Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-07-10 TKONACDP PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT JULY 10, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANwas called to order at 2:35 p.m. in the Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: Rodney Watanabe ABSENT & EXCUSED: Lani Bowman C. Kimo Alameda Alvin Rho Takashi Domingo Rene’ Siracusa Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel BgqhrsnogdqXtdm+Ok`mmhmfChqdbsnq Mnql`mG`x`rgh+Ok`mmhmfOqnfq`lL`m`fdq IdeeC`qqnv+Rs`eeOk`mmdq L`hi`Bnsskd+Rs`eeOk`mmdq And approximately 10 people from the public in attendance. KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Review of the draft Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) submitted by the Kona CDP Steering Committee and its Consultant, Wilson Okamoto Corporation. WATANABE: We are now on Agenda Item No. 7. This would be the Kona Community Development Plan. This is the second reading of this plan. And so could I call on Nancy. And, Ken, are you going to help with the presentation? MELROSE: Yes. WATANABE: Do you have anyone else also? PISICCHIO: Yes. We have Earl Matsukawa and Tracy Fukuda from Wilson Okamoto, the consultants that did the preparation of the Kona Community Development Plan. MELROSE: They should come up? WATANABE: Just in case cause, you know, there may be not so much a formal presentation but questions, etc.So with that I’ll swear all of you in. Would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? EXHIBIT C TESTIFIERS: I do. WATANABE: And in the event that you do provide testimony would you remember to state your name and address before providing the testimony. Would you like to begin, Nancy. PISICCHIO: My name is Nancy Pisicchio I’m working as the consultant for the Planning Department and assisting in the preparation of the Kona Community Development Plan. My address is 78-7240 Kuakini Highway, Kailua-Kona, 96740. WATANABE: Thank you. Anything else you want to bring up right now? PISICCHIO: Not at this time. Any questions if any of the Commissioners have I’d be happy to assist in explaining. WATANABE: Fellow Commissioners, do you have any questions for Ms. Pisicchio? Seeing none, Mr. Melrose. MELROSE: My name is Ken Melrose. I’ve served for the last couple years as the Chair of the Steering Committee. I live at 81-950 Onouli Road in Kealakekua. And the only aside from answering any questions that you might offer, I encourage your support for the Community Development Plan, Kona Community Development Plan, as presented to you. It provides an integrating mechanism for decisions both on public and private sectors and really sets a template that helps Kona begin to get out of the box it found itself in in the last couple of decades. We appreciate your kokua. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Mr. Melrose? MATSUKAWA: Earl Matsukawa, Wilson Okamoto Corporation. I’m a project manager; and Wilson Okamoto is the prime contractor for this project. And our office is 1907 South th Beretania, 4 Floor, Honolulu. WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Domingo, looks like you have a question. DOMINGO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Okamoto (sic), I commend you folks for the quality of work that has been put out, and that goes with the Kona Committee also. It just takes me, and I make comparisons of other development plans throughout the island in the past. This is something that’s noteworthy; and I appreciate the work that they’ve done, and more so because of the contents within the study, the plan itself. It seems to cover all bases and aspects of, you know, growth issues and the future of the community. And I know that this has come about because of the participation of a lot of people in the community. As I was looking at this and as I, you know, I’m just, you know, when we considered the Community Development Plan, there were some serious discussions about the Hawaiians and the cultural aspects of it, of the whole island in fact, and the need for us and the people in the community to recognize actually the importance and thereby appreciating it. And we made certain changes, and recommended certain changes in the Puna Community Development Plan. EXHIBIT C 2 And I see that Kona has gone even further than that and they have several number of pages attributed to the emphasis of its importance and the structure and how it will be addressed. And I see that in regards to the Kona Cultural Resource Committee section it says the County of Hawaii shall create the Kona Cultural Resource Committee and they shall assist in the implementation of the Kona CDP’s goals, policies and actions of Kona along with the General Plan. Now this Committee will be made up of Kona residents, yeah. It says specifically made up of Kona residents; and some of the duties of the KCRC shall include the following items; and it goes one through five, and on and on. You know, could there be some indication that the Cultural Committee could consists of members of the Kanaka Council? And when I say that I don’t speak specifically on only certain individuals. I think it should cover, the Kanaka Council should encompass everyone that’s Hawaiian who has an appreciation and sense of value of the preservation of the heritage and culture of the Hawaiians ever since its beginning. And I was wondering if that could be included in that as a recommendation. WATANABE: Mr. Melrose? MELROSE: Thank you. I think that the intention all along in the creation of this cultural resource committee was to be inclusive and not exclusive. The kupuna that participated in the working groups that helped develop this and the moderator, Dickie Nelson that headed that working group, were actively involved in it.And, you know, the only caveate I think to that is that the members that are on that Commission would be members of the Kona Community where the knowledge of the community is there. That was the intention of structuring this committee. So it was to bring out more of the local knowledge, but not to be exclusive of others. From what I’m vaguely familiar of the Kanaka Council, they have a number of members that are from the Kona community, and certainly would be considered for this. