Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2006-05-26 TGP_Amendment PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 26, 2006 A regularly advertised hearing on the GENERAL PLAN INTERIM AMENDMENTS was called to order at 9:10 a.m. in the King INITIATED BY THE PLANNING DIRECTOR Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, 75-5660 Palani Road, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii with Chairman C. Kimo Alameda presiding. PRESENT:C. Kimo AlamedaABSENT & EXCUSED: Jeffrey McCall Fred GaldonesRene€ Siracusa Bill Graham AndrewIwashita Allen Salavea Rodney Watanabe Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher J. Yuen, Planning Director Norman Hayashi, Planning Program Manager Phyllis Fujimoto, Staff Planner Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner And approximately 22 people from the public in attendance. INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR General Plan Interim Amendments which include proposed changes to the text, policies, courses of action, Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Map and Facilities Map. ALAMEDA:Well, today, we have a packed agenda. We€re going to start off with our action on the General Plan Interim Amendments; and I€m going to, we do have testimonies. We€ll have, the Director is going to present it again. This is the final time, I believe. Also, we€ve come to agreement on several of the amendments already so we€re going to take testimony only on those amendments that we still want to discuss today. So should I turn it over to staff, or Mr. Director? HAYASHI:Perhaps I could just -. ALAMEDA:Sure. HAYASHI:At the last Meeting, the Planning Commission voted to recommend approval of the Planning Director€s package with the exception of a few which you wanted to discuss today. And those items are Map A-1, A-2, B-6, E-6, E-7, E-8, F-2 and also the Facilities Map. Although the Commissioners did make reference to the Waimea Bypass Road for discussion, as you recall, the Planning Director has asked that be deferred to a much later time until the study has been completed. So discussions on that should be deferred and also no action should be taken on that. 1 ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Hayashi. Without further adieu, Mr. Director? YUEN:Good morning, Members of the Commission and members of the public. As Mr. Hayashi said, at the last meeting the Commission did take action to send most of the proposed Interim General Plan Amendments up to the Council with a favorable recommendation, and withheld action on several of the LUPAG Map Amendments. In addition, the Director has withheld action on a text change with regard to the Waimea Bypass. So we do have this, a set of a few Interim Plan Amendments to look at that I€ll be going through on the slides here before the public testimony. Just to give an overall view on this, the comprehensive review of the General Plan by the Planning Department took place roughly in the period 1999 through 2000; and the Plan was sent to the Planning Commission in April 2001; and then it went up to the Council in December 2001. ItwasfinallypassedinFebruary2005. Inthemeantime,ofcourse,therewereotherissuesthathadcometolightanditwasunderstood that there would be some General Plan Amendments, Interim Amendments, proposed to deal with things that were, that had come up in the Council discussions, and a few other issues and some discrepancies that came to light. So the Planning Commission here is advisory on these General Plan Amendments. Like the General Plan itself, any interim amendments to take effect have to be passed by the County Council. The timeframe is that this is the last meeting that the Commission can consider these. If there is a favorable or unfavorable vote by the majority or full membership of the Commission, the ordinance that talks about these General Plan Amendments doesn€t specify whether they go up with a favorable or unfavorable recommendation. So we would simply report the action of the Commission and whatever the vote was in sending this up to the Council after today. So turning to the ones that are still at issue before the Commission, and the Commission held these because there have been a great deal of public testimony on some of these. The first one we€re looking at is a proposed amendment that would add an area in the Puna District as a Medium Density Urban, and that would be --. The significance of that is that it would signal that this would be an area for commercial development, maybe office buildings, maybe community facilities; and in recommending such locations by special permit or rezoning that this would be an area that the Planning Department would favor the location. This is along Ainaloa Boulevard, it€s actually within the Orchidland Subdivision. The Ainaloa Boulevard splits the Ainaloa Subdivision from the Orchidland Estates Subdivision. So although it€s located along Ainaloa Boulevard, it€s actually within Orchidland Estates. The current designation under the General Plan Map is Rural, which was a new category in the 2005 General Plan. And then I think I€d like to, probably the easiest thing to do is at the end of each particular amendment if there are questions while we have the slide up we can talk about that. Are there any questions about this one? And we can take things at the end as well. Yes? ALAMEDA:Okay. Cool. Commissioner Graham? 2 GRAHAM:I just want to point out that the major question we hear on the Orchidland stuff is the community association there may have a reduced kind of an area proposal. So I just would like you to comment on that. That would seem like the alternative that€s most present before us, is to follow their reduced proposal they put forth. So could you tell us how that works and what your feelings are about the Commission recommending that instead of what you have here? YUEN:Well, actually, I think their reduced was with respect to the one along Orchidland Drive; and they didn€t say they wanted this reduced. They were negative on this particular, on this application. GRAHAM:So your sense is, so then their recommendation is that we don€t include this one. And so if we do not include this one and then include only the other one, is your sense thatthat€sinappropriate,there€snotenoughroomsetasideforthekindofcommercial development that might be needed in the near future? YUEN:Well, I think that there is more, there€s need for more designated space for commercial development in the Puna area than particularly this mid-subdivision area. I mean, this area between Keaau and Pahoa, which is really one of the fastest-growing areas in population on the island, potentially, more clearly has something like 16,000 lots already permitted in the area. But they do stand alone, you know, you could pass one without passing the other, or the Council could pass one without passing the other. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I€m looking at the written testimony that makes reference to basically wanting to not have any of these changes done until the Community Development Plan for Puna has been processed and approved by the Council. You have any comments on that? YUEN:Well, we have the Community Development Plan underway. One of the things that we€ve asked them to do is to look at this question and to work on this question of sites for commercial development. Because of my feeling that there is a need for more of this in this area, I would like to move this on. If the Council wants to wait pending the Community Development Plan, that€s, I don€t really have a strong feeling, I certainly don€t have a strong feeling against that if that€s what they want to do. IWASHITA:To follow-up -. ALAMEDA:Follow-up. IWASHITA:I guess, you know, we always see a lot of, not a lot but regularly see special permit applications come in for different kinds of businesses to be done out in Puna. I guess I don€t really see a real urgent, urgent need to, you know, start designating areas. And my preference would be to wait until the community has the input and do the Community Development Plan. It€d be a more organized way to do it rather than selecting the Council, you know, ultimately just saying, okay, this is where it€s going to be without really having community input. Any comments on that? 3 ALAMEDA:Okay. Any other comments, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Asa follow-up to