Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2010-06-04 T-COUNCIL WINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAIÒI HEARING TRANSCRIPT JUNE 4, 2010 COUNTY COUNCIL BILL 194 A regularly advertised hearing on was called to order at 10:52 a.m. in the County of HawaiÒi, Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, HawaiÒi, with Chairman Rell Woodward presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Rell Woodward, Dean Au, Takashi Domingo (left at 12 noon), Zendo Kern, and Wallace Ishibashi. STAFF PRESENT: Brandon Gonzalez (Deputy Corporation Counsel), BJ Leithead Todd (Planning Director), Norman Hayashi (Planning Program Manager), Daryn Arai (Planning Program Manager), Phyllis Fujimoto (Staff Planner), Jeff Darrow (Staff Planner) and Maija Cottle (Staff Planner). And 7 people from the public in attendance. ABSENT AND EXCUSED: Stephen Ono INITIATOR: COUNTY COUNCIL (BILL 194) Amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan (Puna CDP) as reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664. WOODWARD: The second item on the agenda is amendment to the Puna Development Plan as reflected in Bill 194 and Communication 664. Planning Director, youÓre in charge. LEITHEAD TODD: What we have before us are County Council initiated amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan as incorporated in Bill 194. Bill 194 was introduced by the County Council, and then transmitted to me, and I then transmitted it to the Puna Community Development Action Committee. The Action Committee then submitt I agreed in part and disagreed in part with their recommendations; and that is included in my letter to you. And one of the issues was whether they could make substantive amendments to Bill 194. And I felt that there were a number of things that they raised that would have to be brought in as separate amendments, which we are in the process of drafting. So what IÓm asking for is that you basically submit a recommendation to the County Council that they approve Bill 194 with the various recommendations I made. through them would be easier. I tried to do my recommendation to respond to the advice given by the Action Committee. 1 EXHIBIT B The first, if you look at page 3 of my recommendation letter it was on whether we would replace words such as ÐinitiateÑ with ÐproposeÑ or ÐamendÑ with Ðproposed amendments.Ñ And I support the amendments as initiated by the County Council in part because I see my role as a Planning Director to propose and, to propose amendments, because I am not the legislative body. And so I thought that this document was directing me to act, and that those words were more consistent with what my role is. Item No. 2, deleting establishment of a County historic preservation committee and in renumbering the remaining section, I also support the deletion of those sections as initiated by the County Council. I note that this amendment was originally proposed by Councilwoman Naeole in 2008, but was not acted upon because there was a decision made to adopt the CDP without any amendments. And part of the rationale is that they have established a County Cultural Resources Commission which is meant to be island-wide versus having something that is this preservation commission, which doesnÓt encompass as much as that. I understand that it has not been filled by the Mayor yet, partially because of the constraints of the budget at this point. But, also, I would note that specifically on historic preservation, any historic preservation plan is approved by State Historic Preservation and is done in consultation with both lineal and cultural descendants in any areas. And so a lot of what you might think would go to suc commission is actually within the StateÓs jurisdiction. . On No3, amendment to the section regarding Wastewater Disposal/Treatment Systems, I support the amendment as initiated by the County Council, and I noted that the amendment was originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008. And part of the rationale for some of this was a concern that the language would impact DHHL lands. As for No. 4, the amendment regarding Village/Town Center Formation, I also support the proposed amendments which delete references to floating zones and transferred development rights as initiated by the County Council, and note that these were originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008. Part of that is because while they have these references none of the enabling legislation exists in the HawaiÒi County Co occur. On No. 5 regarding Downsizing of Agricultural Lands, I also support the proposed amendments as initiated by the County Council. And there are two different sections. One, the original amendment was proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole; and basically the rationale is that the CDP has other actions that protect agricultural lands without requiring purchase or lease of lands by the County. The other rationale for Section 3.2.2.b was proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen; and he felt that the CDP as it stands would be too restrictive on property owners. So there was additional language from the Action Committee which I found to be substantially different from the original text -- which would, basically itÓs to the new amendment -- and did not feel that that could be inserted; and I also donÓt support that amendment. I do not plan to initiate it. No. 6, Relocation of the KeaÒau and Phoa Transfer Stations, I support deletion of ÐSection gÑ as initiated by the County Council. I note that that was originally proposed by Councilwoman Emily Naeole. And I want to note that we currently have I think almost $4,000,000 going into 2 EXHIBIT B the renovation of the Phoa transfer station. So, you know, itÓs highly unlikely given the timeframe for the CDP that you would be looking at any relocation of that given the investment thatÓs going into that facility. On No. 7, Parks and Recreation, I also support the amendment as initiated by the County Council. And for additional information which not available to me at the time, I would note that the