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman, I would have a couple of comments and I made these comments at the last meeting. Not to criticize what you’ve done because I think it really is a work of art and I think you’ve done a great job, and I think you’ve captured the essence of what needs to be done. But my concern though is if you look at the public participation it is no more than 3 percent of the population. At a 37,000, and that’s given the 2000 Census which is probably way low, 800 people showed up at the first group of meetings, 350 at the second group meetings. That comes in at 3 percent. Now what you’re going to get on that 3 percent are retirees, people that represent interest groups, developers. You’re not going to get the mom with children. And I don’t bring this up as a criticism but a criticism of the process because we’re getting ready to do the Kau CDP. And having looked over Section 15.1 of the General Plan the only thing that is outlined as far as the Community Development Plan process is once the Steering Committee gets the information and processes it and forms a draft, up to that point you can do it any way you want. And what I had suggested to the Planning Department is when we do the Kau Community Development Plan that we send out a questionnaire with two simple questions: What do you see as the needs in Kau and what would you like to see changed? Period, and then have a list at the bottom of where the local meetings are going to be. And I’ve talked to Allen Salavea who has done the North Kohala Community Development Plan and he sent me an e-mail and said, frankly, if I had to do it again, that’s what I’d do. What they did was EXHIBIT C 3 send out an e-mail once the draft was ready. He said it probably makes more sense to send out a mailing early, and then one in the middle, and then one when the draft is ready. Mailings don’t cost that much compared to what we’re talking about as far as consultants, and doing the meetings, and so on and so forth. So that’s just a comment. The other thing, the only point I have a problem with in this Community Development Plan, and I will suggest an amendment before I will vote for this, is there is one provision in the Community Development Plan where any lot in the undeveloped areas that’s over 1,000 feet deep has a 1,000-foot setback from the sea. Well, admittedly there are not very many that’s going to fit in that criteria. But this is going to be ordinance. This will be law. This will be in effect for ten years. And I think that, you know, if you have somebody that has got a lot that’s a 1010 feet deep and they have 1000-foot setback, they’ve basically lost any right to their property. So I would suggest, and I will suggest this as an amendment before I vote on it, that that article be changed that any lot that is over 1500 feet deep have a 1000-foot setback. So those would be my two comments. And if you have anything you’d like to reply I’d be happy to hear what you have so say. WATANABE: Yes, Nancy. PISICCHIO: Thank you. After the first Planning Commission meeting I went back, and just for the point of information, and added up the participation in all the meetings. I actually came up to 1700 exclusive of the working groups. But I really think that any attempts that you can come up with to try to get participation is wonderful. The more the better. And, you know, we went to all sorts of meetings to try to get people to participate and I was, you know, thrilled with what we got. As a matter of fact I was on the County Council when we drafted the General Plan and at that point, you know, community participation was really like have public meetings, you know, about three of them, and call it good, you know. So this process is a frontier from my personal experience. And speaking of the survey, when we first started when I was initially under contract with Research and Development to do the public outreach, we actually did send out a questionnaire to every PO Box in Kona and invited them to participate, and to send in what their interest was, and how they might want to participate. And we, you know, put boxes all over town to get them to insert them so they wouldn’t have to mail them back; and I was just really disappointed with how many people actually filled them out. We put an ad in the paper to let people know these were coming. And whatever you can do to inspire people, that was my brainstorm; and I talked Jane Testa in coming up with the money to do it, just do the PO Boxes. But it was, I think we got something like a, you know, very few percentage of the thing actually got filled out. But, you know, again, try everything, try anything you can think of, because it’s great to get participation. WOODWARD: Well, I think, you know, you can’t force anybody in a democracy to participate. That’s the problem. If they don’t want to participate they’re not going to. But I think if we are able to send out, and there’s nothing in the law in Section 15-1 of the General Plan that prohibits this, if we’re able to send out a questionnaire with just two simple questions, for example in Kau, what do you think needs to be changed in Kau and where are your suggestions, and that information can be used. It doesn’t necessarily, you know, we kind of gotten into this, we’re in a box essentially. You know, this is way the Planning Department has EXHIBIT C 4 done it, always done it and admittedly there are some innovations. But basically you have a large group of small meetings and then a smaller group of large meetings and then, you know, the suggestions that start in the thousands get winnowed down, sent on to the Committee, Steering Committee, and then are put together by the consultant. But there’s no reason to say that you can’t do that. The only thing that’s spelled out in Section 15.1 is once it gets to the Steering Committee, where you can do anything you want as far as gathering information before that time. So, you know, I think we need to kind of think outside the box; and that’s my approach. We’re not, you know, we have a very diverse population in Kau. We’ve got Micronesians, Mashallese, haoles, native Hawaiians, you name it we’ve got it. And, you know, like I say, the people that show up at these meetings are retirees, people with special interests, developers, and not a lot of other people. Now I think you’ve