Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2008-08-07 TNKCDP PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT AUGUST 7, 2008 A regularly advertised hearing on the NORTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANwas called to order at 6:40 p.m. in the Kohala High School Cafeteria, 54-3611 Akoni Pule Highway, Kapaau, Hawaii, with Chairman Rodney Watanabe presiding. PRESENT: C. Kimo Alameda (from 6:45 p.m.) ABSENT & EXCUSED: Rene’ Siracusa Lani Bowman Takashi Domingo Andrew Iwashita Shelly Ogata Rodney Watanabe Rell Woodward Ivan Torigoe, Deputy Corporation Counsel Christopher Yuen, Planning Director Jeff Darrow, Staff Planner Deanne Bugado, Planner, Kona Office Allen Salavea, Planner, Kona Office And approximately 65 people from the public in attendance. NORTH KOHALA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Review of the draft North Kohala Community Development Plan (CDP) submitted by the North Kohala CDP Steering Committee and its consultants, Townscape, Inc. and Island Transitions, LLC. WATANABE: Will the Planning Commission please come to order. This evening the one item on the agenda is the North Kohala Community Development Plan. This will be the first reading of this Plan. Mr. Salavea, Mr. Tsuchida and Fern White – I guess, Fern, you are the Chair, yeah, the Steering Committee Chair? May I swear you in before we begin. All of you, raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? SALAVEA: I do. TSUCHIDA: I do. WHITE: We do. EXHIBIT A 1 WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Then, well, you wouldn’t have to, Allen, since you are I believe de facto, so -, but if the others provide testimony, I guess they still have to provide their full name and address for the record. Are you going to begin, then, Mr. Salavea? SALAVEA: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, great. It’s yours. SALAVEA: If I may, Mr. Chair. Aloha, Mr. Chair, Director Yuen, esteemed Commissioners. My name is Allen Salavea. I’m the project manager for the North Kohala Community Development Plan. On behalf of the Kohala community, I’d like to welcome you and thank you for making the time to come to Kohala to have the first hearing on the North Kohala CDP in the district, which is much appreciated. Before I begin, I’d like to take care of a few housekeeping items. No. 1, most important, the luas is against that building – so for everybody who doesn’t know men’s and women’s bathrooms, out that way. So if you get a problem, you can ask the staff or my wife to the right. I’d like to first introduce the North Kohala CDP Steering Committee members present this evening for your benefit. If I may ask those of the Steering Committee members present in the audience, if you could please stand, and then I’ll identify you folks. I’m not sure how many of them; in the far back we have Mr. Mike Isaacs, here to my immediate left – Ms. Carolyn Lancaster, in the far part of the room on the right in the yellow shirt – Mr. Alvin Kawamoto, and immediately in front of him – Mr. Ted Matsuda, and of course, Fern White who is the Chair. I think that’s it, yeah? If anyone comes in, please let me know, and I’ll introduce them. Next, for the benefit of the public, I’d like to run through the approval process very quickly. We’re starting here; this is the first hearing by the Planning Commission to review and approve the North Kohala CDP. There will be three opportunities to, or this will be heard at three separate meetings. We sent mailout with a timeline on it. The first is this evening’s meeting. nd The second will be August 22, and that will be at the Waikoloa Marriott, if I’m correct, yeah. And the third, final Planning Commission hearing will be in Hilo at the County building on th September 4; at that meeting we hope that the Planning Commissioners with their great wisdom will go ahead and approve the North Kohala CDP. And at that time it will be transmitted with their recommendation to the County Council. At the ending -, the second part of September, or later part, we hope to get on the Planning Committee, which is a sub-committee of the County Council, on their agenda, and then they’ll have one hearing at the Planning Committee level; they’ll make a recommendation. And hopefully, in October we’ll have two hearings by the full Council on the North Kohala CDP, and hopefully be approved in the ending part of October. So that’s a real quick run-through on the approval process. So if you haven’t had a chance to read the document yet, there is still a lot of opportunity to go through it, review it, get your input, and then supply that to either the Planning Commission or the County Council. Finally, I’d like to, for the Planning Commissioners’ benefit, I’d like to give you an idea what we will be presenting this evening. Beginning with myself, I will briefly cover the CDP planning process and key dates for you. I will then ask Mr. Bruce Tsuchida from Townscape EXHIBIT A 2 Incorporated, who served as the prime consultant for the North Kohala CDP, to cover the content in the Plan and highlight some of the key areas. And finally, Ms. Fern White, Chair of the North Kohala Steering Committee, will provide you with community perspective regarding the planning process and the North Kohala CDP document itself. Our presentation will be brief, so we can answer any questions you may have regarding the material we cover or other questions that you may have already. With that, I’d like to begin by outlining the CRP – that’s the Community Readiness Project – that preceded the CDP. The CRP was a collaborative effort between the Department of Research and Development and the Planning Department. Between the month of June and September 2006, over 2,800 ideas were generated from over 80 talk-story sessions, and approximately 730-plus community members, which total roughly to 12 percent of the total population of North Kohala participated. CRP data served to help the North Kohala CDP Steering Committee prioritize the community’s input and select four priority issues that would become the focus of the CDP. In August 2007 the Steering Committee was convened – almost a year to the day – and one of their first hustle was to select four priority issues that would become the focus of the CDP; and the priority issues identified were growth management, infrastructure, affordable housing, and ocean and mountain access. Steering Committee then prepared to host the first community meeting in – I’m sorry, I misstated that, the Steering Committee was convened in June 2007 – the first community meeting was held in August 2007 to accomplish the following: 1. introduce the Steering Committee to the community; 2. introduce Townscape to the community; 3. report back to the community regarding the CRP process – because there was no formal presentation back to the community after the CRP was concluded, and so we took that opportunity to kind of bring people back into the loop and give them an update on what information was collected; 4. outline the process and timeline of the North Kohala CDP; 5. validate the priority issues with the community that were identified by the Steering Committee; and 6. begin recruiting community members to participate in the Focus Group process. From October through December of 2007 Focus Groups were developed and met over 20 times, and as a result Townscape produced working papers, which essentially served as the basis for the North Kohala CDP. In January of 2008, this year, the Steering Committee again hosted a second community meeting to update the