County is going ahead and looking at whether itÓs feasible to convert the old Phoa fire station to be consistent with the CDP and provide both a senior center as well as some other facilities available for the community. And those meetings were just recently held by the Mayor with the various departments. No. 8, I support the Action CommitteeÓs recommendation to include the word ÐroundaboutÑ in a list of traffic calming features but delete the addition of Ðhighway wideningÑ. And I felt that the addition of the word ÐroundaboutÑ was not a substantive amendment so that it could be included, because itÓs just one of a range of traffic calming devices. And it is very consistent with what has been advocated by a number of people active with both the Steering Committee, the Action Committee, and various community organizations, that they do want roundabouts to be considered in future planning for roads in the Puna region. On No. 9, which is the proposed amendment to Zoning Designations in Sections 5.2.2, 5.2.1, 5.2.2 and Section 5.2.3, I support the original amendments as initiated by the County Council, and note that these were originally proposed by Planning Director Yuen in 2008. Also, regarding Table 5.1, the Village/Town Center Formation, I support the changes to Table 5.1 as initiated by the County Council and originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen in 2008. The one difference here is that the County Council had a recommendation to remove the word ÐpreliminaryÑ in the description of the Village Center Boundaries. I agree with the Action CommitteeÓs recommendation to retain the word ÐpreliminaryÑ in the description of the village center boundaries, cause I thought it was a much more reasonable position and allowed for greater flexibility. On No. 10 on the addition of new Section 5.2.4 regarding industrial zoning as initiated by the County Council, and it was originally proposed by Planning Director Chris Yuen, I support that amendment as initiated by the County Council. And No. 11 on the list from the Action Committee was all other amendments; and I support all other amendments as proposed in Bill 194 as initiated by the Cou On the other items since it did come in the letter from the Action Committee, I would support the additional non-substantive and formatting amendments that they had in Exhibit A because they are non-substantive and they made sense. I do not support the proposal for the new action item for the creation of Village/Town Center Steering Committees -- One, because I consider it a substantive amendment and cannot be incorporated in Bill 194; and, two, because we do not have the personnel or resources to support that. If the community on their own wants to form committees that provide input to the Action Committee, thatÓs entirely acceptable because then 3 EXHIBIT B that is not a Sunshine Law Committee or a committee that we have to provide support or staff to And other communities have done similar things where theyÓve formed their own committees to provide input. In Kaumana many years ago before we were talking about action plans, well, we formed what we called a Upper Kaumana District Council with representation from various subdivisions so that we could comment whenever there were proposals for rezoning or improvements and infrastructure in the community, so that we could get community beat and then, the heartbeat of the community, and then take that to the County Council and provide input. And we would hold meetings, and none of that with any financial support from the County. It was entirely done through the community. And I think that can be achieved by the community without having to make them, committees created through the CDP. Because if itÓs created by the CDP, it then falls into all the Sunshine Law requirements, it requires minutes, it requires public hearing notices; and so I was very concerned about that, cause I donÓt have the staff or resources to support that. On the amendment proposed by the Hawaiian Shores Community Association, I support it. WeÓre going to be drafting a substantive amendment and initiate feel it could be incorporated into Bill 194. Similarly, there was an amendment proposed by the Kalapana Seaview Estates. As itÓs substantive, I did not feel it could be incorporated into Bill 194. Staff is drafting an amendment; and we will be initiating an amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and Council as I agree with that recommendation. Similarly, there was an amendment proposed by the Hawaiian Parad Association; and I support the recommendation of the Action Committee that the existing language be retained. So it basically is not supporting the amendment to the Hawaiian Paradise Parks Homeowners Association. Amendments proposed by a group called All Landowners of Hawaiian Acres, or their acronym is ALOHA, the Planning Director supports the Action CommitteeÓs recommended amendments; and we will draft a separate amendment for submission to the Planning Commission and Council. Amendment proposed by Foster Kern, we supported the Action Commi reject the request; and I will not be initiating an interim amendment. And because itÓs not something that affects Bill 194, it isnÓt something that you have to vote on today. Amendment proposed by Toby Hazel to expand Hele-on Bus Service, I agree in concept with expansion of the mass transit service; and, therefore, we will draft a similar amendment for submission, but they will not be part of 194. Now I have additional non-substantive amendments which are proposed. And they are basically things like the fact that -. To be consistent with other types of publications that we put out, I did not think that the words ÒhiÒa, HapuÒu, Pueo, ÒAmakihi, and ÒApapane should be capitalized. Because when I looked at other documents that weÓve produced they are not capitalized. 4 EXHIBIT B On Page 1-1, paragraph 5, I found an error. They had the word ÐMakaÒainaÑ and actually it should be ÐMakaÒinana,Ñ which is the proper Hawaiian term for Ðcommoner.