done a wonderful job because I think you’ve really captured the essence of what Kona is and what you need to do; and I am surprised you did it with such a small sample size. But what I would like to see happen is that this process be expanded so that we get -.You know, we talk about inclusivity and, you know, increasing diversity or diversion, you know, but you know when you have only 3 percent or so of the population it’s hard to say that that’s representative, to be honest. That’s my concern. PISICCHIO: And I wanted to make a brief comment about your concern about the 1000-foot setback, that is not mandatory. That is, I think, the word was used as aspirational. So it would be, it’s more of a policy preference that when a situation comes up where a property owner has property that deep then a discussion could take place to find a way to actually acquire that or to do a density transfer. But there’s nothing mandatory about that as a goal. WOODWARD: Well, would you have a problem with saying if the property is more than 1500 feet deep you have a 1000-foot setback? Because they’re going to have to jump through some hoops. Okay, it may be that they can get a variance, but that requires them to jump through some hoops. PISICCHIO: It’s not regulatory in that respect. It wouldn’t require a variance or something that would, it would inspire a conversation to occur, but it isn’t ordinance in that respect. WATANABE: Okay, may I interrupt a bit, a second? WOODWARD: Sure. WATANABE: For those of you who might be interested in seeing the actual wording, that would be on page 4-39; and it’s policy LU-1.5 Enhanced Shoreline Setback. And I think maybe where the perception of it being required is the word “minimum” cause you’re using the word “minimum.” Actually, what you, what you actually say is it shall be a priority of the County to maintain a minimum of a 1,000-foot open space, no build setback for undeveloped lands adjacent to the shoreline on parcels which currently exceed 1,000 feet in depth in discretionary land use approvals such as SMA Major Permits, Rezonings and Land Use Boundary Amendments. To that end the way I interpret this, I had some concerns also that’s why I kind of read this prior to this meeting kind of carefully. In my mind what this is saying is maybe if you have a larger parcel it would be preferable to have an open space shoreline setback of approximately 1000 EXHIBIT C 5 feet. But somehow I think the word “minimal” sticks out, and I don’t know exactly how you might reword that to make it possibly clearer that it is discretionary. You do use the words “discretionary land use approvals such as SMA,” and it doesn’t seem to imply that you’re, you know, talking about a statutory change where you’re saying anything over a 1000-foot depth has to have a minimum of a 1000-foot setback as an open area. But again, I think people skim a lot and when they read the word “minimum” it kind of makes you feel as though it’s mandatory. It’s not changing the flavor of what you’re trying to present here.But maybe to make it clearer. Mr. Melrose? WOODWARD: Mr. Chair? WATANABE: Mr. Melrose or -. MELROSE: You go ahead. WOODWARD: Yeah, I would just like to ask would you have a problem with changing it so that any lot that’s deeper than 1500 feet has a 1000-foot setback? MELROSE: Well, let me just start with this: This paragraph was the first vote of the Steering Committee and it didn’t start in this form. As a matter of fact, I hope you don’t spend as many meetings on it as we did in the Steering Committee. It took a while to get it wordsmithed to the point that it was comfortable enough. The Steering Committee was a pretty broadly representative group of the community in Kona, with plenty of business interest and landowner representation, as well as plenty of environmental representation, and public service entity representation. So we spent a lot of time chewing on this, and this little wording really came out from the Planning Director. And what sold us really and allowed it to go was the representation, the demonstration to us how really few parcels of land this applies to. I believe there are two in North Kona and there are three or four in South Kona that are deep enough for this to apply to. And one of the two in North Kona is Makalawena and the other is QLT’s land at Makalapua. So their current plans don’t have any closer than 800 in there. So the concepts of density transfer and other mechanisms made this a more palatable situation. The other thing I would say is there are members of the Steering Committee who felt quite strongly that this was a major give, a concession, because there was a strong portion of the public during the small group and other meetings that wanted Queen Kaahumanu Highway to be the building line. WATANABE: Yeah, I would guess that. MELROSE: And that was a challenge to get over. So this had, I mean, you’re the decision-making body at this juncture. If that’s what you wish to do then so be it. But we felt that this had enough flexibility in its drafting to be interpretable and actionable for Kona. Cause really what’s happening, if you look at this, the Community Development Plan is focusing not on the additional growth but the projected growth into the North Kona area and the priority is to maintain the vista of the shoreline and the pristine nearshore waters. These are really some of the very first actions that were taken; and increasing the setback is an important component. Many of us were concerned that this as going to affect kuleana properties, or existing parcels along Alii Drive or in Keauhou, or those kinds of situations. But really it applies only to a EXHIBIT C 6 couple of large parcels of land. And maybe the Director can clarify that for us. But that’s our, and just to follow-up, and I do appreciate. We spoke after the last hearing about the 3 percent, lots of surveys. First of all, in North and South Kohala, Councilman Hoffman did send a questionnaire out before early on that actually started in his CDP preparation process as I recall. The crafting of the wording of that questionnaire is probably the most important to getting germane input; and I think maybe the broader questions that you’re asking would be more appropriate than some of the more targeted ones that his survey asked. But 3 percent often is statistically significant in a survey situation for a response, you know, nationwide or wherever you go. So the underline fact though really remains is that this level of public participation was just unprecedented in the County’s history for a community planning effort. WATANABE: Thank you for your comments. Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Yeah. Well, I think the document that you put out was outstanding. I have no problem with that whatsoever. And, you know, it only comes down to the questions that I’ve addressed, and that is participation and what we can do in the future to increase it. Now you’ve already done your plan; and I would say there is an overwhelming likelihood that it will be approved with probably no more than minor amendments. The question that I have though, you know, this is going to be ordinance, this will be law; and even though there may only be three properties now that you can cite that fall into this, you know, 1000-foot setback who knows what’s going to happen in the next 10 or 12 years. And it seems to me that it would be more reasonable, if these are really that large a property why don’t we just say let’s make it any property that’s deeper than 1500 feet has a 1000-foot setback. Do you have a problem with that? MELROSE: Personally, no. . MATSUKAWA: I think when we start, we had one number in there, and that’s the 1000 feet. Our sense is that if you start putting another number out there then it takes on a feeling that, you know, if you’re less than that then you’re exempt or then it becomes one where it applies to this parcel and you have another measurement to take. I think the way it’s stated as a priority is that we’re trying to achieve 1000 feet. It may not be in every case a 1000, could be more, in some case could be less. The whole idea is to set up this, that 1000-foot did come out a lot in the public; but if we start saying we have a threshold of 1500 feet then I think we’re getting into this, it becomes more regulatory in that sense because then you’ve got to cut out parcels, this and that. Right now it’s 1000 feet. If the parcel is more than 1000 we’ll try to, you know, have Councilor, whatever decision making, try to get the 1000 feet. But to put in another number then that number becomes regulatory, and that’s what we’re trying to avoid. WATANABE: Well, I might want to add something else to this, Mr. Woodward. And I see where you’re going and in the end yours might be more of a mandate than a vision statement. On the other hand, there’s only so much you can build in the remaining 500 feet also if you had a total of 1500 feet and a 1000-foot mandatory setback and, you know, you have your front setback of 25 feet or whatever it is and your side setbacks. And maybe it then becomes a taking anyway because I believe the concept they’re trying to bring forward is, well, let’s do the building clustered so that we can achieve 1000-foot open space area, not necessarily reducing the density. Am I correct in my assumptions? EXHIBIT C 7 MELROSE: Right. WATANABE: Whereas when it becomes a law and a mandate then inevitably I think you will wind up with potential reductions in density that could be considered a taking. You see what I’m saying? That said though I’m wondering if you could even just insert a word like “strive” to maintain because I don’t see how you could maintain it when it isn’t there. You’re talking about undeveloped land but a lot of them, I mean, the wall is right where the ocean is. Yes. PISICCHIO: My own feeling is the addition of word like “strive” for is what the intent of the policy is. So I personally wouldn’t have any objection to an addition of a word like that cause it makes it more clearer that it isn’t a regulatory policy. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen. YUEN: If I could just elaborate on this a little bit and talk about what this does and what it doesn’t do. It does not, it applies to discretionary land use approvals. So it does not apply to things like a building permit for a house under somebody’s existing zoning. That’s the first thing to recognize. It applies to things like rezonings and SMA Permits that come to a board or come to the County Council; and so there’s a request for an additional level of land use entitlement being made by the property owner. If they simply want to, if they want to get a building permit that does not require anything beyond that, this clause does not apply at all. So I think that’s one thing that’s important to recognize, that this does come into play when somebody is seeking a discretionary land use approval from, which means that, you know, land use approval that can be approved or turned down in the first place. And so this is meant as a direction for the body like the County Council or the Planning Commission that is going to make that kind of a decision. The second thing is that, to be aware of is the practical effect of a 1000 feet versus 1500 feet. In North Kona there are only three properties that exceed, three private lots that exceed, 1000 feet in depth. They’re actually Makalawena, Ooma and Queen Liliukalani Trust. All three of them are about a mile deep actually under current -. So it’s not the situation where 1000 feet leaves us a little sliver. In South Kona there are quite a few more properties that are somewhere more than 1000 feet deep. There are only a very few that are between say 1000 and 2000 feet deep. I think the only large area is the Kamehameha Schools property between Palemano Point and Honaunau. But that property is already in a State Land Use Conservation District and it’s Open in the County General Plan. So you’re talking about property that already has a considerable level of control, a considerable level of land use controls. So what this is saying is that, really is that in a situation like Ooma, Ooma comes in, the General Plan already has a significant setback on Ooma so they’re already applying to be back about 1000 feet. But say a property in South Kona came in for an SMA major permit to do some kind of development that when you look at that development you would be, the instruction from the CDP would be to keep that well back from the water’s edge, 1000 feet back, is the direction from the CDP. It’s still something