community regarding what happened during the Focus Group phase and validate the information that we developed so far to ensure the process and the direction that the CDP was going was in line with what the community saw, and finally to outline the next steps in the CDP process and update the timeline. From the end of January through February and into March the Steering Committee, Focus Group members and Townscape worked on developing the CDP, and on March 26, 2008, the North Kohala CDP public review draft was released for comment and input from the community. To facilitate this input process, the following outreach was done: The North Kohala CDP was made available online and the link was provided to the community in a flyer. I’m sorry, I’ll back up one step; a flyer was sent to all postal recipients in North Kohala that outlined the following – and that was approximately 2,500 mailouts, so if you received mail in North Kohala, you EXHIBIT A 3 received a flyer – in the flyer, the North Kohala CDP, they were told that it was available online and where they could get access to that, and we put the link in. We put a limited amount of hard copies in the community at three locations: Nakahara Store, Takata Store and the Kohala Resource Center – I think we put 150 copies of the public review drat, which was pretty quickly disseminated to everyone. Also in the flyer the names of the Steering Committee members were made available to the public, and they were told that the Steering Committee would be available to answer any questions or concerns that the community had, along with contact information for the Planning Department. Along with the flyer Bruce developed a – I think it was a four-page – summary of the Plan with highlights; that was also included in the mailout. And finally, an announcement of the third community meeting, the place, time, location, was provided for the community in that mailout. In May the third community meeting was held in this room, in this cafeteria, to a standing-room- only crowd. By most estimates between 200 to 220 people attended and lots of public input on the Plan. Then from May through July the Steering Committee, Focus Group and Townscape used that community input, and developed a series of iterations out of the CDP to finally end up with what you have in front of you. And that in a nutshell – sorry, so brief and so quick – is the planning process for the North Kohala CDP. So if you have any questions, you can either ask me now or I’ll turn it over to Bruce who will give you folks the content. WATANABE: Well, do we have any questions of Mr. Salavea, Fellow Commissioners? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Well, I have a comment and several questions, but maybe it would be better to hear all the presenters first and then -, I might suggest that we allow the other two to speak and then we can address, and any of the three can answer our questions, if that’s acceptable to the Chair. WATANABE: Fine. That sounds good to me. Someone might answer the question you had anyway, yeah? Mr. Tsuchida, name and address, please. I understand you are the consultant for the County. TSUCHIDA: Yes, thank you. Good evening, Mr. Chair, Planning Director and Planning Commissioners. My name is Bruce Tsuchida. My address is 1159 Kamiloiki Place, Honolulu. And I’m the president of a planning company called Townscape, Inc. We were selected by the County to be the planning consultant for both the North Kohala and the South Kohala CDPs. So back in May – I believe it was – of 2007, at the start of our contract I had a very interesting conversation with your Planning Director about schedule; and he told me we need to get these Plans put together and to the Planning Commission no later than August next year. So effectively we were going to start working with the community in June; so that gave us about 13 months to do these two Plans. Of course, being a conscientious planning consultant, I told your Planning Director we can do it. However – I have to share with you – I went back to my office the next day and shared this news with my staff, and they said we can’t do it, that’s impossible EXHIBIT A 4 schedule. But largely, I think, because of the really dedicated work from the community side, I think we’ve been able as a team to put together two pretty good Plans. And of course, tonight we are going to talk a little bit about the North Kohala Plan. One of the, I think, really critical approaches to the North Kohala Plan that pretty much everyone agreed to from the outset was, because of the tight timeframe and also because everybody wanted to see a Plan that had some guts, that had some strength, that had some specifics, that had some action, we agreed – the planning consultant, the community and your planners agreed – this has to be a focused and action-oriented Plan. We were not going to try to address every and all and any issues that everybody may have; we were going to really try to drill down, identify the most critical issues that the community wanted addressed, and figure out action plans – what needs to be done. So I’m sure you’ve all had a chance to look at this Plan, and you see that the community decided to focus on four priority issue areas; and they are growth management, public access both to shore areas and to mauka areas, affordable housing, and infrastructure. Now, I’m not going to try to go into the details of those priorities tonight – that’s clearly what the Plan document is for; but I would like to point out again in terms of the action – emphasis of this Plan. This Plan is about 100 pages long. There’s some introductory material, there are some general policies, and then the action agenda, the action programs, what the community feels can be done, should be done, and partly with our help as technical planners, the action program begins on Page 26 and it runs to Page 99; so about ¾ of this Plan is about the action agenda. And we have told people, yes, the Plan is very, very important, but most important is when the Plan hopefully is approved, lots of people have got to work together – County people, community people, other agency people – to move the Plan forward into action that would be helpful to the community. So that’s the kind of Plan we’ve tried to put together.And I hope that you folks feel it’s a worthwhile Plan. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. I guess, Fern, it’s your turn then, yeah? WHITE: Aloha. My name is Fern White. I am the Chairman of the North Kohala Community Development Plan Steering Committee. My address is 54-2379 Kynnersley Road, Kohala. I’d like to address three things on behalf of the Steering Committee. And those three things are how we engaged the community, and some of our thoughts about the success of the process, and then finally what we feel in general from the community. So I want to, before I do that, though, I want to thank the Planning Commission. I think it’s extremely exciting for Kohala to have you here. I thank all of the members from the Planning Commission, Mr. Chairman, Planning Director and all of you members for coming out, and the staff from the Planning Department, mahalo from Kohala for coming out to us. On the first item on the Steering Committee’s attempt to engage the broadest cross-section of our community, Allen has talked about the CRP, and that early work that was done by the Logistics Team. That was absolutely vital for giving us the springboard for our work; and we appreciate, as Steering Committee members, the work that they did. They also came after the