Ñ And on Page 2-1, the correct diacritical marks for ÐMalama KiÑ should have the macron or macona over the word ÐKÑ. I also had another one that I wondered whether the Council should consider whether the word ÐhiÒaÑ should be changed to ÐhiÒa-lehuaÑ to actually reference the tree that they are referring to; and that is because the word ÐhiÒaÑ in the Hawaiian language dictionary can also mean mountain apple, a tomato, a native variety of sugar cane, and a variety of taro, among other meanings. And so those are non-substantive, but I wanted to submit those for your consideration. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you, Madam Director. Do we have any quest Okay, seeing none, we do have four people from the public signed up to testify. If we can get you to come up as I call your name, have a seat at the table here, Daniel Taylor, Jon Olson, Rob Tucker and Tim Rees. REES: I was testifying on a later matter. WOODWARD: Oh, okay. LetÓs see, if I could get you, letÓs see, you two gentlemen have already been sworn in. IÓd like to swear you in. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth today before the Windward Planning Commission? TAYLOR: I do. WOODWARD: All right, very good. And Mr. Taylor, you have signed up first. If youÓll give us your name and address, and then you may begin your testimony. TAYLOR: Okay. My name is Daniel Taylor. IÓm a resident of Volcano community. I have been a resident in HawaiÒi for about 30 years. And I represent the Action Committee for the Puna Community Development Plan, and IÓm speaking on their behalf. But IÓd like to point out, you all lowlanders are wearing short sleeves and I am cold in this room. I had to put a sweater on to keep myself going here. IÓd like to complement the Planning Director. We are very gratified by the amount of attention you gave to our letter and to the very rational well-thought response to us. And IÓd like to pass on the respects of the Action Committee, too, for that. What remains with respect to Bill 194, just a few points where weÓd like to simply clarify some of our thinking, we donÓt have a disagreement with anything. We simply would like to clarify some of our thinking on five points. And theyÓre listed in a 2  page thing we copied for you; and theyÓre available. IÓm not, IÓm not going to bore you by reading it, besides we have to get off for lunch in a few more minutes. 5 EXHIBIT B We are still a little bit uncomfortable with something that the Planning Director referred to a few minutes ago about the kind of language that Bill 94 would use to tweak the, subtly tweak the intent of the community plan. We need some help on this. Our co idea of community driven and action committees is kind of a new concept. And we might be wrong on this, but weÓre not real comfortable with these conditional syntax thatÓs been inserted into the plan that causes the plan to propose things or to consider things. We see it as an action plan; and weÓd prefer to see the action words remain. We understand that we as a steering committee, is an action committee, are responsible to the Planning Director. We communicate to you and we support you in what youÓre doing; and we communicate to you the intent of the community. But, correct us if weÓre wrong, we think youÓre the implementor of this plan. And weÓre wondering if youÓre not, who is? YouÓre part of the executive department of County government, and the County Council is part of the legislative branch. So who would be the implementing authority? LEITHEAD TODD: I see myself as working on implementing the plan, which is why I felt that words like Ðpropose amendmentsÑ were more consistent with my role, because I donÓt amend. You know, the County Council amends it through legislative actio know, what I viewed my role as, like one of the things that you referenced here is, you know, getting the County Building Code amended to add standards for traditional Hawaiian building design and construction methods. So in my role what I did is I went and got the design standards that had been adopted by Maui County, and sent them to the Building Division and to Warren Lee asking that they be incorporated into the Building Code. They responded that they have that appropriate language drafted and when they go to the County Council with the new Building Code that language will be part of the new Building Code. And s them, cause I saw that as my role. The actual proposal to amend it will not come from me. The actual proposal will come from the Building Division. So what I did is I proposed those amendments to them; and theyÓve responded that theyÓre going to incorporate it in the next Building Code that goes to the Council, cause they want to do a comprehensive update. I also, you know, am doing what I can to initiate amendments. Staff has already been directed to draft those other amendments that the Action Committee recommend what IÓm going to be doing, IÓm going to be proposing them and starting the process. But itÓs going to be up to the County Council where they ultimately approve it or not, and thereby amend the CDP. And so I think maybe itÓs my view of what I can or cannot do versus what the Council does; and I saw this more as a plan that IÓm supposed to impleme implementing it and proposing the amendments as opposed to I canÓt amend and my Department canÓt amend them, and for that matter not even the Planning Commission can amend it. Ultimately itÓs the County Council. TAYLOR: ThatÓs great. And our interest as the Action Committee is what the action says, is to get action going on this plan. And if this is your approach we greatly respect that and will support you in that. We just want to be sure this plan doesnÓt get mired down in a mass of procedures and become sidetracked over things like that. So thank you for your clarification. 