that has to be voted on by the Planning Commission, but it does not mean that if you, for example, the SMA line in South Kona is typically in many places is only 500 feet deep. So you come in EXHIBIT C 8 for a house, for a building permit for a house that’s outside the SMA at 600 feet from the water, it needs a building permit, this does not apply to that decision. The final thing I’d like to say on the issue of amendments, just this here is, like Ken was saying, this was something that was really talked about at the Steering Committee. It’s question of where, it’s a little funny to ask Ken because he was probably one of the ones who was saying, well, this should be softened up, a little bit more leeway be given on this on the Committee, and he’s in the position here and being a good soldier and defending what they came out with as a consensus. But he’s the Chair and this was their consensus.There were people who wanted, you know, something much more drastic. I tried to help come up with something that was workable that people could live with.He may individually from his own point of view be happy with different kinds of wording. The Steering Committee, you know, if a different wording is made it does have to go to the Steering Committee and it will be another discussion at the Steering Committee. I also have to mention that any substantive amendments made, the Planning Commission does have the power to recommend amendments to the County Council. The County Council is the only one that actually makes the amendment. If the County Council makes a substantive amendment to the plan, that is something that changes the meaning of the plan, that does then have to go back to the Steering Committee and to the Planning Commission and to the County Council. And I have to say that at this point there is no time to do that before the end of the Council term, unless the County Council were to have special meetings or otherwise expedite action. WOODWARD: Mr. Chairman? WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I have a little follow-up. Yeah, I understand all of that. And the only problem I have with this is this is going to be ordinance for the next 10 to 12 years; and while there may just be a few isolated properties that now fall under this category that are, you know, between 1000 and 1500 feet, wouldn’t it make more sense just to change it so we have any property that is deeper than 1500 feet have a 1000-foot setback? It wouldn’t seem to me like that would be a problem for the community if there are currently no properties that fit, you know, that are not more than a mile deep or whatever. But, you know, I have a problem with, and again, any of these things that come up have to come before us first as far as dividing properties or rezoning, and so on and so forth. It would seem to me that to have an ordinance that says if you have a property over 1000 feet you have a 1000-foot setback, that doesn’t make any sense to me at all. So you’ve got a property that’s a 1010 feet, you’ve lost the value of your property. I mean, and again this is going to be ordinance, it’s going to be law for the next 10 or 12 years, until the next development plan comes out, assuming that this is approved. So that’s the problem I have with it, not what is currently going on but what is going on in the future. WATANABE: Okay. I have a question for the Director. And I understand the timing issue, etc. and I understand that, you know, obviously you want to get this through to the Council, etc. And you did mention whether it’s a material change or not. And so my question would be, you know, here again we’re still looking at interpretation, and we’ve had the benefit of reading your letter to us indicating what it really means, what is mandatory, what isn’t. On the EXHIBIT C 9 other hand, you know, in the general public not everyone would take the time, shall we say, to read through that or maybe even have the opportunity to read through that. So I’m wondering if you were to amend that by inserting “strive for” you know, “it shall be a priority of the County to strive for a minimum of 1000 of 1000 foot setback, no buildable space….” You see what I’m saying? Then it makes it clear that it’s not mandatory, that in discretionary approvals this is the goal but not necessarily mandatory. Whereas the way it reads now it’s more open to a mandatory interpretation. And that I’m putting it on the record that you needn’t answer right now. Maybe there’s something that you all in the Steering Committee might want to mull over, cause it’s going to have another read in Kona and also another read or multiple readings with the Council and you may be able to iron something out there. I think the point being is I don’t think there’s such great objection to the concept of a 1000-foot open no build area, but is there confusion as to how people interpret the law. YUEN: Well, yeah, I don’t want to jump in as to whether the insertion of “strive for” is substantive or not. It’s a little bit of a complicated analysis. But I do want to repeat that this is not 1000-foot no-build setback in the sense of the Zoning, in the sense that you have a setback on your lot, you know where you, like the Zoning Code has a 15-foot side yard setback or a 20-foot front yard setback, or even in the sense that the State Statute has a 40-foot shoreline setback. This is something that applies to discretionary land use approvals where the owner is seeking a change in what they got by getting an SMA major permit, a rezoning, State Land Use Boundary Amendment or something of that sort. MELROSE: If I might just add. WATANABE: Mr. Melrose. MELROSE: The Director referred to the voting on this as consensus. The voting on this language was unanimous at 12-0, all members present on this provision as written. WATANABE: After much mulling over? MELROSE: Yes sir. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay, well, we have any other questions? I don’t mean to ignore you, Ma’am, but I honestly don’t know your name. So maybe you can give your name and address. FUKUDA: Hi. My name is Tracy Fukuda. I work with Wilson Okamoto under Earl, address 1907 South Beretania Street, Honolulu. WATANABE: You want to chime in on any of this? FUKUDA: No. WATANABE: Yes. EXHIBIT C 10 PISICCHIO: I’d like to say that Tracy is responsible for putting this document in the fitful form that it’s in. It’s a piece of art as far as I’m concerned, the visual document, and Tracy is completely responsible for that and we’re deeply indebted to her for it. WATANABE: Well, since there are no other formal presentation, is there anything else either of you would like to add? Mr. Melrose? MELROSE: I guess what, I understand what Mr. Woodward is after concerning about the regulatory -. I think that the tenor and tone of the Kona Community Development Plan has been drafted around the desired vision for Kona that maintains major portions of its value to open space, both as watersheds and its shorelines, and focuses growth in compact villages that allows more open space to happen rather than conventional types of subdivisions. It’s a different vision. And the methodology that was chosen, again not without discussion, is really more one of carrots rather than just sticks and form-base codes rather than restrictive base codes as our current Zoning Code is. And we think it provides a way to actually have that future happen for Kona in a true vision that’s preferred; and it took a lot of thinking and gnashing of teeth to get it to this stage from a lot of very constructive dialogue from a very broad portion of the community. And we would appreciate your support to adopt it. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: You know the Implementing Committee ordinance that’s being considered by the Council, any of you can comment on this, how do you see that as far as, you know, working? Assuming that the Plan passes how is that going to, as a practical matter, work or not work? MELROSE: The way it’s structured here is consistent with the ordinance that’s currently being considered by the Council. We had a structure that had begun before Chair Hoffman started to put together his vision of how that was going to work. We had the opportunity to integrate that into this plan. They read almost identical. And the Implementing Committee, you know, we wanted to, quite honestly Kona wanted as much autonomy as Kona could get, right? They wanted their own Planning Commission. And they wanted this committee to be a Planning Commission for land use regulatory consideration; and Chris and Nancy and others were very instrumental in helping us, and Councilman Pilago’s office as well. You know, they had it going in parallel at the same time, this is Windward and Leeward Planning Commission Charter Amendment. So rather than get in the way or having to wait behind since that one couldn’t be amended to create, we felt that following the program of an Implementation Committee that really was focused on the Plan itself and the actions and trying to keep those things moving forward rather than having to get sucked into the day to day as, I mean, -. I’m not at all dissing what you do at all -. But it’s a difficult time consuming kind of situation, and that takes away, you deal with applications that come to you one at a time. This was really intended to have a committee that deals with it through the Design Center and created in the Planning Department, sort of another improvement level over plan approval for projects that would really try to keep the whole vision in its perspective, rather than having to get sucked into it. EXHIBIT C 11 IWASHITA: Follow-up? WATANABE: Yes. IWASHITA: So assuming a major SMA comes in in the future, right, I’m not clear in my mind how that Implementing Committee would work or be involved in the process when that comes to this body, or as it comes to this body, or does it? Would the Implementing Committee, everybody here can tell you my vision of the CDP is that it makes our work easier. In other words, right, I would like to see your input that the Implementing Committee would be able to say this SMA or zoning application, you know, complies or doesn’t comply, you know, this is our recommendation. Right? And the developer’s challenge to me should be really at the Implementing Committee level. Because I really think, you know, when Commissioner Woodward talks about participation, right, and public participation, and the public’s sense that when they show up, that it can be an effective input into the process and getting to the end, of, you know, having the vision, the preferred future, actually done. Right? To me, you know, having it done in Kona for Kona projects, that’s the way to do it. Right? And Puna, for Puna projects, and so forth. So I’m just trying to get a better sense of what you think, you know, and how the Implementing Committee would work for those kinds of major goals that ultimately come through us and go to Council. PISICCHIO: As Ken said the, well, Ken said originally the Steering Committee and the Governance working group wanted each, they felt that each CDP should have their own Planning Commission. So we’re talking about six Planning Commissions, and then like as mentioned then Councilman Pilago came up with suggestions for an East and West Hawaii. So we figured, you know, what are we going to do here, are we going to fight with him over this? And so the other thing that was going on at the Steering Committee meetings while we were trying to create a long-range document for pro-active planning is we actually started having developers show up at our meetings sign up to testify and try to sell the Steering Committee on giving some kind of an approval even at that forum on their proposals that were immediate, you know, that were going to be coming to you folks next. And as Ken said the Steering Committee realized that if that was the case, if we were looking at SMAs, you know, every month or whatever, the real work, the proactive long-time work, would never get done. And so that’s as written in here and also as written in the ordinance by Pete Hoffman, those committees will not be reviewing, you know, then same applications. But in Kona, in the Community Development Plan there is another entity called a Design Center. The Design Center is more intended to do what you’re suggesting where there could be a preapplication process for someone coming in for rezoning or subdivision approval or special permit, could come in and have a discussion with staff to try to get their application in conformance with a plan before it