CRP, EXHIBIT A 5 however, with a set of expectations and understanding of what was going to happen in the process. And together Logistics Team and CRP folks and the Steering Committee worked to clarify those expectations, so that we would have a better sense of purpose. And in terms of engaging the broadest section of our communities, we had all of the various age groups; the demographics speak for themselves in the document, I think, and our minutes speak for that, the focus Group participation and community meetings. So the Steering Committee does feel that we’ve engaged the broadest cross-section of our community possible. The second item is, on behalf of the Steering Committee, our ideas on the level of success. Our process overall was again to bring together an interesting and diverse group; we were, as Steering Committee members, an interesting and diverse group, which was healthy albeit sometimes a contentious situation. But the Steering Committee did their best to remain neutral and to look for what would be fair and reasonable representation in our guide, in our document. And so the diverse group we had to adjust -, another thing that we had to adjust to was the Sunshine Law. In the beginning there were some struggles with how to handle that and how to work and how to move forward with that. I’m sure you folks understand that clearly. But ultimately some of us, even the most skeptical, saw the merit. And so that takes me to a little comment on the Focus Group process. And the guidelines for us called for the responsibility and the kuleana of the Focus Group to be that of our planning consultant. And fortunately, in most cases we had Focus Groups members that were extremely engaged, very committed and looked to bring forth those important issues and solutions. And so that -, they did a lot of hard work; they did the heavy lifting.And thanks to that hard working committee and community volunteers, and the Steering Committee members who served or guided or attended some of those meetings – there was a lot of labor – the Focus Group even survived the round robin that, although they were uncomfortable with it, was very effective to nail some of the pie-in-the-sky ideas and look at how again we could come to something fair and reasonable. So the Steering Committee took on that responsibility, one of their twelve, guiding it to balance. And we think that one of the things that could have been done better perhaps with the Focus Group situations and process may be to ensure somehow that they were also required to adhere to something similar to the Sunshine Law, so that we would ensure a broadest spectrum being represented each time some of the ideas came forward. I think ultimately that did happen; but it was because everyone stayed at attention for how we could have the broadest group represented and the greatest breadth of ideas. The third point is the general feel from the community whether or not they are supportive of this Plan. And I think that – on behalf of the Steering Committee I can say this – that not all of us have exactly what we wanted or what we want in the Plan, but everyone has something of what they want in the Plan and all of us will continue to have say through the action programs, the action steps and the guidance that’s there in the Plan. We know that this Plan reflects our desire to maintain most of our cultural lifestyle and the ways of living. We know that we cannot keep Kohala exactly as Kohala is, but we look to this Plan as a means to keep Kohala spirit. And there was someone that said what is popular is not always right and what is right is not always popular. But our CDP document is right and it is popular. I want to thank everyone for all of their hard work. This is so exciting for us. Mahalo. EXHIBIT A 6 WATANABE: Thank you. Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I’d like to make a couple of comments. First of all, I think you’ve done an extraordinary job, and I’d like to commend all of the citizens of Kohala that participated, and particularly Allen Salavea – I think he did an excellent job here.Participation in this community has been without equal. We’ve looked through now -, we’ve actually had hearings on two Community Development Plans and South Kohala is coming up. Public participation in the Puna District was between 4 and 5 percent, Kona was just over 3 percent, and South Kohala was 9 percent. And I don’t know where Allen came up with 12 percent, but by the figures I’d used to give you the other numbers, I had 18 percent for you; 1,091 participated out of 6,000 and change, that’s 18 percent. That’s extraordinary. So that is really exceptional. And I would comment on two other things before I get into the other things. One is I think the CDP was very focused; you started out setting your goals – you want open spaces, you want a rural community, small town feel, maintain cultural heritage and maintain an agricultural base – and that’s carried out through the document from beginning to end. So it makes it easy reading and it all ties it together. So again I think that is a tribute to the consultant and to Allen for doing a great job there. It’s also concise. This thing is just a little over 100 pages. The last one we looked at, the Kona Community Development Plan, Volume I was 278 pages with a 551-page of appendix – when they had a little over 3-percent participation. So I think all in all you’ve done a great job. Now, I have a couple of questions. I agree with 99 percent of what’s in here, but there are a few things – as they say the devils in the details – there are a few devilish details in this Plan. One, on Page 23, No. 7, it says, “County permits and approvals for North Kohala, including but not limited to zoning changes, subdivision approvals, and building permits, shall have expiration dates, and these expiration dates shall be adhered to.” How can you have an expiration on a zoning? Now, every time there is a zoning change, there is a certain period of time whereby the party has to live up to certain conditions; but once they live up to those conditions, it is zoned that way. And then to change it, it has to be rezoned. So – and I would like Mr. Torigoe’s opinion on this, too – I don’t think this is going to stick, to be honest with you. There was another -, it says in the CDP that if there is a conflict between the CDP and the General Plan, that there will be a conference set up. Okay, but I’ll tell you what: If there is no amendment to the General Plan, the General Plan takes precedence – that’s spelled out in Section 15 of the General Plan. But I’d like Mr. Torigoe’s opinion on this first question about zoning changes having expiration dates. TORIGOE: Mr. Chairman. WATANABE: Sure, Mr. Torigoe. EXHIBIT A 7 TORIGOE: Actually, Mr. Chairman, I would like to have the Steering Committee people respond to that question, and then I think we should clarify exactly what was meant by that statement in the draft Plan, where it talks about time limitations on rezonings. WATANABE: Mr. Tsuchida. TSUCHIDA: If I may, from a technical point, I believe I can explain what was intended by the Steering Committee in this phrase. And let me explain it this way. The issue is illustrated where you have a zoning -, let’s say some Ag land was zoned to RS-10 thirty years ago and never developed, and now 30 years later after several different ownerships and plans, etc. finally that property is actually being proposed as a subdivision; meanwhile, 30 years later, situations have changed, infrastructure may be for that particular