that comment, I think we€re not aware at this present time but you€re probably aware that there are other applications for special permits, right, in that area. So would that influence some of this? YUEN:We do get quite a few applications for special permits, there have been quite a few over the years. And the idea behind having a designated area is really as a signal to people where to go. Otherwise, they will tend to buy a lot, actually, one of the dominant patterns is people buy a lot, they start the business, and they get busted, and then they apply for the special permit -- Not really the way to go. So, at the same time, we understand why, you know, you have a population center with the Paradise Park Subdivision which probably has more peoplethanthetownofWaimeawithvirtuallynocommercialactivitycloserthanKeaauor Pahoa towns which are, you know, seven miles away. WATANABE: I would tend to agree. With that much opportunity there, I don€t see how you€re going to hold back the development. Then without any kind of plan, then, I think we€re going to wind up with some of the other things we€ve been concerned about, like that strip mall on that main road going there; and those are some of the things we€ve been, you know, debating over in the past. And I know we€ve turned down some projects that many of us thought maybe would have been good but did not fit into the General Plan. So, I don€t think that given as many people as there are there, I don€t think that you can say, but we don€t have any plan yet, even though we know you€re going to need the services.‚ With that in mind, I would tend to agree with the Director. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Other thoughts before we move on to A-2? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Chris, is this area still at State Land Use level, is it still Agriculture? YUEN:That€s right. GRAHAM:It would seem like, you know, looking at the long-term picture, if we€re going to change some of this land to General Plan as you suggested it would be nice if the State had an Urban designation so that if folks want to develop they can go in for rezonings which are then appropriate to the General Plan. But at this point even if we change the General Plan they€ve got to go through the special permit process, it would seem, if they want to do development. Is that correct? YUEN:Well, no, people could rezone at the Council level with a 15-acre or less boundary amendment. And although the pattern has been to do things like special permit, I think long-range we would rather see that development happen through zoning. It would have a boundary amendment and accompanied by a zone change in the future. GRAHAM:And just one follow-up with regard to my prior question when I asked you about the community association there. And in the letter we have on record they did suggest on 4 this particular one that if the area that you were changing was only in that right of the three quadrants and only three parcels deep instead of six that they would support that and also going all the way up to the main highway. So like three parcels deep and just to the right of the three parcels that you€re changing going up to the highway was acceptable to them. YUEN:I€m sorry, I stand corrected on that. I do want to mention one thing, though, as far as the highway itself. I would recommend that any -- . We didn€t extend this to the highway on purpose. And that is so that if you have commercial development, it€s not so dependent on the highway frontage. Rather than having this typical look of the parking lot, the commercial building, the gas station right along the highway, that it€s set back at least a little bit from the highway. You€ll notice that this one and the other one are on an axis that€s perpendicular to the highway. Again, this is to keep a more Residential or Open field along the highway and to not have a strip along the highway, which is in some respects how businesses sometimes prefer to develop because of the visibility. And then that frontage -. So that€s the characteristicwithbothofthese.TheA-1andA-2whichwewouldturntonext,ifwe€redone with A-1. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? No? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Just understanding the, I guess, concept or the need for the commercial area, relative to what€s existing in Keaau and the newly-created commercial area where Malama Market is in Pahoa, the intent for this type of commercial designation is to create commercial land of that scale and level or lower, say, for the mom-and-pop to service the immediate community of Orchidland? YUEN:It is intended to serve the immediate community. I think the businesses themselves will end up determining the ultimate scale. It€s clear that there isn€t the kind of commercial space in this mid-subdivision area that would normally accompany that kind of population. One of the goals is to reduce the need for people to drive around. I imagine that people would still drive to these kinds of centers. There€s not really the population density that would make it a village center or a walking-type of center. But take the Ainaloa Subdivision, for example, you have 3,000 lots in there. Could be, if it€s 100 percent built out, that corresponds with a population of roughly 8,000 people. To give you a comparison, like North Kohala I think the population is about 7,000 people. So it€s to have a place where people in that subdivision would, where a business can locate and you could have the groceries, the kinds of things that people need on a day-to-day basis, and maybe a place where somebody, the accountant has their office, or the person who does taxes, or the person who sells real estate, you know, those kinds of services, somewhere closer and some place that€s legal to set up businesses like that, rather than going to either Pahoa or Keaau. That€s the basic idea behind having an area like this. SALAVEA:Thank you, Mr. Director. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, I€m ready to move on to A-2, if there€s no other comments for A-1? Seeing none, Mr. Director, A-2? YUEN:A-2 is a similar concept. This is a little bit closer to Keaau. This is along Ainaloa Boulevard. This is the Medium Density Urban area in the 2005 General Plan; and it roughly encompasses the area that€s already under commercial development. Again, this was 5 startedoff the highway. There€s a church here and now there€s, I€m drawing a blank on the name of the stores that are in here, but it€s largely developed under special permits. And what we propose to do is open up a somewhat larger area for this. ALAMEDA:Questions, Fellow Commissioners? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:The Community Association in particular didn€t like going down, I think th it€s 35 Avenue there, away from the main drive, because they said the road really doesn€t support that at this time. Could you comment on that? YUEN:Well, I would hope that as a condition of any special permit or zoning improvement to the road commensurate to whatever kind of project was going to go in would be part of that, it would be part of the conditions of that. GRAHAM:Thank you. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners? Seeing none, can we move to B-6? YUEN:Sure. Well, B-6 isin Waiakea Houselots, in Hilo. For orientation, this is Kekuanaoa Street. This is Kanoelehua; and along Kanoelehua around 1997, there was a General Amendment to High Density Urban. And this is an inter-play between, this is inter-play between the Zoning Code and the General Plan. Within High Density Urban in the General Plan, the Planning Department would support CG or General Commercial Zoning which includes some manufacturing; and ultimately this allowed the Big Island Candies project which does include somemanufacturingtolocateinthatspotjustbackofKanoelehua.Itseemstomakesense,the project wants to expand. We don€t have any problem with the concept of expanding but to have the CG only extend up to Kanoelehua, and have that consistency between the General Plan and the zoning. We are processing this Interim Plan Amendment to extend the High Density Urban area, which is shown in red, up to Kanoelehua and to make a consistent block there, also on one lot on the makai side there. ALAMEDA:Questions, Fellow Commissioners, or comments? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Can you explain again why this isn€t spot zoning? ALAMEDA:Spot zoning is a term that applies to singling, is when zoning is done not in conformance with a comprehensive plan. So when you have a General Plan and the rezoning is consistent with that it€s not spot zoning. So this is the stage, this is the General Plan stage. If you just zone something to General Commercial and it wasn€t called for in the General Plan, then that would be spot zoning. So the term just doesn€t apply to a General Plan Amendment. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? IWASHITA:My general feeling is that the Community Development Plan implementation of the existing General Plan should be the process by which really any further changes to the General Plan, such as the one suggested, here should take place; and, you know, frankly, I don€t really see any urgent need to go down this interim process in order to accomplish 6 this particular change and that we really should wait until the community again can get involved in whether or not, you know, this kind of Light Industrial or High Density kind of commercial activity is the kind of activity that they want in this neighborhood. So I€d like any comments on why, you know, this really shouldn€t wait until the community can have input in the Community Development Plan for Hilo. ALAMEDA:Care to comment? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:I would just like to say in response to Commissioner Iwashita€s comments like if this particular area that we€re speaking of there where Big Island Candies is, if that whole thing was coming to us fresh now that none of that had been zoned for its current use and none of that had been General Planned for its current use, I would totally agree. But given that in the past there was a General Plan change and zoning change, I view this as just the Director trying to sort of regularize the existing situation that€s there and give a little, I don€t know, square it out andbringituptotheroad.AndIdon€tthinkthere€sanyconsequential,negativerepercussions for the community. So even though I appreciate Commissioner Iwashita€s general concern and I agree with it, in this specific case I find it okay what€s being proposed. ALAMEDA:Follow-up, Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:My main concern is that, you know, this is, I understand the explanation of why this isn€t spot-zoning.‚ But, in effect, you know, my vision, I€m going to go out on the limb and say that for the Community Development Plan as it would apply to this particular area, but, you know, frankly, if I were involved or when it comes about and when I can get involved in the process, would be that Kekuanaoa Street, I think we all would agree, you know, it€s going to end up being some type of a commercial-developed area. It€s the main road between the airport and, you know, that Hilo Shopping Center, that whole part of town; and that what I really don€t want to see is these kinds of changes being made on a piecemeal basis, which is what it is, you know. Maybe it€s not spot zoning, technically, but it€s definitely piecemeal. And, you know, it€s taking what has been done off of Kekuanaoa Street and extending it on to Kekuanaoa Street; and, you know, how that€s done, what limitations are placed, this is entitlement. You know, Big Island Candies will now have basically an entitlement if this is passed; and by doing so, you know, you lock in certain kinds of rights. And if the Community Development Plan says, Well, we don€t want certain kind of commercial development to be done in this area,‚ you know, there€s going to be, Big Island Candies will be entitled to be paid on, arguably, for taking away certain rights that this entitlement gives the owner. So I understand. What I really would like to see is that the community get together and say, you know, if we want Kekuanaoa Street to be a strip mall. As far as I€m concerned, doing this kind of thing is going to pretty much guarantee that it€s going to be a strip mall. But if you want the Community Development process, as I would like to see it, be a vehicle by which the community can say we want Kekuanaoa Street to look more like Downtown Hilo in terms of a commercial development, not have parking lots fronting all the businesses and the theaters and whatever else is going to go down in there, and have something that€s more livable and walkable, to have planned areas for municipal parking, you know, in this commercial area, what is going to be a commercial area, then we ought to wait and do it the right way. By doing it this way, you€re creating entitlements and making it more difficult when we don€t have to do it. There€s no necessity to do it. The fact that, as far as I€m concerned, it was done wrong in 1997 or whenever 7 it was, you know, two wrongs don€t make a right; and to me that€s the bottom line. It shouldn€t have been done the way it was done back in 1997, you know. Everything should have been done in a more cohesive, well-thought-out way for this community. And it wasn€t, the factthat, again, two wrongs don€t make a right. We can€t keep going down this road. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Other Commissioners would like to put your opinions on the table as we consider all perspectives? Seeing none, maybe we could move to, let€s see ƒ. YUEN:Okay. We move now to some of the Kona amendments. ALAMEDA:B-6, B-7? YUEN:These are amendments that are just a line between Important Agriculture and Extensive Agriculture in the area between Keauhou, roughly, and the Hokulia development onHalekiiStreetonthesouthsidehere,roughly.Whatitis,justtoexplainforaminutethe significance of Important Agriculture in the General Plan versus Extensive Agriculture. The General Plan contains some policies for Important Agricultural land that are, one of the most significant would be that in looking at rezoning applications for Important Agricultural land, the Council and the Planning Commission should not rezone them to lot sizes too small to support Commercial/Agriculture. Important Agriculture is meant to be a base area for Commercial/Agriculture and for farming. What is a lot size that€s too small? That€s going to depend on the economic conditions of the time, the kinds of crops that people are growing, what kinds of farming that€s being done. It€s a guideline though of what should be considered. And, you know, the idea is that when you fragment agricultural lands, suppose you take it to the smallest lot sizes allowed in the Agricultural district of one-acre lots, there are a few things that you can grow commercially on a one-acre lot. They may be greenhouse-type or hothouse-type specialties, but you greatly reduce the range of most of the crops that can be grown economically. So that was something that we now want to do on the areas that are designated Important Agricultural land. On the other hand, there€s no such policy with Extensive Agriculture. It doesn€t mean that you would rezone Extensive Agricultural land necessarily. It just means that you look at other considerations. And there would be things like do you want to put that density of population in that location, what are the traffic issues, are the water supported, are there open space considerations? Those would still come into play but not the agricultural, the commercial- agricultural potential. So what happened in considering this in 2005 is that the Council adjusted the line based on testimony from some of the landowners; and the line currently zig-zags around based on the ownership of the property. It doesn€t, it isn€t really based on soil types, or rainfall, or anything like that. So to adjust the line to make a consistent line across, we wanted to do an Interim General Plan Amendment to make a consistent line across this area. Rainfall generally does depend on elevation, the ability to grow crops; and here it does depend a lot on rainfall. The original proposal which went out to a workshop was to draw the line at the 700-foot elevation. The testimony was mostly against that at the workshops. People were suggesting a higher elevation, and testifying that there had been very little, if any, history of people successfully growing crops at a lower elevation. 