have said over and over that the maps were wrong; we have given a lot of input online, in meetings. And yes, there are problems with this report, but overall it represents the manao of most of the people of Puna, no, not the large landowners. That was what the civil rights action said was wrong with the previous plans. The people that were working on this report, they went through all of the previous plans. They went through the Puna regional circulation plans. I’ve got papers here; this is a 1994 -, 2004 response. We had input from people through the years.We have all sorts of different organizations. Even in my own Nanawale Community Association minutes, I have found minutes where Tom Brown came out and told us in 2003 that we were going to get thus and so. He’s got -, we’ve got -. WATANABE: Ms. Stapleton. STAPLETON: Yes. WATANABE: If you can wrap up, please. STAPLETON: All right. What I want to say basically as to this plan, No. 1, the people said over and over and over they wanted the rural atmosphere retained. They were also concerned about public safety.And they also were concerned about the connectivity, which is what all these cul-de-sacs are. We have 41 subdivisions, and we have more than 500 square miles of nothing but 50-mile one-way roads. Think about it, okay? And Mr. Watanabe, I’m sorry, it’s been long. I just want to tell the lady from Foster Kern, her comments were not ignored. We listened to Mr. Walters. We gave great respect to him. But when we were tried to talk about Railroad Avenue, he kept talking about it like it was his property; and I finally had to ask, well, doesn’t Railroad Avenue go all the way to Kapoho, which it does. I mean, the thinking is like the serfs and the plantation manager. And those days are gone. We are now in st the 21 century. Mr. Whalen gave us ideas on how to fund such things as WiFi, on park and ride facilities and all of that in the Working Papers, but we could not include all of that in our report. So there is so much addendum that nobody has even asked us to look -, not even looked at -, not one person has asked to look at, who came to our meetings, not one; and yet I’ve gone to every meeting and offered it. And I would say we’ve got all this information right here. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions? No? SIRACUSA: No, but I do want to thank Frankie for coming in and answering a lot of the questions and addressing a lot of the concerns that have been raised by Members of this Commission and members of the public who came out to testify. Thanks, Frankie. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. I have two other testifiers signed up: Kale Gumapac and John Roberts. Would the two of you come up, please. Kale Gumapac and John Roberts. PUBLIC: John is not here. He had to leave. EXHIBIT C 19 WATANABE: Okay. Mr. Gumapac, would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? GUMAPAC: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. State your name and address for the record, and then you may begin your testimony. GUMAPAC: My name is Kale Gumapac, and my address HCR2 Box 9607 Keaau, Hawaii. I represent the Kanaka Council, and am testifying before the Commission in regards to the Puna Community Development Plan. The Kanaka Council supports the Puna Community Development Plan as far as it has been completed. The Kanaka Council also feels that it has not been completed. Throughout the Development Plan there have been many, many, many references in regards to cultural resources, many references to iwi and the protection of all these resources. And on Page 2-1, Malama Ika Aina, first paragraph, it says this: “Despite the destruction of native forest and other resources that has occurred in Puna, and the potential for much more damage through land development in the extensive subdivisions, as described in Chapter 1 ….,” and then at the bottom in the footnote it refers to Wao Kele O Puna Forest Reserve. In the Kanaka Council we have several organizations that participate with the Kanaka Council including the Pele Defense Fund who was instrumental in winning the Wao Kele O Puna Forest case. We also have members that won the Kohanaiki case. We also have members who also won the Ka Pa‘akai case, the PASH case. And in reference to all these cases, we also need to point out to the Commission the latest Supreme Court decision that came down January st 31 of this year in regards to ceded lands and who the ceded lands belong to and its ruling. There is also reference to Royal Patent Lands in this CDP. But as we thumb through all of this and we look through all of this, there are resources that it talks about the aquifers, the water resources – the water resources most of which are on ceded lands – Puna water shed, Volcano Puna forest, Puna shoreline area of which we won, the Ka Pa‘akai case at Kohanaiki. But at the end of the report there is nowhere in sight that it says who, what, when and where should be responsible for all of these cultural, traditional resources and input. I come before the Commission because it needs to be amended. And the amendment in this Commission should show that the Kanaka Council be the cultural and traditional monitor, not only for the Puna Community Development Plan, but for all Community Development Plans here on this island. Our responsibility as the Kanaka Council has always been to fight and maintain for the resources that are here, to fight and maintain the cultural and traditional rights that belong to all Hawaiian, to poe kanaka. I do not see any of that in here, but yet there is much reference to it here. And I appreciate what Jon and his Committee has done. And so I am bringing to you to make it your responsibility to amend that and