property way overtaxed, the school may not have adequate space for the children, etc. etc. – you’ve all heard these issues. So the concept here – and I understand your question of whether this is technically possible or not – but the concept from the community was that zoning should have time limits because without that, as circumstances change, certain zoned land may no longer be beneficial for the community. WATANABE: Mr. Yuen. YUEN: I just want to elaborate on what both said, which is correct. And I was involved in some discussion about this before it went into the Plan. This is talking about new approvals and having time conditions on them. And this is something that we are familiar with that there will be a time condition to perform under the zoning, and you see ones where it says it has five years to obtain final subdivision approval, something like that. So if the condition is performed, then the zoning doesn’t expire, the project gets developed in a set period of time; if it’s not developed, then there either has to be a time extension or the zoning gets revoked. So it’s not a change from what has been a typical practice in zoning ordinances for the last few, at least for the last ten or 15 years. There are zoning ordinances from 20 years ago or more, which don’t have time conditions on them; but most of the ones that have been done in the last 15 years or so do have these time conditions. WOODWARD: So what you are saying is this is basically restating what the policy is now – only not too well, as far as I’m concerned, because it doesn’t suggest that there will be a period of time for the people to meet certain conditions at which time the zoning changes will become permanent. Is that what you are saying? YUEN: Right. I think if you look at it with the sentence before that, which talks about speculation, certainly once something is zoned and then somebody develops in accordance with that zoning, you know, they build a residential subdivision, you can’t have the residential zoning expire after a set period of time. So this only applies to zoning that where the conditions are not performed. WOODWARD: Okay. I would suggest that that be reworded to make it more clear because once somebody has built something, they have a vested interest; and I see no way that we can take that away from them. But that’s not what this says. And I think what we need to do is to have this reworded. And it wouldn’t necessarily require an amendment – just a clarification EXHIBIT A 8 that there is a time limit on conditions for zoning changes, subdivision approvals and building permits and those shall be adhered to, not that we can take somebody’s vested rights away. The other question I had on the same page and same number, “The North Kohala CDP recommends the enactment of a special land speculation tax.” What exactly do you look at there? What is the meaning of that? WATANABE: Mr. Tsuchida. TSUCHIDA: I believe the discussion at the Steering Committee was that the group supported this kind of legislation at the State level. So this is not any specific recommendation regarding County action, but it’s stated here as a general policy, certainly not as a specific ordinance action. WATANABE: Meaning this is something that you would have to lobby for, and it requires other regulations to change before it can be implemented. TSUCHIDA: Yes. WATANABE: And more specifically at the State level. TSUCHIDA: That’s correct. WOODWARD: Yeah, I don’t have any problem -, the only one I had a problem with is that first one that I read because it is said “shall” – it is this is the way it’s going to be. And it’s not worded very well; it doesn’t really state the intent, and that needs to be changed. And that’s a clarification that needs to be made before I’m going to vote for it. The other one, “The Growth Management Focus Group has supported the idea of creating North Kohala’s own Planning Commission, which would imply the creation of numerous” – I’m reading right from the text – “would imply the creation of numerous Planning Commissions throughout the County (9 districts).” It turns out North Kohala has 3 percent of the land area of the County and 4 percent of the population. How do you see that working, and how big do you want this bureaucracy to get? WHITE: What page is that? WOODWARD: On Page 27. I think we’ve gone from the sublime to the absurd here, you know. Now we are looking at a Charter amendment to make two Planning Commissions – one for East and one for West. First of all, again, this says “has supported” – okay, so it’s just a guideline, I don’t have a problem with that. I have a problem with the idea, but I don’t have a problem with the way it’s phrased because it would require a Charter amendment, which wouldn’t come on the ballot, even if it was approved, until 2010; it would require a Charter amendment. EXHIBIT A 9 But again, I think that’s, I would have to say, misguided, you know, to divide this island up. And the point they are making there is, well, Maui has three Planning Commissions. Well, yes, but Maui has three islands – Maui, Molokai and Lanai; and that makes sense. But you know, we’re going to have a Planning Commission for every subdivision? You know, and you have here 4 percent of the population – do you want your own Planning Commission? WHITE: Are you ready for my -. WOODWARD: Yo. WHITE: Okay. So, thank you for your question, Mr. Woodward. You know, the portion that you are looking at, if I have it right – I just want to be clear – is Page 27 where it says Background on Strategy 1.1? WOODWARD: Right. WHITE: Okay, thank you. So and it says, “The Growth Management Focus Group has supported the idea of creating North Kohala’s own Planning Commission;” that’s the part you read, yes? WOODWARD: Uh huh. WHITE: Okay, thank you. So we recognize at this point and at this juncture that there was another bill in place for an action council for the CDPs in the County. And at the time that the Focus Group first began talking the growth management, first began meeting, the Focus Group, they had the idea of home rule; it was even stronger than what you see in the Background. I mean, they genuinely want home rule. And I don’t think that the concept has disappeared from the desire of those people in the community that would still like to see home rule. And I’m guessing that there are other communities in our county that have that same feel and that same desire. However, in the process, you know, over the months of deliberating and looking and seeing how it would fit, and with the additional passing of the bill for an action council for CDP, that’s why you see it here in the Background, you know, so that there is understanding of what the community was thinking and wanted and that’s why it’s in the Background; it’s not in the policy or -. Did that answer you? WOODWARD: Okay, yeah, you know, the only one I have a problem with is the first one I mentioned because that would be a mandate; these others are just ideas. And the other one that kind of stuck in my craw, on Page 29 where they are talking about the Open Space Bond, so the “idea is to create a separate ‘Open Space and Parklands Bond’ to be paid by property owners island-wide. Taxpayers would pay a certain amount to the fund, based on the value of their home; so people with more expensive homes would pay more.” Well, it just so happens that the Hawaii Public Access Open Space and Natural Resources Preservation Commission at their meeting in March 2008, designated four out of the five properties for purchase and acquisition in North