8 So the proposal that€s before you here has this line at a 1,000-foot elevation. Depending on whose property you€re crossing, in some cases it will in some people€s property make more Important Agricultural land, in other properties it will result in less. And, so, at any rate, that€s this line that€s drawn across here. Just for orientation sake, this is where, this is the Mamalahoa Highway up here. This is the junction where Teshima€s Restaurant is. If you notice that there€s a, the yellow colors are Low Density Urban supporting Single Family Residential-type development, mostly; the darker here is Medium Density Urban supporting Commercial and possibly Multi-Family development, closer around the existing towns along the highway. Then there would be, below that, if this amendment went through, you would have a band designated as Important Agricultural land; and then below that line, Extensive Agricultural land inthisareahere.Okay? ALAMEDA:Thankyou,Mr.Director.FellowCommissioners?Seeingnoquestions, we can move on to F-2. YUEN:The final Map Amendment that is held by the Commissioners would be F-2. And by way of orientation here, this is Kealakekua Bay, this is the Mamalahoa Highway going through here. This is the Napo opo o Road heading down to Kealakekua Bay. Hokulia project is in here. And there€s an area that, F-2 is an area that is currently in the State Land Use Urban District, it€s zoned RA-2a by the County. That€s the zoning that permits subdivision into 2-acre lots. We have a pending subdivision application to 2-acre lots at the County. We had put this in Important Agriculture in the 2005 General Plan. It would, by virtue of elevation, it would fit in a Kona Coffee Belt designation. But we do not want to have an area that€s in the State Land Use Urban District and currently being subdivided to 2-acre lots and zoned for 2-acre lots shown as Important Agriculture. It€s not meant to support any change to the current zoning but just so that the map recognizes what exists there. So the proposal would be to change this from Important Agriculture to County Rural designation. Just for the sake of the standpoint of reference, this F-1 here below was a change mostly from areas that are Important Agriculture in the General Plan to Conservation; and this went up to the Council with a favorable recommendation at the last meeting from the Commission. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Mr. Director. Questions regarding F-2? Comments? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:Could you give us a little more maybe historical background. My sense from the testimony we€ve had and from what I€ve heard is that some portion of that F-2 area is already kind of vested rights for someone to develop it at a 2-acre size. But maybe what you€re planning here would sort of enable additional land to be developed to that density. But what you€ve just told us is that it€s already zoned to that density, so it would seem that that€s a mistake. 9 I€m also wondering how did all of this get to be zoned that way when it was, you know, Important Ag lands before on the General Plan; and, you know, a little bit, maybe a chronology of how it got to be that way, and ƒ. YUEN:It is not, at the time it was zoned, it was -. Under prior General Plans there were actually no Important Ag lands category. I believe this was Orchards in the General Plan when it was zoned RA-2a, I€m not certain. But, at any rate, it is not Important Agriculture. It was either Orchards or Extensive Ag in the prior General Plan at the time the rezoning took place. The surrounding properties, the neighboring properties to the north here, well, actually, this whole area here that I€m showing is zoned Ag-5. There is a subdivision in here and --. And, anyway, this area was rezoned to allow a greater density sometime back either, I believe it was either in the early 80s or the early 90s. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM:So, at this point, as far as Zoning Code is concerned, that whole area that you€reputtingforchangetoanF-2canbedevelopedatthe2-acrelevel,isthatcorrect? YUEN:Yes.Theremaybealittlecornerofthisthat€snotzonedRA-2a,thatI€m not certain. GRAHAM:Thank you. YUEN:Okay. But most part of it is zoned RA-2a. Actually, this is also all in the SMA. The subdivision part that I€m talking about has an SMA permit for a, I can€t remember, it€s a 33- or 37- lot subdivision. ALAMEDA:Other Commissioners, questions? Commissioner Iwashita. IWASHITA:Does the Important Ag land designation impose limitations in the types of development that can occur? I guess my concern is about, you know, the proximity to Kealakekua Bay and the need to, you know, basically minimize any kind of runoff, and those kind of concerns from any developments. So I really would not want to see anything done that would take away, you know, existing limitations or regulations on what kind of development can occur. And if Important Ag lands designation, you know, has additional requirements or limitations, then I would like to see those kept in place. YUEN:It wouldn€t change how the subdivision is handled. The requirements for handling drainage runoff and for wastewater disposal, all those would not change depending on, you know, whether it€s in a Rural designation or the Important Agricultural designation. If this were a question of where, the designation would make a difference. If, for example, someone were coming in for a Change of Zone from Agricultural -, say, this was zoned Agricultural 20- acres and somebody wanted to rezone this to Family Agricultural 1-acre, then the fact that it€s designated Important Agriculture in the General Plan would be a very important consideration. But with a set zoning and subdividing to the zoning that is allowed, those rules and criteria of how you handle that subdivision would not change by, would not be changed by the General Plan, by this General Plan designation. 10 ALAMEDA:Follow-up? IWASHITA:So there€s nothing, no limitations on grubbing, or, you know, how this Important Ag land is actually developed and --? That€s what I€m trying to find out. YUEN:The grubbing for the subdivision is all covered by other regulations. Grubbing of greater than an acre, they need a, what we call an MPDES Permit, that€s -- If you notice how nowadays when you see highway projects, you€ll often see these silt fences and sandbags, much more common than used to be in the past. Those are a result of MPDES Permits. That would be, those are the same requirements regardless of what the General Plan designation is, cause it comes from a State and Federal erosion control permitting system. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:JustfollowingupCommissionerIwashita€sconcernthatthismayenable more intensive developmentthere as anybody could -. It seems like one way perhaps could is that if it€s designated Rural on the General Plan, then someone could go in and ask for an RA-1 instead of an RA-2 in the sense of doubling the density; and it would be coherent, consistent with the General Plan if we made this change. But if we don€t make this change then that more dense zoning would be more in conflict with the General Plan as it stands now. Is that not correct? YUEN:I think what you€re saying is correct, that --. It would still be, though, something that would be dealt with at the Change of Zone level. It€s not something that would just happen all by itself. And the State Land Use designation itself is not affected by this. It€s already Urban, so potentially, you know, you do have a potential for development under the State Land Use Urban designation. ALAMEDA:Other questions? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:So that if such an application was made, basically as I see recommendations done now by the Department if they check the Rural, if it is Rural zoning then it would basically say this application is consistent with the zoning and, therefore, probably end up with a recommendation for approval. Would it not? YUEN:No, I wouldn€t say that because the rules specifically say that it does not necessarily imply support for a further subdivision. That would, to say that it€s consistent does not mean that you have to go ahead and rezone it. There are always other factors that come into play. And that€s where something like, well, is it going to negatively affect Kealakekua Bay, is it something that€s not a good density given the condition of Napo opo o Road? All those kinds of things are to be looked at at zoning. So there are areas where, you know, where there may be Urban Expansion in the General Plan that somebody might come in for a rezoning and the Department would say, no, you can€t, we wouldn€t support that because the road is terrible; but we might support it if you built a new road through there. And they might say, well, that€s not going to pan out. And so there are other things that are going to come into play. 11 I might, you know, I should mention from the standpoint of the Commission that, you know, you do see most of the things that come before you with a favorable recommendation. Many of the things that we disapprove of, you know, when we meet with people at the Planning Department and we make clear that we would not support it, many of those do not result in formal applications. Very often the things that you€re seeing are things that had a degree of work done on them between the applicant and the Department by the time they get there. So I would say, no, that just the fact that this is Rural instead of Important Ag would not imply that a request for rezoning of a 2-acre lot to a 1-acre zoning would be supported. ALAMEDA:Follow-up? IWASHITA:My feeling is we should be going the other way, is that because this is Important Ag land designation, that the State Land Use Map should be changed; and it shouldn€t be Urban, it should be a more appropriate State Land Use designation. And I really think it€s goingthewrongway.And,youknow,ifthechangesmadeessentiallyapermanentchangeand, you know, if there€s going to be changes in the Department and, you know, if 10-15-20 years from now somebody comes in -- you know, all these other kinds of considerations that I agree will have to be taken into consideration may be different. And, you know, my hunch is that at some point there€s going to be, you know, a good argument to have approved a 1-acre kind of subdivision in this area, you know. And if we don€t make the change, then that basically precludes that from happening, right? ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Mr. Director, you know, obviously, there seems to be some concern about additional development and maybe higher density in this area. But I€m wondering if you could comment on the availability of water in this area because I don€t believe that development would occur if we don€t have potable water, yeah? YUEN:Well, it would be hard, we would oppose a rezoning without it. I can€t tell you off the top of my head whether water would be available for additional meters in the area. ALAMEDA:Fellow Commissioners, we do have three testifiers today. And I would like to move forward with that, Mr. Director, if that€s okay with you? YUEN:Sure. ALAMEDA:Okay. We€ll have time to discuss again and take action today on each of these items. Let me call up Brenda Ford, Margaret Wille and Dore Dokos-Loewenthal. You can be seated. I€ll swear you in. Please raise your right hand. Thank you. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Hawai i County Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS:Yes. ALAMEDA:Thank you. And could you please state your name and address for the record? FORD:Brenda Ford, 81-950 Makahiki Lane, Capt. Cook, Hawai i. 12 ALAMEDA:Thank you. And down the line. LOWENTHAL:Dore Dokos-Loewenthal, 82-611 Napo opo o Rd. ALAMEDA:Thank you. WILLE:Margaret Wille, 65-1316 Lihipali Road, Kamuela. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Margaret. And I believe we have written testimony that you submitted already. I€m going to ask that you kind of highlight the key points of your concern and try to think about or keep to maybe a 3- or 5-minute kind of timeframe so we can move forward today. We have a long agenda. But we€re all wanting to hear kind of your perspectives. So maybe if we could start on my right, go this way? FORD:I€m Brenda Ford and I did not submit any written testimony. I brought mapstoexplainwhathasbeengoingonhere.IhopeIgetlotsofquestionsonfloodzonesand the zoning change that put this into Urban and Rural. I€m going to try to explain it. I know I€ll exceed 3 minutes. I need all the questions you can possibly throw at me. ALAMEDA:Sure. Go ahead. FORD:And, you know, it seems, with all due respect, we€re been sworn in to tell the truth here. Seems like everybody who testifies in front of this Commission should be sworn in to tell the truth as well. ALAMEDA:Could you take your mike? FORD:I€m going to talk about F-2, which is up on the screen. I€m going to start with this map right here, and I€m going to start at the other end. This map shows Kealakekua Bay here. This is the State park land; and these orange sections, these five orange sections, are owned by a man named Christopher Norrie. He has an assortment of Shell Limited Liability Corporations on these different parcels. My property is here; and this green section is owned by the Greenwell family, the Greenwell Kealakekua Ranch. F-2 sits right here in this section. And what has happened is Mr. Norrie owns a great many portions of this, the pali, overlooking Kealakekua Bay; and he does what is called, sequential permitting and sequential development.‚ That is he will not tell you what his ultimate plans are and he just goes piece-by- piece-by-piece. He did my subdivision in three sections, all the sections less than 10 lots. He never paid any of the in-lieu fees. This is the type of development he does. So keep this in mind as I go down here and explain how this mess got started. These maps are basically from the FIRM maps. This is that green section, Mr. Greenwell€s property right now, this is the section of the pali that€s F-2. And these are the flood channels as they were in 1998, as drawn in 1998. This map is from 2001. This is the same thing. Mr. Greenwell€s property, my subdivision going here and Mr. Norrie€s property, this is Conservation, this is the State land. Mr. Norrie, you can see the other five lots, owns all these parcels over here. He no longer owns the lots inside this subdivision. And you€ll notice these flood channels. Please notice the size of the flood channels. This is the northern one, southern, 13 northern and southern, this is 2001. This is the latest engineering design from 2003. This property right here owned by Mr. Robinson and his wife, Claire and Rick Robinson, has a flood channel flowing right through it. The last major storm that we had, my husband and I who store sand bags for our entire subdivision had to deliver, let Mr. Robinson come over and get about 33 of our sand bags because he was flooding because of the flood channel. And if you will look at the subdivision map there, approximately two-thirds of this piece of property is this new subdivision, which I€ll talk about in a minute. But please notice how much larger the flood channels and the shape had to have changed as the mapping has gotten better from 1998 to 2003. This map is from 2005. It€s the subdivision preliminary map. You€ll notice that this northern flood channel is much smaller in size as it€s designed in here. And the plan is to channelize it into this green section, the slope of the land runs 10 to 20 degrees. There€s no way that that little green area is going to handle the flood waters coming through here; and the flood waters exceed five cubic feet per second. It would scour this out and we will have a major soil runoff. This whole pali up here that should be Important Agricultural land and is well within the Kona Coffee Belthasdirt,reallydeepdirt.Wehavealotofa a,butwehaveplentyofdirt.We€regoingto have a Hokulia mess taking place right here off of this pali again. In addition, the subdivision has 36 significant cultural sites, only four of which are noted on the subdivision map. This plat map has been designed to be in violation of the current SMA Permit which requires all lots within the Conservation area here to be a minimum of three acres. They€re all two acres. Anybody in this subdivision beyond these to lots coming off of Napo opo o Road are going to be trapped in here by flood waters. They will not be able to be contained by that channel. Now how this thing got into the Urban situation -. Many years ago in the mid-80s, the Greenwell family owned the entire top of this pali, or most of it, most of it. And they wanted to put in a hotel and a golf course; and they went to the State and they got it zoned to Urban so they could do that. It should never have been zoned Urban. This is an Ag area. Any of you who€ve ever driven down Napo opo o Road know what a dangerous two-lane, winding country road that is. There€s no way capable of handling Urban traffic or High Density. This area is entirely in the coffee belt. I think the pali starts 800 feet at the top of the pali; and then it rises up to about 1,300 feet, something in that neighborhood. The problem with this is that going through a Rural designation is possibly the most dangerous thing that we can do in this area because Rural allows you to go down to lots, I think, 9,000 square feet. That€ll be five houses per acre, approximately five houses per acre. The developer of the subdivision and the F-2 owns 90 percent of that F-2. He has been in communication, in line with Mr. Yuen for the last two years to get this area designated as Rural. Now any time you hear an attorney or developer sit here and say there are no plans to do x,‚ be sure that 5 seconds after the permit is granted, there will be plans to do x.