to make sure that the Kanaka Council is added as a cultural monitor for the traditional and cultural resources, so that we can be the ones to oversee all of these and make sure that we are the ones that give permission because on these ceded lands and then these resources, poe kanaka, that’s our responsibility. And so we ask that the Commission makes that amendment. It’s missing, blatantly missing. And it needs to be corrected. Mahalo. Oh, one other thing, the reason why I say that. Under Article 12, Section 7, it says – this is the State Constitution – “The State reaffirms and shall protect all rights customarily and traditionally exercised for subsistence, cultural and religious purposes and possessed by Ahupuaa tenants who are descendants of native Hawaiians who inhabited the Hawaiian Islands prior to 1778 …..” EXHIBIT C 20 This is a State Constitutional rule and it should be applied to the County. This is just a reminder. I’m a poe kanaka. Mahalo. WATANABE: Do we have any questions for Mr. Gumapac? SIRACUSA: Yes. WATANABE: Yes, Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: Kale, I’m trying to think of where something like that could be put in. And what I found in leafing through while you were talking was in Section -, on Page 2.2-3, Historical, Cultural and Scenic Resources, and it would be, I guess, in one of the Actions 2.1.3; they are talking about establishing a County Historic Preservation Commission. But what you are talking about is more than just historic preservation; it’s preservation of current things as well, right? GUMAPAC: According to that Historic Preservation Commission that was passed by the County, they are looking at historic preservation of buildings. SIRACUSA: Yeah, right. GUMAPAC: And we are not buildings -. SIRACUSA: But this would be, do you think, a logical section in which to inserts the wording? GUMAPAC: Yes. SIRACUSA: What I would ask you to do then would be to maybe draw up some suggested wording that would fit in with the layout that’s here already, you know, like bullets, because as we know they are supposed to keep it brief, so that we could consider that when we come to the Hilo meeting. GUMAPAC: We will do that. Mahalo. SIRACUSA: Thank you. GUMAPAC: We’ll do that. OGATA: I have a question. WATANABE: Yes. OGATA: Do you feel that the Kanaka Council and/or members of the Kanaka Council were effectively included in all aspects of the development of this Community Development Plan? EXHIBIT C 21 GUMAPAC: The Kanaka Council participated in the initial meetings; then at that time we gave our manao. We had representatives that came to Puna, as well as in Kona, and we gave our input, we gave our manao at that time. And from that point in time we felt that our manao was given; and so it was not necessary to participate from that point on because that’s what was asked. Because that was going to be turned over to the Committee to organize, and with the number of people that came especially to Puna when they voted to take in some of our – if not most of – our recommendations to be included into the CDP plan; so we felt that that was good. And so as a result of that, this final draft came about. And so we read the final draft and that’s why I’m here to make sure that we get included in it. To answer your question, yes. The village concept that was presented, we presented that initially as an Ahupuaa concept. And so they’ve taken that village concept. The other thing that’s really important that I need to stress is that to me the CDP program, this program here, isn’t about money, isn’t about development. Because I’ve been hearing all these guys over here and all they are talking about is how much money they are going to be able to make; you know, well, you know my commercial development, I’m going to make sure that my commercial development gets space over here, so that I can charge $600,000 per lot. That’s not what we are all about. What we are concerned about in this CDP plan, the sustainability; we are worried about all the people that live in Puna because we talk about all of the downzoning and so forth that the Chairman had talked about and he’s concerned about the legal rights. For us, we need to start to educate our people, so that they can become self-sustaining because in the next few years – and I think you guys know it – we’re gong to be in a major hurt, and if all of people do not start to plant their own gardens, we cannot create -, we need to start to create our own barter and trade system because pretty soon the dollar is not going to be worth anything. And so as a result of that, if I grow kalo, somebody else grows banana, we can trade. This is what we’re looking at with the CDP program; other people are looking at money. We are looking at sustainability over here and ways for us to create our own alternative energy. The other question that I’d like to answer for you, Mr. Chair, where can we get the money, you know, in order to make sure that we can buy up all of these lands just in case something happens. I would like to present to you an alternative: Create our own district utility companies. Each district, especially Puna and Kau, can develop its own water company. Why do we need to have the County of Hawaii Water Department when they can’t even supply Puna? If we created our own water company, using ceded lands, of which we’ve got some of the purest water on ceded lands, to be pumped out in Puna, all of the revenues that are generating goes back into Puna, so that we can go around and buy up these lands, if we need to. Then create another 20 acres on ceded lands, and create our own alternative energy, our solar system, and we can also create wave energy. Sell it to the people in Puna, all that revenue is coming back. It isn’t going to go to HELCO, but it’s going to stay in Puna to exactly do that kind of stuff. One of the problems I have is the government guys, you should never ask them business questions; they cannot solve business questions. You’ve got to ask the businessmen to solve the questions because we have ideas we can come up with, all of the ideas and alternatives that are going to work. And all we need is for you guys to say yes. It’s real simple. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward. EXHIBIT C 22 WOODWARD: Well, I would just make one suggestion. You know, there’s going to be a ballot initiative in November for a Constitutional Convention. And a lot of the problems that you talk about are blocked by Statute right now, State Constitution. And I would encourage you to tell the people that you know to vote for a Constitutional Convention. GUMAPAC: Well, we’re opposed to Constitutional Convention because it also threatens Article 12, Section 7. And we know that one of the reasons why people are pushing for Constitutional Convention is to rewrite Article 12, Section 7, so that it takes away the rights of the poe kanaka. WATANABE: Okay, well -. OGATA: I have one more question. WATANABE: Yes, Shelly. OGATA: Sorry, I have one more question. You know, what you just explained about the water and all of that kind of stuff, I mean, and sustainability for, you know, the people in Puna, I didn’t really get that out of this Plan; so I don’t know, I mean, I just -. GUMAPAC: It’s one amendment that we can add to that Plan. We can always put that in because Jon was nice enough to tell me, you know, it’s an empty box and all we’ve got to do is fill it. We’ve got plenty groceries that we can put in. One of the groceries is water and the other one is electric. It’s real simple. WATANABE: Thank you. Any further questions? Well, seeing that -. GUMAPAC: Mahalo. WATANABE: Last chance, anyone else wish to testify? Seeing no one -. SIRACUSA: I have a procedural question. WATANABE: Yes. SIRACUSA: Mr. Torigoe, we received a written testimony on the Puna Community Development Plan from the Vacationland Hawaii Community Association, and attached to that are two photos of porta-potties and the ocean coming in on the porta-potties; and when I read the thing and I saw what lot that was happening on, it’s the Sullivan lot that we are going to be th reviewing on June 6. And I’m wondering what is the procedure -, is there a process where we can get these photos admitted to evidence when we go and do -, because they are already admitted into evidence here. We’ve got this in the paperwork but for the Puna Community Development Plan. So can that information be transferred also to the Sullivan application? Because it’s very pertinent. EXHIBIT C 23 TORIGOE: Well, you’ve got them into the record by way of public testimony for this item, this agenda item, CDP review, but it is not in the record for purposes of the contested case matter on the permitting for the Sullivans. SIRACUSA: So is there a process whereby it could be placed in the record? YUEN: I think we circulated a picture that was basically very -, taken at the same time that showed the same thing. So -, at the meeting -. SIRACUSA: Actually, no, this is much more obviously the ocean coming in on these -. YUEN: We can -. SIRACUSA: I don’t know if you looked at these, Mr. Director, but -. YUEN: We’ll submit it for this item at the next meeting. SIRACUSA: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Let’s take five. RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 5:52 p.m. (At this time, 5:56 p.m., the Chair announced that the Commission will now take up Item No. 6 regarding H.O.V.E. Road Maintenance Corporation, SPP 740, due to the fact that Commissioner Rho must be excused about 6:00 p.m. and Commissioner Woodward will abstain, which will result in a lack of quorum for that application. At 6:07 p.m., the Commission again took up the subject matter.) WATANABE: We were finishing up on the Puna Community Development Plan. We finished up with the public testimony. And so maybe I can call up Mr. Brown and Mr. Olson for their response and any further questions or concerns that any other Commissioners might want to express at this time. And I’ll open it up to you all. If you have any responses or -. BROWN: I could only offer to repeat my opening remarks in response to some of the testimony that was provided subsequent to that. And I feel that would just be the same thing over again. So I’ll refrain. WATANABE: Well -. Yes, Mr. Olson. OLSON: Well, I mean, I have some comment on process, I suppose. On the issue of, you know, the necessity of following the existing General Plan, I would point out that on the last General Plan, because the Council failed to pass by ordinance the previous Puna plan in ’95, Puna did not really have an equitable opportunity to input on the General Plan; so when the last amendments to the General Plan were done to it, there was no standing document representing my community. So the other thing was that we didn’t do this with following what was in the General Plan to begin with. Our marching orders were follow the community’s wishes; and EXHIBIT C 24 that’s what we did. The people who live there are the people who should control their destiny. And you know, you saw the list of inputs, the number of people and the number of hours that this document was worked on, and I believe that it does quite fairly represent the community, and our document is to modify the General Plan to be representative of my community. The fact that there is differential between the type of plan that Kona has submitted or that Kohala has submitted or any of the other districts, it is meant to be reflective of those communities; that’s why it’s called a community development plan. And their issues, while we have some commonality, certainly are going to have differences, and their approaches are going to be different. And you know, quite frankly, if it is inconvenient for land use attorneys or planners or any of those people to keep up with it, that’s unfortunate. But all of them are representative of the people who live in those districts and of their wishes. And I believe that that’s what a good community planning process does, and I think that we met that. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions? Mr. Domingo. DOMINGO: Thank you. Just with regards to the comments of Mr. Olson. At first, Jon, I’d like to commend all you folks for what the end product that is before us, and just like to express my appreciation to you and many others who put in so much time in coming up with this Plan. By your comments that perhaps you or Puna had not had the opportunity to respond to the General Plan, I beg to differ because I think the opportunity was given to all communities throughout the island when they had the General Plan review. And it was by choice and -, that the opportunity was given to the people throughout various communities to go to the meetings and participate and respond to whatever concerns and suggestions were made at that time. And I think because perhaps none of these issues were brought up before the Council at that time, so that the General Plan was adopted as is today. And I think even after the adoption of the General Plan, and other rezoning and planning initiatives were considered, they were given – you know the process in land use planning – and, you know, it has always been that the people in a community, especially those impacted, were given an opportunity to go to public hearings and respond as in all other communities. So you know, because of that and because of the actions of the Council, we have the General Plan as is today. And what I was alluding to – and I don’t want to argue the point – was that I was of the impression that all Community Development Plans in the drafting of the Plan and considerations for changes or amendments should be for us to consider those things, which are in the General Plan, and reflect those issues in the General Plan, and that’s all, you know, that’s it. And you know how I feel about the rest of the portions of the CDP. That’s my only concern. But I’d just like to say thank you very much for your folks’ participation, and I think we can come up with a document that will be acceptable, hopefully, to all the people in the community. WATANABE: Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chair, thank you. I was actually of the opinion that Mr. Olson was right; and that is a Community Development Plan affects the subsequent General Plan. Maybe we can get Director Yuen to address this question for us, that they don’t have to be guided by the current General Plan, that it will affect subsequent General Plans. YUEN: Well, the Community Development Plans can call for actions that would require the change in the General Plan, and the Community Development Plans should be EXHIBIT C 25 implementing the General Plan; if they see something in the General Plan that should be changed, then they should change it. As far as the consistency of map areas, the Community Development Plan could say that a smaller area within the urban expansion area in the General Plan should be the focus of development because typically what we have in the General Plan – just to take some examples – we have some very large areas that are labeled as alternate urban expansion around the existing towns like Keaau, and it says alternate urban expansion; it doesn’t mean that the whole area someday should be urbanized. So within that area, for example, these Keaau maps, you can take a smaller area and say that that should be the town development within the timeframe of the Community Development Plan. So that’s not a conflict between the two; it’s refinement of one versus the other. OLSON: Could I just add -, let me read you something. This was our marching orders: The Community Development Plan that is true to the Puna community, in reflecting and embracing existing community values, identifying and assessing key issues and concerns, articulating a clear direction or vision for the future of Puna, and providing an implementation process for achieving that vision. That was from -, that was our marching orders from the Director. That’s the letter that we received and the other four Chairs and Development Planning Committee people received in terms of the process. That and what the community told us to do, that’s where we commenced and that’s I think where we ended up. I would also point out that, in terms of actions, change of zoning and those other things, I mean, there’s really little that we’ve asked for. I mean, most of our issues were revolved around transportation, and recreation, and creation of implementable commercial zoning. I mean, those were the things that the community spoke to in that order in terms of their vision of importance, and those were the primary things that we set about to address, and the peripheral things that fell out from that; in other words, where one thing impacts another, we stepped back to address those other issues. But that was the way we went about it. WATANABE: Okay, I have a question. And maybe it’s more for clarification, I’m not exactly certain. In the way I understand it, you are trying to pool some land to an area such as, shall we say, Hawaiian Paradise Park. Those land poolings would be like already existing common areas, not specifically the