6 EXHIBIT B A couple of other things weÓre a little concerned about have to do with quality of water in the Puna Watershed. And we might have some disagreement here, but the original, as you can read in my statement, the original intent was to protect this part -. NOMURA: Microphone please. TAYLOR: I donÓt think it will reach. TUCKER: We need more cord. WOODWARD: He needs more cord. TAYLOR: ItÓs okay, IÓll just describe it. IÓll just bring this closer. We have full water going underground through here. Above Highway 130 which is here, itÓs protected by, of course, Wao Kele o Puna Forest Reserve, KahaualeÒa Natural Area Reserve, and maybe even further on. ItÓs flowing under an area of land that some day is going to be densely settled. The original proposal in the PCDP was to give a little bit of extra protection to this area, about 5,000 acres. The Planning Director objected to that on a very good basis, that pait is already settled, part of it is Hawaiian Home lands, about 2,000 acres of it; and all that is true. But we would like to, rather than to have disagreement over this, weÓd like acknowledgment of the fact that this is, this underground water is a precious resource and itÓs going to eventually need to be protected somehow. You canÓt have a bunch of subdivisions in here all of which have cesspools and not eventually contaminate the water. Some day thereÓs going to be a trigger point when this water is not going to be safe to use. And we donÓt just mean drinking water. ItÓs water that eventually flows into the ocean and might be used for other purposes. And household use, itÓs contamination from runoff from roads and industrial uses. So we merely would like to see some recognition that this resource is deserving of some protection. And I canÓt go further than that. ItÓs going to have to be some kind of containment of water that is generated by people in this area. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions? Okay -. TAYLOR: Well, thereÓs one other point. Sorry to be taking so much time. But we would like to certainly support what the Planning Director said at the very end of your comments before me, and that is thereÓs strong support for community driven committees that might help to plan town and village centers. We strongly support and we very much agree with your statement on that subject. Thank you. WOODWARD: Thank you. Mr. Olson, youÓre on. (Commissioner Domingo left at this time, 12 noon.) OLSON: Here we go again. Well, what I would like to see you do with this is I would like you basically to take no action and send this back to the Council requesting that they bifurcate this so that your body can actually consider what my body, the CDP committee, did, this abbreviated 7 EXHIBIT B version of two years, two plus years of work and some numbers of hundreds of thousands of dollars that the County paid for us to do this plan. And theyÓv they handed it off to you like youÓre supposed to understand it. And I think thatÓs, from my side of the fence, demeaning at its best, given the amount of work th the hundreds of hours that the different committees, aside from up with this document, and then having it shoveled off and shuffled through in a matter of a few minutes without any understanding of why we did what we did. Let me just give you a for instance here, cause itÓs open to tha relocation of the transfer stations, now why would that come up? Well, letÓs see. The transfer station in Phoa, the access to that transfer station in Phoa for the entire South and East District of Puna is through the Phoa School complex. They drag, we drag our garbage through the school complex; and thatÓs been there since day one. The school was built in 1908; and they moved the transfer station once a little further back. I was up there two weeks ago for the Senio Projects Day as a volunteer and itÓs disgusting. Okay, itÓs going to cost some money to move it. What choices? You want to move the school or the transfer station? Moving the KeaÒau station, it is on Highway 130. Momentarily that is going to be at the transfer station nearly six lanes wide by the time you figure the shoulder, the turning lane, the two turning pockets left and right, two lanes of travel, a turning pocket and two more lanes of travel. If you pull out of there going Pahoa bound, youÓre going to have to make it across three lanes of traffic without getting hit. And theyÓre coming at you at 55 miles an hour. Does that sound like a good scenario to anybody sitting here? ItÓs already, in the last ten years, thereÓs already been 8 people killed there. Is that enough? Do we have enough blood on the road? Oh, no, itÓs going to cost a couple of bucks to move it. And IÓm not getting any more satisfaction on the State HighwayÓs side either. Village and town centers, we didnÓt come up with this, folks. The County hired a planner, somebody with extensive, extensive experience in planning, who came down here and advised us how best we could go about solving our problems of getting these village and town centers built. We didnÓt come in making any demands. We said how do we fix this, how is the rest of the world dealing with this? This is what we were told, this is the one of the tools that you should have out there to deal with the problem. Well, I mean, if the guy didnÓt know what he was doing the County shouldnÓt have hired him. So thatÓs the conundrum, either the man knows what heÓs doing or he doesnÓt know what heÓs doing. ItÓs okay with one planning director, itÓs not okay with the next planning director. ItÓs okay with one Council, itÓs not okay with another. I think you deserve, and I know my community deserves you to reject this. Send them a little letter that says bifurcate this, send this back in bit size pieces so we can understand what weÓre doing and why the community made the choices it chose to doing these things, and then weÓll look at it. And IÓm not objecting to having someone do a second look, or third look, whatever it takes to get it right. The Council didnÓt look at this. They simply know that this document tak some power away from them; and this new enervation of the Council doesnÓt like that. 8 EXHIBIT B So IÓm not going to drone on too much longer here. ItÓs just, itÓs a real simple thing. We deserve better than weÓre getting, weÓre deserving better than what the Council is going to give us. We had a Council that adopted this document, IÓm not complaining about the amendment process. IÓm not complaining about a second, or a third, or a fourth look. This thing should be continued to be looked at; and the communityÓs involvement should be kept up-to-date. We have huge problems out there. We have a growth problem that is out of control. The County does not control it, the State does not control it; and weÓre going to have to come up with mechanisms to deal with it. This doesnÓt get it, not even close. Thank you. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Any questions for Mr. Tucker (sic)? Commissioner Kern. KERN: Thanks, Chair. OLSON: Mr. Olson. KERN: Mr. Olson. WOODWARD: I mean Mr. Olson. IÓm sorry. OLSON: IÓm better looking. KERN: Mr. Olson, quick point of clarification. You said to get to the Phoa transfer station you actually have to drive through the school corridor? OLSON: It bisects the elementary and intermediate and high school. KERN: That, correct me if IÓm wrong, thatÓs the long way to go, isnÓt that? OLSON: Not if you live down Kapoho. In other words, Nanawale dow Leilani, and everything thatÓs south and east of that, they go through the school complex. KERN: And then youÓve got to go up that dirt road, and there are subdivisions on top there, and then the road takes a right and bends all the way around through old cane lands, and then comes back down, and then you can take a left-hand turn into the transfer station. If you keep on going it comes to the old church and -. OLSON: Two point three miles. KERN: Preschool thing, right. So with the other access, the more commonly used one is off of where Mr., I think Mr. Gumpac had his, you know, tree business. ThereÓs a tree business right there on the corner there, right? 9 EXHIBIT B OLSON: Well, see the people donÓt go through there anymore because that intersection, the Kahakai-Malama Market intersection, is the most dangerous intersection in the entire State of HawaiÒi. People donÓt go there if they can avoid it. KERN: Yeah, just clarifying that I -. OLSON: Yeah, you remembered it right. KERN: Okay. OLSON: Yes. WOODWARD: Okay, thank you. Now, Mr. Tucker. TUCKER: Thank you, Commissioners. The CDP, the Puna Community Development Plan, and the amendment process, now this has been a path IÓve been on since 2006 when we were invited by Mayor Kim and the Planning Department to participate in the Community Development Plan. And as Jon said there has been a lot of time and effort. I donÓt really need to go back and rehash every moment. But I would like to pick up the thread a little bit at Council in 2008. Now at the time that the CDP, the Puna CDP, was going to Council, we had four days notice as a community, as community participants, that there were 21 amendments coming to the CDP from the DirectorÓs office. Now we were not at that time not particularly enamored with the fact that we had, you know, four days in which to try and digest 21 amendments, I believe it was. Well, my numbers may be not, maybe it was 19, but I remember 21. And at that point we had to take an approach that, listen, if this is just going to get bogged down for months on end with amendments that were not even given the dignity of time to review, then we were going to take a stance to pass it now and amend it later. Now we said that at the time because we knew that some reasonable amendments would be appropriate to the document. It was a long and difficult and cumbersome path trying to get the CDP together. We did it on time, we did it on schedule, we did it on budget. And we brought it to the Council, and suddenly there were 21 amendments. Well, that morning that there were 21 amendments being presented by Chris Yuen, by the end of the day we were at 56 amendments. Now the additional amendments we had zero time to appreciate, zero time to understand. Now weÓre grateful that the Council at the time decided to listen to us, passed the CDP, and there was a promise made both emotionally and publicly - pass it now, amend it later. Now we did not expect that it was going to be more than a year before the amendments were going to come back, you know, up as an issue. A in December of Ó08, just a couple of months after the Council passed it, we went out into the community, we formed a committee of 28 individuals new to the process which spent nothing but the next five months studying 56 amendments. We gave it a long and thoughtful consideration. We were expecting in the spring of 2009 that the amendments were going to be coming back to Council. It didnÓt. It took several months for an action committee to be appointed. It took several months for a planning director to be appointed. And that was not of our creation, that was not of our, you know -. We were prepared and ready early in Ó09, you know, for an amendment process to take place. 10 EXHIBIT B th Now we can flash forward a little bit into December 18 of 20 -, 2009 when with no public notice an agenda item was filed with Council right at the holidays for a one bill, Bill 194, to amend the Puna CDP. Now it took us several or ten days to even realize this had been put on the agenda over the holidays. And when we finally got a copy of it and got to look at it, we found that this one bill, Bill 194, contained approximately 83 amendme amendments, to 56 amendments, now weÓre up to 83 amendments. And instead of really going back into the community, which Chris Yuen never went to the community to talk about his 21 amendments and the rest of the Council never really came to the community to talk about amendments -. We had to start asking ourselves what is this plan? Is this a community plan or is this a community plan subject to the veto of the largest landowner in the district? Now IÓm really not trying to be mean, IÓm not trying to be angry. IÓm really trying to be simple and blunt and clear so that we can abbreviate this conversation and not tiptoe around everything. But Chris Yuen to our knowledge really consulted with one individual in the development of amendments to the CDP, which was the largest landowner in Puna. And those amendments had been brought forth by wagon and cart and packed basket through processes to land in a big lump as Bill 194 now at your lap. Now we were a little astonished to see Bill 