‚ And Mr. Norrie has a long track record of doing this as he did in my subdivision. He owns all of these lots here at the bottom section. He came before you, the Planning Commission, or the Council, or the Planning Department and said, This piece of Conservation land is going to be my retirement home.‚ Now, you know you can have two acres around your house as your house lot. He went before them and said, I need another 19 acres for that.‚ Well, he didn€t get it, at least I don€t believe he got it because the community went up in arms and said, No, you don€t need 19 acres for a house lot in a Conservation zone.‚ So he has this, he wanted to build his retirement home. 14 It went on sale, if not immediately upon its completion, five seconds before it was completed; and it is for sale for $6-1/2 million right now. The same Mr. Norrie, with all of his LLC€s is abutting Keopuka, I won€t even go into Keopuka and Hokulia. This lot right now is vacant. This is going to be one of his next lots to develop right below my subdivision. Right now he has a driveway, I brought my Subdivision Plan in case you want to look at it, he has a driveway. The road comes down here, terminates in a cul de sac; and there€s a driveway serving 12 lots. Six lots are the legal limit on a driveway. And he€ll be trying to connect this portion to it. He already has it, and he has a road easement that goes around here. And if you look at this street in this new subdivision, it deadends right there. So we know he€s going to try to connect into this area and this subdivision. He has got a variance pending in front of the Planning Department right now that I wrote ten pages of testimony saying what he€s trying to do in the subdivision is wrong, culturally wrong, environmentally wrong and illegal. I also found out that these lots should all be 3-acre lots. He€s never applied for change in hisSMAbutthePlanningDepartmenthasallowedhimtoturnthisinwith2-acrelots. Everythingaboutthiswholeareaneedstobepreserved.Thiswholepaliiscoveredwithcultural sites, they are not being preserved adequately. Once this property is sold in the subdivision, if these people do not wish to, the new lot owners do not wish to preserve these, they won€t be preserved. One of these has already been identified as a burial. I don€t know which one it is, I wouldn€t want to say in public anyway. So what we need to do, as Mr. Iwashita said is we€re going in the wrong direction. We need to get the State to turn this back into Important Ag land, at the very least 2-acre and 3-acre lots minimum. Everybody up here is on cesspool at this time. I believe the County now says you have to be on septic, which is fine; but if you go into a density of five lots an acre, you can€t handle that much septic. We are sitting, this whole pali up here sits on an aquifer. This is the aquifer for the area. And each point of Kealakekua Bay, you can see the north point there, the south point you can€t see. If you look at the aerial photographs from George Wilkins, he€s on the Water Board, he can show you how much fresh water is flowing off of those points of land. We€ve got rivers of water coming out of there that are going to be polluted if we increase the density to the kind of thing that Rural is going to do. Thank you very much. If you have any questions, I€ll be glad to answer them. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Brenda. Very articulate. Appreciate your testimony. I feel your passion. Any questions for Brenda? Very good. Thank you very much. Dore? LOEWENTHAL: This is my first time. Hope I don€t make this thing squeak. I€m just giving a little detail of the bigger picture that was just covered. I€m testifying in regards to General Plan Interim Amendment F-2. This affects almost 100 acres between upper Napo opo o Road and the Conservation land directly over Kealakekua Bay and the marine preserve. Around 1988, Kealakekua Ranch received Special Management Area Use Permit No. 269 for a subdivision plan based on lot sizes two acres or greater. This project later lapsed. The current owner and developer, Capt. Cook Ranch LLC, has a pending subdivision of 2-acre lots. He€s using the same, they€re using the same SMA No. 269 issued about 20 years ago at the standards for marine protection and runoff at that time, which were virtually nil. 15 Now the development of F-2 proposes to change this developer€s land to County land use designation of Rural. Rural as definedin the County General Plan has typical lot sizes of 9,000 square feet to two acres. Therefore, this amendment is potentially going to take the lot sizes from 200 acres and greater down to 9,000 square feet to two acres; and as I understand it you can build a house on half-an-acre. I talked to the Planning Department, that€s what they told me. Since SMA No. 269 was issued about 20 years ago, the Coastal Zone Management Studies had documented a complex array of problems affecting coastal waters arising from NPS (Non-Point Source Pollution) and CSI (Cumulative and Secondary Impacts), the combined impacts of by human land use activities and development. Amendment F-2 does create an opportunity for present and future developers and lot owners to apply for rezoning in the hopes of subdividing your land further. HigherdensitydevelopmentcanonlyincreasetheexposureofKealakekuaBaytoNon-Point Source Pollution and Cumulative and Secondary impacts. To put it in plain English, we don€t have the science yet to know what exactly will end up in the Bay, when it will end up there, and what it will do when it gets there. The coral reef, fish and dolphins are already stressed by human use. If we ruin the water, we ruin the reef. If we ruin the reef, we kill the fish. The General Plan mandates protection for natural resources, natural beauty, unique habitat and coastal resources. Kealakekua Bay and the marine preserve qualify on all these levels. Therefore, I hope the Planning Commission will delete Amendment F-2 and protect K-Bay. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thank you. Very good. Any questions? WILLE:Hi. Margaret Wille and I want to make a couple of comments. One is on your Transportation Road Map F, I think that€s not in detail. And perhaps you€ve already agreed to this, but I€m unaware, and this has to do with the mini-bypass which Parker Ranch had requested to be removed and Director Yuen agreed not to promote that. But I just want to make sure that the corresponding road map in the Plan includes this road. And I believe Director Yuen wasn€t opposed to that, but that it had been overlooked or an oversight that this be, this mini bypass or the two --. Can we put that map on? Or maybe it€s not detailed enough. But I have, what I gave you I handed out in the testimony showing this map. Currently Parker Ranch, under its rezoning ordinances, is required to build about one-half of that road and then the County section, which the County has substantial funds, could put that in. We€re really pushing to get this road in. And I just want to make sure, as Chris Yuen said it€s important for it to be on the maps in order to, if additional funding is needed. ALAMEDA:Okay. WILLE:It€s also just in terms of looking at working on the State€s bypasses, I mean, one of the engineers said, well, we didn€t even know that map was being, that road was being considered as they were looking at the General Plan. And just so that everyone is on the same page that it€s important, so I just stress that. 16 And the other point, just in terms of, I€m not sure, if you€ve already covered this, is the Plan Implementation. It was on Page 7 of the Interim proposals requesting to remove the Annual Report section. Obviously, I would hope that you would not remove that accountability provision. And I know Director Yuen has said he is proposing that because the Department is overburdened and that you look at these areas that he is overburdened as to how one can have additional people there. There are very minimal fees charged on any of the development permits, look at other ways. And if you have, in fact, asked, approved his or are agreeing to his request to remove this Annual Report, the accountability section, I would hope that some form of review be still carried out. I think this is very important right now where one is promoting the Community Development Plans as a communication mechanism so that the people, the communities know what€s going on. I actually think if that, if that had been done, if there had been an annual review of the courses of action, the Department would see that this road is mandated; and when Parker Ranch came in for its recent subdivision, the Planning Department would be saying, You€ve got to get your road in.