road but like -, I believe you had set aside areas for parks or something like, to that effect. I see you are shaking your head, Mr. Olson. No? Am I misunderstanding this? OLSON: Well, I mean -. BROWN: In Hawaiian Paradise Park, the suggested regional town center area in the thth CDP consists of areas, is centered around two 20-acre parcels, between 26 and 27 Avenue, I thth believe, or 25 and 27; and one is owned by the Hawaiian Paradise Park Community Homeowners’ Association and the other one is owned by the regional developer, Watumull. And the Watumull property, as we understand it, does have certain deed restrictions that -, I’m sorry, the Hawaiian Paradise Park owned parcel has deed restrictions that limit the uses of that 20-acre parcel to things like parks and perhaps a school or something like that; the Watumull property doesn’t have that. So there’s 40 acres right there that could be used for commercial, open space, community youth facilities, parks, that kind of development. And it could also include some high-density housing, whether it be elderly or something along those lines. The land pooling or land assembly tool that has been suggested as a possible technique for increasing EXHIBIT C 26 the density around that to help make it a more viable economic zone would be basically on a voluntary basis; if any of the 1-acre lot owners surrounding that wanted to participate in that and increase the density on those lots from, say, 1 house per acre to up to maybe 4 houses per acre, that’s the suggested possibility. WATANABE: Okay, so that’s sort of like the floating zone or something, cause it sounds mixed use -. BROWN: The floating zone could be a zoning designation created in Chapter 25 that would be applicable to that, again, community master plan defining what that village center area would be. WATANABE: Well, you’ve answered part of my question, though, because I was concerned about the ownership of the particular property that you are attempting to pool. And from what I can gather, you are saying the Association as an entity owns 20 acres and Watumull owns the other 20 acres, which makes it obviously easier to negotiate than 4,000 separate lot owners. BROWN: True. And they would be -, yeah, and those two lot owners, the Homeowners’ Association plus Watumull family – Sheila Watumull in particular, who lives in Honolulu at this time, I understand, holds the rights to the land – as well as the surrounding lot owners, those would be the primary stakeholders in developing that village center. OLSON: I would -. WATANABE: Mr. Olson. OLSON: Yeah, I would point out, too, that the realistic effect over the timeframe that we are talking about, if you were to get – using HPP as the example – something in the neighborhood of 10 acres together, that would be a reasonable sized start for the town center. In other words, if you take -, recently we had the Pahoa village center opened, and that’s a 10-acre parcel; and we’ve got a store, and we’ve got a doctor’s office and pharmacy and a couple of real estate offices and a hardware store. I mean, none of those things exist within HPP right now; everyone has to go outside of that subdivision, they have to get out on Highway 130 to do any of that kind of business. So even 10 or 15 acres right now, given the available water infrastructure in the near term, is about all you’re going to realistically see. All of that’s going to come later -. SIRACUSA: Could I? WATANABE: Ms. Siracusa. SIRACUSA: I’d like to jump in also and mention that the 20-acre lot that’s owned by Watumull, who was the original developer, was set aside by Watumull themselves to be used eventually for commercial. The only thing that -, so it’s not like someone has to convince them that because they had other plans; but the sticky point, as I understand it, has been water infrastructure to that parcel, and that has kept Watumull from developing that parcel or seeking help or, you know, looking for -. Because we had asked when they came, when the Yamada EXHIBIT C 27 property came before us and they wanted to do that supermarket on the Highway, remember? And we were saying we’d like to process, but we didn’t like the location. And it had been suggested, have you checked with Watumull about that parcel in the middle of Paradise Park, and Yamada didn’t want to because he wanted something on the Highway. But he would have been well advised to do it because possibly between the two of them they could have worked out something about the water infrastructure. WATANABE: Well, okay. Do any of the other -? BROWN: If I could just -. WATANABE: Yes. BROWN: Well, I did want to add in response to some earlier testimony that, if I could direct your attention to Page 5-17 of the Puna CDP at the very bottom paragraph, it states that “when implementing the actions listed in the following table, the Working Group and Working Paper report that addresses the relevant topic(s) shall be considered as a reference to provide greater specificity on the location, description and intention of the proposed action.” These documents were not included in the CDP for adoption by ordinance; they are appendix documents. And if the sheer volume of content and a number of pages of printed material is any measure of the degree of completeness of the CDP, then the Puna CDP will probably win hands down because those documents total in excess of 700 pages. WATANABE: Do we have any other comments? Well, thank you for being patient and waiting then. BROWN: Thank you. OLSON: Well, thank you for putting up with endless meeting. We’ve had a few on our side; and my hat goes off to you. Thank you very much. The discussion ended at 6:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 28