194 hit Council with so many amendments in it that it really didnÓt consist of a bunch of amendments any more, but consisted of a rewriting of the Puna Community Development Plan, quite factually. We also were confused on how do we deal with Bill 194 with its 150 pages in a coherent manner with what we perceive to be substantive and non-substantive amendments within it, up to 80 something in number. Because it was written as a single bill, we think it had to go forward with either a single recommendation, eit for or against, from the Action Committee, from the Planning Director, and from the Planning Commission. We do not see a mechanism presented at Council being to take Bill 194 and deal with it in its sundry parts. And while there are things within Bill 194 that amend the CDP in ways that Friends of PunaÓs Future approves of them and supports, there are other things which we are extremely uncomfortable with. When we heard talk that there is no language in the Code to empower floating zones, we listened to that language. And then we read the newspaper and we see that the planning group for the city of Hilo has just amended the planning language so that they can pursue something in the way they want to pursue it within Hilo. So Hilo has the ability to amend the planning code, you know, to within their community design criteria. But Puna is told, well, if itÓs not already in the Code we canÓt go there, itÓs not -. So, anyway, I think we have a legal problem. I think trying to wrapped up in one little bundle with a bow on it and try to pretend youÓre dealing with 83 different parts or 83 different things, you can pick and choose not, is a little bit confusing to us. We see this as one bill, it is a rewriting of the CDP, it is being put forward to that purpose. We agree that amendments are needed. We have Friends of PunaÓs Future concurrently taking two other steps now, one of which was what we felt was the, a simple and elegant and mission purpose, suitable amendment, was our Village Center Steering Committee amendment. We presented this appropriately to the Planning Department who took it to the Action Committee. Our proposal was simple. While the CD dealt with the district as a whole in a big broad way, the village centers required more input from 11 EXHIBIT B the people who live in those village centers. We felt that it would be logical and completely consistent with the mission statement of the CDP and Action Committee to call for steering committees to be formed, if the areas want to, with existing community groups to review the plans for their subdivisions. And I applaud you all for supporting Orchidland. OrchidlandÓs community might have further things to say about, you know, their subdivisionÓs village center. I believe that somebody like myself who lives in Puna or Phoa should have some input in PahoaÓs Plan, but somebody like me should stay completely away from HPPÓs Plan. HPPÓs Plan is HPPÓs Plan. Volcano is Volcano. Mt. View, each of these areas deserves their own say. Now when we first presented this to the Planning Director in her well, this is really doable, this doesnÓt cost any money. YouÓre talking about working with existing community groups. And we thought we had a supportive moment. WeÓre a little puzzled about why now suddenly itÓs a little too costly to deal with. But the mission statement of the Puna Community Development Plan is to not just take the community input that came in in 2006 and 2007, itÓs to have it be an on-going continuing effort that involves as many people expanding over time as possible. And our village center communi committeeÓs proposal is extremely effective in doing that cheaply. Now when the Puna Community Development Plan cost $360,000 for a that was a chunk of change. Now, right now Kona I believe is doing $600,000 for a consultant. WeÓre not asking for this kind of stuff. We have community groups, we have Main Street Pahoa Association, we have the Volcano Community Association, we have village areas and subdivisions and boards of directors that can look at these village centers and study them, and give the County the benefit of more local participation. Now there are people in HPP who did not have the time and the energy in their life to step out and de CDP as a whole broad issue, you know. But when it comes to their neighborhood, believe me, they will be there and they will have good input for this. But we are concerned about Bill 194 as a single bill as a bundle. ItÓs kind of like looking at Congress going through an appropriations bill and at the same time wrapping in somebodyÓs pork from somewhere else to stuff it through and make it all one moment. Now as we dealt with 194 and looked at it, and we looked at Jay Yoshimoto officeÓs method of dealing with these amendments, which are largely not JayÓs amendments, they were Chris YuenÓs amendments talking to Bill Walter. Cause Jay isnÓt all that conversant with them, to tell you the truth; and IÓve sat down and talked with him about it. Now we felt that the best way we could communicate with the Council and with the Planning Department and with the AC from Friends of PunaÓs Future, feels like months of work on these amendment studies, was to take Bill 194 and redraft it; and we did so. And it took us a lot of time. We went through 150 pages. The stuff that we approved of and we left alone which, are stated in black ink. The things that we thought that we would remove, we removed it in red ink. And the things that we added in, we put in blue ink. So you could kind of chart where things were going through there. We submitted this formally to the Planning Department and AC, and we havenÓt seen or heard from it since. It seems to have been a submission that was ignored, or that it was pushed aside; and it is not on your table right now for consideration. Now whether it 12 EXHIBIT B is fair or not, I donÓt know. We did not create a moment where a 150-page amendment of an 89- page document, you know, was to be dealt with in one big basket and bundle. We did not create that moment. Now I will agree with Jon Olson. And I would suggest that the Planning