‚ And instead, they€re asking for it to be deletedfromtheGeneralPlan. So,just,ifyouhaveagreedtoremovethatannualreport,Ihopeyouencouragemore accountability and provide, address the overburden problem in a way that isn€t excluding the public from getting public input. Thank you. ALAMEDA:Thanks, Margaret. WILLE:Thank you. ALAMEDA:You€re welcome. I see no questions. Thank you very much for your testimony today. You may be seated. Mr. Director, hearing Brenda and Margaret and Dore, do you have any comments or thoughts? YUEN:I€ll be happy to answer any questions the Commissioners may have as a result of that or other things that have come to mind in the last few minutes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Any questions for Mr. Director before we take action on these items? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Just on that last testimony from Ms. Wille about the Bypass Road in the Waimea area which is already there in the paperwork and we€re not going to delete it at this point. But she said she believes it doesn€t exist on the map to support what€s already there. Can you explain that? Is there something you€re going to do about that, or is that a real problem, or ƒ ? YUEN:You€ll notice that we€re going to put this on hold until Parsons Brinckerhoff, which is working on a circulation study in Waimea, completes evaluating other alternatives. My expectation, we met with them last week, and my expectation is that they feel that this is an important, this Bypass Road, Parker Ranch Bypass Road is an important component of transportation through Waimea town. In that case, I will drop the proposed interim amendment. And, unfortunately, the facilities map that was passed in 2005, although the text mandated this Bypass Road, the facilities map did not include it. And we really should it put on the facilities, in that case we should put it on the facilities map. But I would expect to put it, 17 do an Interim Amendment that would put those roads on the facilities map. They€re not currently shown and there€s no interim amendments that affect those. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, follow-up? GRAHAM:In the last sentence you said there --. So is that something you will be doing in the near future then, assuming this report comes back the way you think it will? YUEN:Yes. GRAHAM:Thank you. YUEN:And there€s one thing that came up in the testimony and there€s a point of misunderstanding of the General Plan, that where people say that Rural allows subdivision down to9,000squarefeet.Thereasonthatthere€samentionof9,000squarefeetinthedescriptionof Rural in the General Plan is that we took Rural to encompass a lot of non-conforming subdivisions that were granted in the 50s and 60s. The problem with the previous General Plan was that these were simply not shown as rural communities on the General Plan. So a place like Ocean View or Hawaiian Paradise Park which are major, becoming major population centers, were shown as Orchards on the General Plan. Many of these subdivisions were as small as 9,000 square feet. Ainaloa Subdivision, for example, although it€s in the State Land Use Agricultural District, most of the lots are about 9,000 square feet. So this statement is a descriptive statement rather than, it€s a description of what is there rather than a prescriptive statement, a statement of what you should do in the future. And that€s why there€s this additional statement in there that the Rural designation does not necessarily imply subdivision or rezoning to allow lot sizes smaller than already exists in the area covered by Rural. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: As a follow-up to that comment, you know, I understand what you€re saying. But, so what would we consider for the record, you know, a minimum size in a Rural going forward? YUEN:That€ll be decided at the zoning level. The General Plan itself does not have a minimum lot size in Rural. You would do it on a zoning level. WATANABE: But we haven€t formulated that yet, that guideline? YUEN:No, no. ALAMEDA:Other questions, Fellow Commissioners, before we start taking action on these amendments? We have eight amendments that I€d like to take action today. I believe we€ve covered from north, east, south to west in terms of perspective and opinion on this particular amendment. So I€d like to just ask that maybe we take action and just simply let your vote be your perspective, at this point. Could I entertain a motion for A-1? YUEN:Let me just mention for the record one thing that all these map amendments have corresponding text amendments that we€ve not talked about, but they€re just in 18 the text of the General Plan that mentions the map changes. Just so that you should, as you vote on these, we€ll just take it as understood that that includes the corresponding text changes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:As a little preface, I think Commissioner Watanabe indicated before that he€d like to see us do something or support something in this Puna District towards allowing commercial development. And what we€re doing is making a recommendation to the Council; and they will, in fact, you know, fine tune it however comes out. My sense is that when I look at what the Planning Director is recommending as opposed to what the Orchidland Community Association is recommending that the Orchidland Drive A-2 is, I would, say more coherent, more consistent with the Community Association than the Ainaloa Boulevard one. So, as I€m trying to reach a middle ground on it, I think I would tend to vote, to want to vote out the Ainaloa Boulevard one and vote in the Orchidland one. So in that respect I would move that we deletetheAinaloaBoulevardA-1itemfromourrecommendationtotheCountyCouncil. IWASHITA:Second. ALAMEDA:MotionmadebyCommissionerGraham,secondedbyCommissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Seeing none, staff? Or do we need clarification on the motion? I€m looking at Commissioner Watanabe or Commissioner Galdones. Do we need clarification on the motion or -? WATANABE: No, I understand the motion. ALAMEDA:Okay. All right. Staff? HAYASHI:From staff€s standpoint, my understanding is that you€re not supporting the Planning Director€s recommendation relative to A-1. Is that correct? ALAMEDA:Correct. HAYASHI:Okay. Thank you. With that, I€ll call the roll call vote. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:CommissionerSalavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Nay. 19 HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:No. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:No. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion does not carry. The vote was three ayes and three noes. ALAMEDA:Okay. Care to entertain a motion for A-2? Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Consistently with what I€ve said before, I would move that we include A-2 inourrecommendationasproposedbythePlanningDirector.Andthepartthatwasalittle th contentious to me was including extra space along 35 Avenue. But as I believe the Planning Director€s recommendation that any zoning level changes would require that the Applicant th improve 35 Avenue is sufficient to support the rezoning, I€m willing to go along with the Planning Director€s recommendation. So I move that A-2 be putforth with a positive recommendation to the County Council. WATANABE: Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Watanabe. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? th IWASHITA: Just, I think Orchidland Community Association€s concern about 35 th Avenue and allowing commercial development at 35 and Orchidland Drive is not limited to, th you know, the condition of 35 Avenue at that intersection. And I guess their concern would extend beyond, you know, far beyond the boundaries of what€s being proposed and to how, you th know, people would then within the subdivision be using 35 Avenue more to access those particular areas. And I don€t think that what€s being contemplated, in terms of requiring th improvements for 35 Avenue, would extend beyond the boundaries of the proposed developments. So I think Orchidland Community Association€s concern is warranted. And basically they have a current infrastructure concern as to the condition of the roads and the organization€s potential liability with increased use, so I can€t support the proposed expansion. ALAMEDA:Thank you for your opinion. Other discussion items or perspectives? Seeing none, staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. The motion is to support the Planning Director€s recommendation on map change A-2. Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. 20 HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries, five to one. ALAMEDA:Moving right along. Houselots area, Amendment B-5, or was it B-6? YUEN:B-6. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Watanabe, you want to entertain a motion? WATANABE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded for the Amendment to General Plan B-6 to the County Council, based on the Director€s recommendations. GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:I just want to make a record. If you look at the map for the proposed change, it€s pretty apparent that what€s being done is really not appropriate. The western side of Kekuanaoa Street where it terminates at Kilauea and extending almost down to Manono is all already High Density Urban and under-utilized, as you all know. So it€s really from a public policy big picture perspective, there€s really no need to have this done at this time in this manner. ALAMEDA:Thank you, Commissioner Iwashita. Seeing no further thoughts, staff? HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, this is a motion to recommend approval of the Planning Director€s initiation of the map change B-6. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? 21 GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:No. HAYASHI:ChairAlameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr.Chair,motioncarries,fivetoone. ALAMEDA:MovingrightalongtoAmendmentsE-6,E-7andE-8.We€regoingto take one-at-a-time. E-6, would anybody want to entertain a motion? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Interim General Plan Amendment E-6, based on the Director€s recommendations. GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Watanabe, seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Thank you, Mr. Chair. Again, motion is to support the Planning Director€s recommendation of Map Change E-6. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. 22 HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA: Yes. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries, six to zero. ALAMEDA:Amendment E-7? Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council for Interim General Plan Amendment E-7, based on the Planning Director€s recommendations. GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:MotionmadebyCommissionerWatanabe,secondedbyCommissioner Galdones. Discussion? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Motion is to support, again, the recommendation of the Planning Director, Map Change E-7. Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Graham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. 23 ALAMEDA:Thank you. E-8? Fellow Commissioners, anybody want to entertain a motion? Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:I€d like to make a motion to include Amendment E-8 and Commission approval for Important Agricultural lands relative to Director Yuen€s recommendation. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Salavea. Is there a second? GALDONES:Second. ALAMEDA:Seconded by Commissioner Galdones. Staff? HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:CommissionerGaldones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:CommissionerGraham? GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Yes. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries, six to zero. ALAMEDA:And the final amendment for today, F-2, anyone would like to entertain a motion? Commissioner Graham. GRAHAM:I move that that we delete F-2 from the recommendation going to the County Council. IWASHITA:Second. ALAMEDA:Motion made by Commissioner Graham, seconded by Commissioner Iwashita. Discussion? Commissioner Watanabe? 24 WATANABE:I€m a little torn. ALAMEDA:Okay. Well, -. WATANABE:Somebody convince me one way or the other. ALAMEDA:Commissioner Graham, would you like to share your thoughts? GRAHAM:Well, I guess my thoughts are we€ve heard a lot of concerns about this area. And if we were the deciding body I think I would probably continue the hearing and get a lot more information on the real specifics, and maybe do a site visit, and all that kind of stuff. But we€re not the deciding body. And in this case I don€t feel like there€s any, from what I€ve heard, I don€t have any clear sense of support for making this change. So for that reason I feel likeit€sgoodforustosaywedonotsupportthischange,butleaveituptotheCountyCouncilif they want to make effort to try to justify it. WATANABE:I think where I€ve having the most difficulty with this is the flood area because I did live in Cooks Landing, which is in close proximity to that, and we did have some flooding issues at one time. You know, I think much of it has been resolved. But I like the fact that, you know, we have a much greater buffer area with the Conservation change in F-1, and yet the flooding area I€m not sure about. You know, it concerns me a little bit. ALAMEDA:You need any other Commissioners to voice their opinion? Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Whether he needs it or not -. ALAMEDA:Here it comes. IWASHITA:Again, I view our role and the role of the Council and the role of this, the General Plan in general and this particular kind of concerns really needs to be viewed from the bigger picture. And, to me, in this area, it€s sort of easier to get the bigger picture because Kealakekua Bay is right there. And any decision that€s made about these lands really should center on how to protect Kealakekua Bay and keep it as pristine as possible. You know, we all have been camping to one extent or another and we all know that, you know, good areas to camp are becoming less and less and less. And so, to me, that€s really the perspective. We have lots and lots, and lots, and lots of land to develop already. If the County Council never passes another zoning change we still will be crying about traffic, we still will be crying about overcrowding. We don€t have to do another thing to make things worse. So to me that€s the perspective that helps me say that, you know, F-2 should not be done, should be deleted. And, if anything, we should work on, as I said earlier, you know, going through the Land Use Commission and saying this should not be Urban, and change that. ALAMEDA:Other commentaries? Seeing none, staff. HAYASHI:Okay, the motion is to not support the Planning Director€s proposed map change F-2. Commissioner Graham? 25 GRAHAM:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Iwashita? IWASHITA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Salavea? SALAVEA:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Watanabe? WATANABE:Aye. HAYASHI:Commissioner Galdones? GALDONES:Aye. HAYASHI:Chair Alameda? ALAMEDA:Aye. HAYASHI:Mr. Chair, motion carries. ALAMEDA:Thank you very much. And thank you testifiers for bringing in more information to the table on that. I appreciate it. The discussion ended at 10:45 a.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary 26