ends up, before they invest a bunch of money, in other words, and then come to you and find out it’s not in compliance with the Plan. So the Design Center would be the stage where it would fulfill what you’re suggesting. But the Implementation Committee as written in here and also Mr. Hoffman’s ordinance is not going to be reviewing current applications. They’re going to be more long-term keepers of the flame to make sure this plan doesn’t just sit on the shelf and that programs that are set up in this plan actually live and carry forward, and that capital improvement projects that are supposed to be funded in five years, EXHIBIT C 12 to be a squeaky wheel to make sure the money comes through, and that kind of thing, more long- term planning goals. WATANABE: Mr. Melrose. MELROSE: And what I think really addresses your desire to have your job made easier through the Community Development Plan is that this Plan with the Design Center and the Planning Department setting up that broader framework within which those, before they even get their applications really accepted at the Planning Department this becomes -. There is no ordinance that does that in Kona at this point. And this really, I think, with the broader framework within which the vision is clearly stated in this plan, is going to do that. And I think on 5-7 you can see that really this committee would receive regular updates on what’s going on in terms of permits, that they be aware of what’s going on but they would not be in the line of decision-making. IWASHITA: And actually, you know, when I say make this body’s job easier, to me, I translate that to mean that for a developer, that the developer looking at the Plan and going through the Design Center and working with the, you know, would have and more importantly the developers’ finance or, you know, the fund, you know, where the money comes from, that all of them have a clearer picture to “entitlement.” Right? And that, so that the money flows to get what we want done done. So do you feel comfortable with the Implementing Committee and the Design Center that that’s going to make the money easier to get? Basically that is what I’m thinking. MELROSE: I think this provides a lot of basis for that decision-making very early. And one of the things that, the other point that we spent a lot of time being sure in the Steering Committee is this plan does not affect the existing entitlements. If you got your existing entitlements you have them. IWASHITA: I’m looking for -. MELROSE: No, I understand. You see a change in entitlements, that’s what’s usually coming before the Planning Commission. IWASHITA: Yes. MELROSE: And there was an initiative during the process to affect the existing entitlements, and it had to be structured so that that’s sacred. I mean we don’t need that fight. Kona doesn’t need that fight. We need the vision that allows it go forward. And I think we’re all very comfortable with how this has turned out as an Implementing Committee, Action Committee, whatever they’re going to call it in the final words. IWASHITA: Thank you. WATANABE: Satisfied? EXHIBIT C 13 IWASHITA: Yes. WATANABE: Do we have any further questions? Well, we’re not going to vote on this today because, obviously, we’ll address it later. You get to see us again. MELROSE: Yes, we get to see you Friday next. WATANABE: Yeah. And I understand you guys had a very efficient meeting the last time so maybe I’ll have Alvin conduct that meeting again. MELROSE: We missed you. WATANABE: So with that then, I guess, Mr. Domingo? DOMINGO: Yeah, as a general question, you know, might be to the Planning Director. When we talk about the Implementing Committee can you see this being included in all community development plans where you have this committee to, who will be familiar with the development plans in their community, to go through that and walk the walking process with the developers, and whoever would come in for any permits and help them along? YUEN: Well, there is an ordinance that was passed that sets up the framework for the future; and it’s actually called the Action Committees. Every, and the way it works is that when a CDP is passed the Steering Committee becomes no more and the Mayor appoints an Action Committee. And the Action Committee is supposed to be the community’s voice in advocating for the implementation of the CDP. Their role is not going to be primarily review of land use applications. There is no substitute for the fact that the Planning Commission, the Planning Department, the County Council and the Mayor have all got to be familiar with the CDP. And so when applications come in the Department is, you know, just like we analyze the General Plan, the Department is supposed to analyze the application against the CDP and provide the Planning Commission with a recommendation. And the reason, you know, Nancy talked a little bit about the reasons for some of this, but otherwise essentially we were going to have a two-level advisory process before stuff went to the County Council. There would be a presentation at the Action Committee, and then a presentation at the Planning Commission, and then a presentation at the County Council. And rather than add this other layer we felt that it was best that the Action Committee focus on the implementation, the projects of the plan, and that they would be informed of what was going on on the land use regulatory side, but that wouldn’t be their major role. And the Planning Commission and the Council would retain their major roles in the regulatory side you know, looking at the rezonings and the SMA permits and the like. There is no, you’ve got to have a Planning Commission. The State Law requires the Planning Commission, so if you start to have other bodies then you still end up having to go to the Planning Commission. DOMINGO: Can’t that responsibility be integrated with the function of the staff’s performance of their duties, you know, as an additional responsibility and go beyond the scope of what they’re doing now, rather than just accepting and processing? EXHIBIT C 14 YUEN: Well, it has to be part of their responsibility. And one of the things, you know, there was a comment about making the job easier. The idea is that a plan provides a framework for decision-making. The plan