Commission in its due diligence really should take a look at this and send this Bill 194 with a negative recommendation to the Council, and say that if you want to amend this plan in its parts and pieces, you should separate these issues -- be they waste water in this area, be they village center steering committees in that area, be it floating zones like changes of language, be it editing of commas and quotes and non-substantive things -- in a manner in which the public can give you full and comprehensive input, and in which you yourselves as Planning Commissioners can understand these issues one by one. Cause as it stands right now I believe you are asked to look at this recommendation on this item but you really have one basket bill. Bill 194 is one bill. ItÓs not 83 bills, itÓs not 12 bills, itÓs not 20 bills. ItÓs one bill. And you either approve it, Council will. Council is not going to sit there and, theyÓre going to, well, we have a motion to approve Bill 194. Now they can do all kinds of, they can try to amend the amendmen they want. But they have a motion to approve Bill 194, and itÓs parts and pieces. I mean thatÓs our view. Nobody has been able to show us any other facts that counter that. So I would ask the Commission to reject Bill 194 as an unwieldy of dealing with amending the Puna Community Development Plan. Friends of PunaÓs Future is in support of many of these amendments. They are in support of amendments within Bill 194, which we agree with. There are some that we donÓt. There are so community deserves full time and intent to look at and understand. The Action Committee has labored hard and long on their points. And they were, I think, Bill 194 being such a large bundle that they canÓt deal with it in the whole, they have to deal with it piece by piece. But as a legal fact at Council it is one bill. Thank you very much. WOODWARD: All right, thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Tucker? Okay, thank you, sir. TUCKER: Sure. WOODWARD: You may be seated. Commissioner Kern. KERN: I have more of a, I guess, legal question probably. Is it possible to ask for it to be bifurcated, or is it basically yes or no, we either support it or donÓt support it? Director? LEITHEAD TODD: You can do a number of things. You can send a re approve it as is, you can send a recommendation to not approve it, to have the Council vote it down, or you can send a recommendation to approve it with changes that, as long as theyÓre not substantive changes. You could also, if you agree with the recommendation letter submitted by me, you could vote to support the recommendations of the Planning Director in regards to Bill 194 and send that up to the County Council, or you could come up with your own separate recommendation as long as theyÓre not substantive. 13 EXHIBIT B KERN: Right. And so if we support the letter, that in turn actually is supporting, that is kind of giving it a favorable recommendation to all of 194? LEITHEAD TODD: Pretty much. KERN: Pretty much, yeah. Okay. WOODWARD: Any other questions? KERN: IÓm just kind of stuck between a rock and a hard place with this one. ThereÓs a lot of beef there. I was part of the CDP process early on. I disagreed with a lot of parts of it, I agreed with a lot of other parts of it. IÓm glad to see that the folks we had some disagreement with at times are at least showing up and trying to push the whole process through. I would personally like to see it come in a little bit more piecemeal. ItÓs a lot of information in one bill, myself. IÓm just going to throw that out there. IÓm not making any moti WOODWARD: All right. Let me ask the Planning Director, what was the genesis of this bill in the first place that they decided that they had to have one all encompassing bill to have 83 different amendments? LEITHEAD TODD: I donÓt know what the genesis of the bill, other the fact that Council Chair Yoshimoto felt that certain amount of time had lapsed from 2008, and he thought that the better way to do it was in one comprehensive bill. Because then itÓs one cohesive document as opposed to multiple different ones, and then youÓre trying to see, you know, what changes. So my understanding is he kind of went through what had been proposed earlier and tried to incorporate it into one bill. But it is what it is. ItÓs the way it came from the County Council. It didnÓt come piecemeal. And so you have to make your recommendat front of you. What IÓm choosing to do with the other recommendations that came is I will introduce separate amendments to implement the differe rather than throwing all of them into one bill. But that, you know, is going to be my decision in terms of how I initiate it. But Bill 194 is what it is. It came to us from the Council; and thatÓs you either go pretty much up or down on it or make your recommen those sections that you donÓt like or those sections that you do like. WOODWARD: Okay. Any further questions? Well, I have one other further, one other question. And that is apart from the genesis who, where did the input come from to get this bill? I mean who crafted it. Obviously Councilmen didnÓt. LEITHEAD TODD: Actually the Council Member staff put it together. The table that compares the different provisions was voluntarily done by Steve Lim. It came forward because he thought it was difficult to understand without having kind of a table that showed you where the 14 EXHIBIT B amendments occurred. But I talked to Council Chair Yoshimoto, and he said that this is the work product that came out of his staff. WOODWARD: All right. Anything further? Okay, well, we have lost Commissioner Domingo. I mean not permanently, just temporarily. He had to leave. So we have four of us, which means if weÓre going to act itÓs going to have to be unani to make a motion? KERN: Would it be adversely negative to defer this decision to the next meeting when we have more Commissioners possibly present? WOODWARD: We are probably running up against some time constraint. IÓm not sure, generally these things have to be sent to Council with a recommendation in a certain number of days, and IÓm not sure where we are on that timetable. And if we donÓt -. LEITHEAD TODD: I think itÓs 60 days after you receive it from me you have to have a recommendation. But that was the other problem with this, is that we were under very tight timeframes. th WOODWARD: Okay. Well, the date of this was May 11. So 60 days from that time would put us right about the time of our next July meeting. LetÓs see what Jeff has got here. thth GONZALEZ: It was May 18. It was transmitted on the 18. WOODWARD: Okay. th DARROW: July 18. It would make the July meeting, I think. GONZALEZ: July is -. rd COTTLE: July 23. DARROW: No, not that one rd LEITHEAD TODD: The meeting is the 23? WOODWARD: No, thatÓs Leeward. Windward is -. th DARROW: July 8 is the Windward meeting. LEITHEAD TODD: Well, we can take a short recess, Mr. Chair, so they can check on the dates. Cause I know there was an amended calendar that I just signed off on. WOODWARD: All right. Why donÓt we just take five minutes, and then weÓll decide what we want to do for the rest of this. WeÓve got, in addition to a fe 15 EXHIBIT B we also have this workshop that Brandon is going to be doing. So we need to decide if we want to just keep going or what. But letÓs take five minutes and weÓll get all of our ducks in row. - RECESSED The Chair called a recess at 12:34 p.m. - RECONVENED The meeting reconvened at 12:47 p.m. WOODWARD: Will the meeting come to order, please. What weÓll d decision one way or the other about what we want to do with this issue. Then we have Mr. Rees that wanted to testify with regard to the workshop that Mr. Gonzalez is going to give us. So weÓll get that done. And then once those two things are done we will go to lunch. So, does anybody have a motion? KERN: I have still the same question of timeframe. GONZALEZ: Your options are these, essentially: You can make a motion to forward to the Council with a favorable recommendation as stated by the Director. You can make a motion to forward to the Council with a negative recommendation. Or you can make a motion to defer action until the next meeting; and youÓre going to have to state the reasons why you want to defer the action. Ultimately those are the three main options. There are permutations and variations of the favorable recommendation. The one is that you can make a favorable recommendation and come up with your own reasons that are differ but the three main options are what I stated earlier. KERN: I move to defer action until the next meeting due to the complexity of this issue and the public testimony that was received today, to take the time to really go through it in more greater detail and make a decision on the next one. WOODWARD: All right. Do we have a second? Well, sorry, but that sky. The motion dies for lack of a second. Somebody else would like to take a shot at this? We have two other choices, approve or deny, or defer. WeÓve shot down one. ISHIBASHI: IÓll make a motion. WOODWARD: Okay, Commissioner Ishibashi. ISHIBASHI: In regards to Bill 194, proposed amendments to the Puna Community Development Plan, I make a motion that we approve based on the Planning DirectorÓs recommendations. GONZALEZ: Send a favorable recommendation. WOODWARD: Send a favorable recommendation. ISHIBASHI: Favorable. Yeah, favorable. 16 EXHIBIT B WOODWARD: Okay. Do we have a second for that? AU: Second. WOODWARD: Okay. Discussion? Of course, if we end up with a split vote itÓs deferred anyway. So -. LEITHEAD TODD: No. WOODWARD: No? LEITHEAD TODD: It goes up with a -. WOODWARD: Negative? LEITHEAD TODD: Negative. WOODWARD: Oh, does it? LEITHEAD TODD: yes. WOODWARD: Okay. All right. So discussion? ISHIBASHI: Thank you, Mr. Chair. WOODWARD: Yes. ISHIBASHI: Well, I believe the Council already went through this with a fine tooth comb and theyÓre coming back with a recommendation to us to, you know, make changes where we see appropriate. So, yeah, I can understand putting everything in one basket, and there are a lot of issues in the basket that are not to the likings of the community. But I think the Council already is sending it back to us for our input and see where we go from there. So thatÓs why IÓm in favor of the Planning DirectorÓs recommendation. WOODWARD: Any other discussion? Well, IÓll put in my two cents worth. I have a few concerns about this bill. One is why is it an emergency? And why are we forced into an arbitrary time limit? Who is it that actually put this together and why doesnÓt the community support it, and people who put together the CDP in the first place? I havenÓt had good answers to any of those questions to be honest with you. You know, the law says that within ten years they have to address amending the CDP. It has only been two. And now weÓre dealing with this mish-mesh of unrelated 83 amendments. The whole thing is longer than the original CDP that we have to act on immediately. And it just doesnÓt feel right, smell right. And IÓm not really sure what I would be voting for if I was voting for it. So IÓm afraid I canÓt support it. ThatÓs my two cents worth. Anybody else? Okay, letÓs take a vote. 17 EXHIBIT B DARROW: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The motion before us is to send a favorable recommendation to the HawaiÒi County Council for the amendments to the Puna CDP. With that IÓll take the roll. Commissioner Ishibashi? ISHIBASHI: Aye. DARROW: Commissioner Au? AU: No. DARROW: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Kanalua. DARROW: And Mr. Chairman? WOODWARD: No. DARROW: Commissioner Kern? KERN: Kanalua. DARROW: The motion does not pass, two to two. LEITHEAD TODD: So, Mr. Darrow, I believe this goes up to the Cou recommendation because thereÓs neither four votes against nor four votes in favor. But when we donÓt have four votes in favor it goes up as negative. Correct? We might check with Mr. Gonzalez. DARROW: Yeah. GONZALEZ: Yeah -. DARROW: I believe that -. Do we have to wait for the timeframe to exhaust, the 60 days? LEITHEAD TODD: No. DARROW: Okay. The discussion ended at 1:01 p.m. Respectfully submitted, 18 EXHIBIT B Sharon M. Nomura, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 19 EXHIBIT B