provides the principles that you base your decision on. So you’ll not just send things out, see if anybody objects, you know, come to the meeting; and if the neighbors don’t object it’s okay, and if they object then it’s not okay. You know there’s a framework or there are principles on which decisions are being made. So that’s the function of any plan, is to -. The primary function on the land use side, that’s a primary function, that a plan is to give you what are those principles. And so a planner has got to be, sit down and be aware of what the principles are, like Ken did a good job of explaining. And when an application comes in you look at, and this helps guide how you’re going to make your recommendation on it. WATANABE: Okay? Well, if you have no other comments then we’ll see you in Kona. MELROSE: Pages 4-49 and 4-50 are where this Design Center is; and that’s what really implements it. If you really want to look at how that step makes the integration, that’s where it is. DOMINGO: So 4-49 and 4-50. WATANABE: Okay. Thank you. Yes. PISICCHIO: Just a brief comment. I’d like to acknowledge Roy Takemoto from the Mayor’s Office that has been very, very helpful in guiding this process for the Kona Community Plan and, also, our other Steering Committee Member here, Ed Rapoza that came over to support and listen to the discussion today. WATANABE: Thank you. Okay. You may be seated. I have one person from the public who has signed up to testify. And you’ll finally get your chance, huh, Kale? GUMAPAC: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, Mr. Gumapac, you’re on. Right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? GUMAPAC: Yes. WATANABE: And, of course, you know the routine, name and address and then your testimony. GUMAPAC: My name is Kale Gumapac with the Kanaka Council. And I live in Puna, Paradise Park, 15-1716 Aloe Street. Good afternoon, Commission Members, and mahalo for allowing me to speak before you at this time in regards to the Kona CDP. The Kanaka Council is taking the position to support the Kona CDP. We believe that after reviewing the Kona CDP, this is an awesome document in regards to the cultural issues that it addresses. We again would like to reiterate as well as what happened with the Puna CDP, that the Kanaka Council be part of EXHIBIT C 15 the committee in making all of these cultural decisions and recommendations that come out of the Puna CDP. We do have several members from the Kanaka Council that live in Kona. We have several members from the Kanaka Council that live in Puna. Actually we have members of the Kanaka Council throughout the island, through the entire island. And that’s why the inputs that we are able to get and give in all of the issues that we have been able to take on have been widespread for all of the island that comes from the different sides of the island. And, for example, in Kona, again, we took on the Kona Blue Ocean Fish Farms when they made application to DLNR to expand the Kona Fish Farms. And we intervened on a contested case there and as a result Kona Fish Farms had withdrawn their application for any expansion to the Kona Ocean Blue Fish Ponds. In addition to that we did the Kona buoys that went from Kona all the way down to Kau. And we were able to talk to the DLNR in regards to the, not DLNR but the Army Corps of Engineers that had jurisdiction over that. Over its West Hawaii Fisheries Council, they went ahead and put the buoys into the ocean, into all of the ancient ko‘a from Kona all the way down. There were over 100 buoys that they put in. And so as a result the Army Corps of Engineers is ordering for those buoys to be removed. And this is just some of the examples that we have, including Ahuena Heiau that we are right in the middle of in litigation with the hotel owners in making a determination as to who owns the heiau in Ahuena in Kona. Okay, so we have a wide reaching effect with the Kanaka Council. And to this day we have yet to see other members of the Hawaii community stepping up and taking on the issues that the Kanaka Council has taken on. We don’t see them. We don’t see them in any of these arenas. And we’re concerned about that because guys that are being appointed to these commissions, we have a lot of question marks about these guys. And so as a result the Kanaka Council has gotten a reputation, not as somebody who’s trying to block progress but our reputation is to protect our resources that we have, and to make sure that we have the resources from mauka to makai, and that is going to be here today as well as tomorrow. That is our primary concern. It’s not whether or not the Kanaka Council gains power. It’s not whether or not the Kanaka Council’s name gets out there. Because all of us, we’re not funded by anybody. We put in our own money and our own time, and we’ve been meeting almost every week and traveling all over the island to meet with various groups. I got a call yesterday from DLNR to take on an issue down in Kalapana because they’re not sure of their “jurisdictional responsibility” because it is on State land but the DOCARE officers are not allowed to do the enforcement. So they called us, Kanaka Council, to help to intervene; and that’s only one example. We’ve got several examples of which we’re being called to assist and intervene in different situations that are coming up. I don’t see any other groups doing that kind of stuff, because there are no other groups stepping up and being accountable for these things, not only for the Hawaiian people but also for the people in general that live here on this island. So I ask that the same thing that you did with the Puna CDP that the Kanaka Council be recommended or amended so that we become part of this committee. And, yes, we have members of the Kona community that will sit with this. But I believe that this committee can be very, very effective with the participation of the Kanaka Council. Mahalo. EXHIBIT C 16 WATANABE: Do we have any questions for Mr. Gumapac? Okay thank you, Mr. Gumapac for your testimony. So that will conclude this reading, East Hawaii reading of the Kona Community Development Plan. The discussion ended at 3:40 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sharon M. Nomura, East Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT C 17