Kohala. So do you really think all residents of the Big Island should accept another tax on their properties with almost all of the benefits going to the smallest district in the State, with 3 percent of the county’s land area and 4 percent of the population? EXHIBIT A 10 WHITE: I’ll attempt to answer that for you, Mr. Woodward. I think, again, we are looking at the process and, this being in the Background, these were ideas that came out of the Focus Groups, these were some of the solutions they came up with, this is what they were looking to have happened at the time. I appreciate it that you have exact statistics and proportions to, you know, how we fit in the State and the tax structure, etc. But at the same time the effort, you know, to preserve North Kohala has been ongoing – the coast; and there is no question of its pristine and its value. And I recognize that there are other areas in all of Hawaii that have that. I’m not speaking individually here but on behalf of our Focus Groups, and why you see that in the document now is because this is what they thought they would need to do prior to that action that you just talked about in March 2008. Mahalo. WOODWARD: I’ve eaten up as much time as I can. Somebody else needs to talk. WATANABE: Well, okay. Do we have any further questions? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just want to comment on the language on Page 23. I guess I can understand some confusion because it’s – what is it – four different lines, it’s basically one sentence, there is lots of commas and stuff – well, actually it’s two sentences. But I guess the way I read it, I really don’t share that much of the concern of Commissioner Woodward because if you just look at, you know, as it applies to zoning changes, the way I read it is it’s “zoning changes …. shall have expiration dates,” which my understanding of the Director’s contribution to this topic is basically that’s our present practice; zoning changes have expiration dates and provisions for extension of the expiration dates and so forth. And basically this is, as I read it, it states the current practice, and just making the emphasis that I guess when the time periods expire, developers should be held to that. I guess this is what’s being expressed. And so that’s my view. I think that the language does conform to the current practice. WATANABE: Okay. Well, I might want to add something into this. This is very similar to one of the cases that we handled, Kohala LLC, and you all know that we were split on that for quite a while. And you know, I think that’s the perfect example, and I kind of get the feeling that “timeframes will be adhered to” is meant for that type of situation. So I’m hoping that we don’t have to extend this discussion in that area except to maybe raise bold issues; you are feeling that it’s fine the way it is and Mr. Woodward is feeling that possibly it could be expanded upon just to clarify. Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: Well, yeah, I would say if they just change the wording, just clarify it, so that it reflects the current practice that is there be an expiration date on zoning permits with regard to the conditions for that zoning and the same for the rest of the items on that list; and then once those conditions are met, you know, you don’t have an expiration date every five years. For example, the way this is written right now, if you have somebody that gets a piece of property zoned Ag-5 or whatever and they build homes on each lot, and then, okay, well, I’m sorry your zoning is expired, it’s changed to Ag-20 – which three homes are you going to tear down? WATANABE: I understand your -. EXHIBIT A 11 WOODWARD: That’s the way it reads now. It just needs to be clarified. I don’t have a problem with the concept; I just have a problem with the way it’s -. And this is important because this is not just something we throw at the County Council; this is going to be ordinance, this is going to be law, this is going to have the effect of law since it says “shall” – that’s a mandate, that is a law. And if it’s not clear, anybody can interpret it however they want. It’s going to have the effect of law for at least ten years after the time it’s enacted; so you need to get, you know, the “t”s crossed and the “i”s dotted. You need to make that clear. It is not clear as it is stated now. And I don’t think this would require an amendment; it would just require a clarification. WATANABE: Well, that’s said, Mr. Tsuchida and Allen, I guess both of you have heard quite a bit on this. And I believe what Mr. Woodward is looking for is something that would be classified as non-substantive change, meaning we are not looking to change the meaning but maybe, as he stated, clarify it a bit. And we still have two more meetings, right? So we have time yet then and you might want to mull that over. I know you’ve already proposed some corrections that I guess somehow during the process it wasn’t quite worded the way you wanted it to be or you felt that the Steering Committee wanted it to be; and I commend you for that because that makes our process a lot simpler. And again, there are different opinions in this area; so maybe you guys can mull that over and see if there is a better way to gain consensus. We’ll see how this moves along. Okay -. SALAVEA: If I may, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Salavea. SALAVEA: I think we could come up with something, and probably with Director’s guidance, probably something back to you folks -. WATANABE: Again, because of the timeframes and the way the CDP rules are written, you know, we are discussing a non-substantive change, not something that has to go back to the Steering Committee and we start all over again. SALAVEA: Sure. And if I could just ask of Corp. Counsel if that would be just considered a non-substantive change? TORIGOE: Yeah, it seems to me that if the change is simply to clarify what the original intent was, then we can consider that non-substantive. SALAVEA: Thank you. WATANABE: Yeah, just food for thought – not telling you you need to do anything, okay? IWASHITA: Mr. Chair. EXHIBIT A 12 WATANABE: Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: I have my own comments, if I may. WATANABE: Okay. IWASHITA: Thanks. I also want to add my great commendations to the Kohala community for the work that you all have put in, and I look forward to hearing the public testimony tonight. It’s my humble opinion that planning done at this level, at the community level, in this case the North Kohala community, is going to be the most effective way to have what’s commonly called a preferred future for this community. And you know, I guess I direct my attention, I would direct your attention, to the Action Committee legislation and you know, to make sure that gets done; and that I look at this Plan as the beginning, okay? I mean, there are little tweaks and things that need to be done, but this really is the beginning. You know, the Plan talks about getting further input, making necessary changes in the future, and that’s what the Action Committee is supposed to be for. So I would encourage you to be very proactive, the Action Committee being very proactive in keeping the community involved because this is -, we have our regular Planning Commission meetings and, you know, we are lucky if we have 20 people at any given proceeding; normally it’s like five and those are the developer and friends, unless it’s a big project or something like that. But you know, really this is to me the way we will on the whole island have a preferred future; so please continue to stay involved, and involve the rest of the community. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any further questions of the presenters? Yes. BOWMAN: I do. I don’t want to belabor the point, but that’s why I went last. I am just very impressed with all the work that’s been done by the Committee and by the community; but I couldn’t go first because I live here. And I feel kind of like American Idol, you know, I think Mr. Woodward is like Simon; and so when he said cool stuff, I was going, “Yeah!” Anyway, and please take that to heart because he scrutinizes things. So I really appreciate his comments and everyone else’s. I just have a couple of minor questions and maybe comments – just to show you that I did read this. Just in reference to your planning commissions, you might want to look at urban design commissions at a later point; that may be something that could suffice for the areas, especially if your growth is near Hawi, Kapaau kind of areas, so that it could be something that the Committee could look at. Wait now, and just a real couple of minor -, I have questions on Page 63 with the ohana housing. I know the intentions are good. Unfortunately, you know, things happened that got out of hand with ohana zoning; so I hope that the County really scrutinizes that. And I understand the intention, especially with no affordable housing for younger people here. And I just had a comment on Page 74 in regards to – just real minor – in regards to action steps and who will take the lead: “The North Kohala Action Committee in conjunction with the County of Hawaii Department of Parks and Recreation and the Army Corps of Engineers” and I EXHIBIT A 13 think you probably are leaving out like DLNR, Department of Health. So there are other partners when you are talking about parks. And I really like the way that you are working to work with the established entities. I had a question about your access person – I can’t remember what page that was on – that there would be someone in the County that would take care of access; and I think that’s a new position? I’m sorry, here, on Page 41 on the top. And I think that’s a very ambitious statement to -, “management and maintenance of public access easement, paths, …. the County’s responsibility to a specific County Public Access Coordinator ….” Maybe I’m ignorant on this – is this a new position that you are planning? TSUCHIDA: Yes. Yes, it would be. BOWMAN: And this will be for the whole island? TSUCHIDA: Yes. BOWMAN: Not just Kohala? TSUCHIDA: That was the intent. BOWMAN: Okay. So that and, again, on Page 43, I guess, at the bottom, my question was where is the money coming from; but I’m sure that’s your question, too. So thank you again for all your hard work. WATANABE: Okay. Any other questions for the presenters? Thank you very much. I do have seven people – oh, you may be seated, I’m sorry – I do have, well, let me make sure now. I have only seven people signed up; if there is anyone from the public who would like to testify but has not yet signed up, please go ahead and see Noriko or Deanne over at the table here, so that we can sign you up. With that, maybe we can proceed by calling the first three individuals. I’d like to remind you, though, we do want to provide everyone with an opportunity; since I don’t see a rush to the table, I suppose we can afford you five minutes. But please don’t be redundant, and let’s keep it to five minutes, so that if there are other people that want to testify, they will also have available time. So with that, may I call up Burt Alpert, Jeff Alexander and Ted Matsuda. Do we have Ted Matsuda? Jeff Alexander? Is Jeff Alexander available? Oh, you want to come up? Mr. Alexander, Mr. Alexander, are you going to testify? ALEXANDER: Yes. WATANABE: Yeah, would you come up, please, so I can swear you all in. I beg your pardon? ALEXANDER: I’ll wait till they’re finished. WATANABE: No, please come up, so I can swear you all in. EXHIBIT A 14 ALEXANDER: I’ve never been sworn in in the Land Use Commission, and I’ve attended many on Oahu. I think you are doing it wrong. WATANABE: Well, okay. Everyone’s entitled to their own opinion. Would you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes, I do. WATANABE: Yes. Thank you. Okay, before you begin your testimony, would you state your name and address for the record. And maybe I can start with you, Mr. Matsuda. MATSUDA: Hi, my name is Ted Matsuda. And I’m speaking on behalf of the North Kohala CDP Ocean and Mountain Access Focus Group. We from the Ocean and Mountain Access Focus Group support the North Kohala Community Development Plan in its entirety. We are one of four Focus Groups formed by the Steering Committee which include Affordable Housing, Growth Management, Infrastructure, and Ocean and Mountain Access. The Ocean and Mountain Access Focus Group represents a variety of interests in the North Kohala community. We are a diverse group made up mostly of Kohala families and longtime residents of Kohala. We have worked many months to produce the draft of the access portion of this Plan before you. From the beginning we listened to the many voices during the scoping meetings calling for more community participation in the county decisions regarding coastal and mountain access. This Plan provides ways for the community to have a voice in decisions of public access and also provides and inventory of access ways that have been used by Kohala people for generations. We held 22 meetings and many additional work sessions to come up with the recommendations and inventory. Our group has representatives from many interests including fishermen, hikers, hunters, seniors, landowners, business people, Hawaiian cultural organizations, environmental groups and coastal preservation advocates. We agree that steps should be taken to preserve traditional and customary accesses as new landowners move into our district. We believe the Action Committee proposed by this Plan will give our community a voice in keeping existing access ways open and working with the County and landowners to open traditional and customary accesses that are now closed. The Plan also provides the means for the community, County and landowners to develop solutions when needed. We encourage you to adopt this Plan and pledge our commitment to working with the County and landowners in future public access issues. North Kohala CDP Ocean and Mountain Access Focus Group. Thank you. EXHIBIT A 15 WATANABE: Thank you. Fellow Commissioners, do we have any questions for Mr. Matsuda? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Ted, thank you. And thank you guys for all your hard work. I just have a comment. And I know growing up here, I appreciate, you know, having traditional and customary access; but I also realize that when you open an access, we cannot say you are not from Kohala, you are not going down there. And I see this is a problem. I see when they improved the road to the lighthouse, that now – and I’m sorry if there are not more surfers here – but like, wow, now everybody can go. So that is just my concern that how do we keep that access -, and I don’t want to be like, oh, you’ve got to be from Kohala. But you know, with some of these accesses, and I understand that it’s four-wheel drive, but then I just have real concerns with how we are going to do this. And what are customary and traditional practices? I mean, traditional because we grew up in Kohala and we know where the opihi are? Does that mean that somebody from Puna cannot come and get the opihi, too? So, I hope you understand what my concern is. Thank you. WATANABE: Would you care to respond to any of that, Mr. Matsuda? MATSUDA: Just briefly. With those -, these are long-term; there are short-term and long-term accesses. That’s why we want the Action Committee, which brings it back to the community to decide what kind of access should be open and how it should be opened and how it should be managed. Thank you. BOWMAN: Thank you. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have any further questions for Mr. Matsuda? Okay, you may be seated, Mr. Matsuda. Mr. Alpert, would you state your name and address, please. ALPERT: My name is Burt Alpert. Most people around here know me as Daz. And if you come up here and ask for Burt Alpert, nobody will know whom you are talking about; you ask for Daz, everybody knows. I’ve lived in North Kohala for 13 years. Right now I’m at 54- 465 Honomakau Road, which is right here, this road. You can walk to my house from this cafeteria in two minutes. And I would like to say aloha to the members of the Commission. Aloha, Chris. Aloha, Kohala. And from the beginning I served on the -, helping to put this Plan together, I served on the Logistics Committee, and then I served on the Growth Management Focus Group. And in a word, I think this is a beautiful plan. I think if you look on Page 1 at the bottom, the bottom paragraph on Page 1, there’s hardly anything that we could have put together that would better express our feelings for this land and the way we want to preserve it. And if you look on Page 22 at the bottom and then 23 – I wish I had time to read all of these provisions in there of policy – every one of these policies expresses what we want to see here in Kohala, have a love for this place and the way we want to preserve it. EXHIBIT A 16 Having said this, I’d like to point out that there are a couple of holes. And one of the holes is that if you look in the Growth Management section, there are no growth management provisions, specific details; and the reason there are no growth management provisions is that all of the provisions that were suggested by the Growth Management Focus Group were rejected by the Steering Committee. And so we have a situation where we have a beautiful set of policy, which reflects faithfully the way we in Kohala want to see our land preserved, but lacks specific teeth. So any time there is a development issue, it’s going to come to you folks because there’s going to be no rules that will define what development is possible or not. My second concern is with the issue of home rule. And if you look on Page 95 where the duties of the action council are described, in Item (g) it says that one of the duties of the action council will be to “Review and make recommendations on all major proposed projects, developments, and land use decisions within the planning area, to the entity with the decision-making power;” and that’s the way it should be. However, it does not say that the developer shall bring his plan to development to the attention of the advisory council; so the advisory council is in the position of standing at the side of a railroad track and reviewing the train as it goes by. In other words, there should be something in here, which directs a developer to bring his plan to the attention of the advisory council, so the advisory council can review it. I think that’s really all I have to say on this. We are all looking forward to using this Plan to maintain a community here that we will continue to be proud of. Mahalo. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Alpert. Do we have any questions, Fellow Commissioner, of Mr. Alpert? Seeing none. Then you may be seated. Thank you for your testimony. Okay, Mr. Alexander. ALEXANDER: Thank you. Do you want my address and everything? WATANABE: Would you kindly state your full name and address for the record. ALEXANDER: Yeah, all right. Jeffrey Reed Alexander. And I currently live at 54-4094 Kolonahe, which is in Kapaau. Now, I’ve been here four months, and maybe I came late. But I’ve done many of these on Oahu. I’ve been in construction over 35 years. I’m a member to Carpenters Union. I managed millions of dollars worth of construction projects. Now, yes, there is a bunch of good stuff in here, but the previous speaker just pointed out some deficiencies. I ask you not to adopt this yet and go to the full Council until you can address the deficiencies. And running around the district for the last four months, I’d say there’re 8,000 to 9,000 people living here. Historically, the population counts by the State are way off. And then the numbers that they use to base the homeless people and the at-risk people, there were only 75 survey responses. Now, one of you said 18 percent of the people participated. I was in one meeting in May, there were 28 people; there are 65 people here, not counting you guys. So I hate to come here and bitch and moan at you, but the deficiencies that the previous guy pointed out and the ones I did, and especially for the affordable housing and the self-help housing. I come from the land of self-help housing, the Island of Oahu, it’s a mess. And the affordable housing, every project, bad, bad; even one my own Union did in Eva town, the Carpenters Union did was falling apart – it’s bad. And I see one affordable housing – not affordable – self-help EXHIBIT A 17 housing going in right down here; I don’t think that was well planned. So please let Steering Committees meet again and address these deficiencies. Now, I see the table here where they had all these meetings; I don’t see the number of people that were at the meetings. You should print that down – such and such meeting was held, there were ten people there, there were 20 people there, 30 people. They are not listing it; it’s called railroading. So I’ll leave that at that. Thank you. WATANABE: Okay. Do we have any questions for Mr. Alexander? Yes, Mr. Woodward. WOODWARD: I might make a comment. If you look on Page 6, “Meetings Held” “# of Participants” from June 2005 to November 2006 – total, 1,091. ALEXANDER: Yes, I see that. But each meeting, break down the meeting, each meeting. Like here, 65, I’m counting the kids, too. We don’t add them all up because it’s probably the same people that go to those meetings. That’s how it was on Oahu. And I grew up there. And I’m just saying, print it all out, be upfront about it, and print all those -. I couldn’t even download your stuff. I mentioned it to some of you; I tried to print copies off your computer website, for me to get that, it won’t allow my computer to print. And I will get a CD. WOODWARD: Well, the numbers that I used were the same -, the percentages were the same for the Puna Community Development Plan, the Kona Community Development Plan and the South Kohala Community Development Plan. And I couldn’t -, there is no way I could figure out. Some of these people went to more than one meeting – there is no doubt. And I used, as a denominator, I used the 2000 census. You are right – there are not 6,000 people here, there are probably 8,000 or 9,000. But we’ve kept everything consistent, and at least as far as how this CDP was done and using the same parameters, I would say this one did pretty well. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Any further questions for Mr. Alexander? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: I just have a quick comment. When we were at the Kona Community Development Plan meeting, the affordable housing came up, too. I was born and raised in Kohala, and tonight at dinner my children and I were just talking about a household with 16 people in there. It’s an incredibly horrific problem here as it is in other places. I’m sorry that you haven’t seen self-help housing work on Oahu. I happen to know many families that live in the self-help housing here. And if you drive down there, I think the pride that these people take in their homes because they had to build them is incredible. I don’t think this is Oahu, and hopefully, maybe your presumptions are hopefully not right. But thank you for your input. WATANABE: Thank you. ALEXANDER: Thank you very much. Yeah, don’t let this become Oahu. I come from the land of hell – Oahu. EXHIBIT A 18 WATANABE: Okay. Let’s call up the next three testifiers. I have Mr. Melrose, Carolyn Lancaster and Jack Hoyt. Okay, could I swear you in, please. Would you raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Mr. Melrose, maybe we can start with you. You know the drill – name and address and then you may begin. MELROSE: My name is Jeff Melrose. I live at 1405 Waianuenue Avenue in Hilo. And I’m a land planning and land management consultant. And I’m here tonight to represent Mr. Harrison who is a partner in Ainakea Makai LLC that owns about 340 acres just Pololu side of the Kamehameha statue on the makai side of Ainakea Subdivision. First, I just want to say, as all have said, the amount of work that goes into this and the work of the Steering Committee and the consultants has been major; and the amount of drive time, I give Allen Salavea great credits for getting there and back on a regular basis, and the Committee generally for just staying with this process – that’s not been easy. And I give you credit; just listening to you today, I know you’ve read the Plan, which makes me feel good. I sat in the Council meetings a couple of days ago on the Puna Plan, and I don’t think I could have said the same thing. So I appreciate that you’ve actually done that, and it’s good. My comments are really on the Public Access section of this and we have one very narrowly defined piece of the problem. But I want to explain a little bit more of this context to you because I think it will help explain some of the challenges with this very comprehensive access section that you have. This Plan takes a very bullish approach in public access. And to secure really remote roads and trails throughout the district, it identifies major administrative and ordinance changes, and asks for a new position in the Mayor’s Office to help implement this process. This is a very comprehensive vision and one that will take really decades to do. What the Plan does not do quite so well is to acknowledge the long-term public and private costs associated with the public access vision, nor does it really clarify how those costs weigh and balance with some of the other issues that the community has. The Plan proposes over 100 miles of trails and unimproved roads that community members want County government to open up for their fishing, camping, hunting, gathering and recreational wants.Although it is not said clearly, this is really not an access driven by a commitment to access for all American citizens or residents of the State of Hawaii or even residents of the County of Hawaii; this is very focused on local practice, local people wishing to gain kind of open access ability that existed, say, three decades ago when this was a single-crop, single-owner community, and go back that kind of experience. That’s a good goal. It’s just, I leave it at your hands and the hands of the Planning Director and future Planning Directors and Councils to decide whether that’s really something that can be accomplished in the broad view that has been presented here. EXHIBIT A 19 I want to look at this specifically as it relates to the Ainakea lands. There are a couple of pictures in that piece that I gave you that give you a sense of what this coastline looks like. We’ve got 100 feet of sheer cliff, and the pasture goes right up and drops off, not just up but back. So the potential for people being along that coastline, it is not a safe coastline. And there are small pieces of fishing resource that are used for people putting in their poles or getting out to do opihi and limu – really important places for people to use; but they are dangerous and they are carved into the steps of the cliff and there are ropes that come down. This is not a shoreline you would expect or want to see generally open to the broader public, and you certainly don’t want to see the coastline end up in somebody’s sacred or secret places of Hawaii where you then have tourist cars gathering. It’s simply a dangerous place to be; not that it can’t be managed, but it is not a simple place. The Ainakea LLC owners as well as other owners along that coast have accepted and do support a lateral pedestrian access along the coast. It’s been recorded on our deeds; Chris required that as part of certain land use circumstances. And that acceptance in the deed is still subject to the County Council’s acceptance of that obligation – being able to provide for the County to accept the liability and maintenance associated with those easements. The Plan identifies that as an issue, and says that it should be a priority; and we agree that should be a priority – getting that done. I think it will be a difficult swallow for the Council to take on the fiduciary and the cost issues that are going to be associated with that. But it is on the table, and we are glad that it’s there. So we support that, and we just question whether or not if this will happen. Our concern is that even if it does, our real concern is that the liability and cost of having to defend ourselves at some point because it’s not a matter of “if”, it’s a matter of “when” somebody walks at the edge of that cliff and falls off. It’s happened at Kohala, seen it happen before. So it’s an issue for us. Over the past couple of decades, the landowners and lessees of this particular land have had a program to control vehicular access to the coast. Now, the Plan asks specifically to require vehicular access to this coastline. And up until this point people who know that coastline have a local person here who they can call to get the right to go down and take their cars to bring their heavy equipment gears to go down to the shoreline. You know, residents who know, they know who to talk to, they explain basic rules, they get keys, they sign the waiver, which generally works pretty well; and it allows both the user and the landowner to be aware of each other’s presence and of their concerns. It also prevents crowding of the small fishing area and allows the landowner to control the use during times of high fire hazard or other issues that might be involved. Even with these controls in place, we still, the landowner still experiences having to go pick up rubbish and deal with their toilet use on the shoreline and other things; but those are kind of things you have to work out one at a time. Fortunately, the place is not used frequently. It’s calm seas, Kona wind, really fishing-tournament kind of a location for fishing. The North Kohala Community Plan calls specifically for a mauka-makai vehicular access to the shoreline as a condition of any future land use approval. We think that will do one of four things: 1. It will encourage un-monitored and ill-prepared people who are both visitors and residents to easily drive to the coast, walk to the edge, and expose themselves to that risk; 2. It will increase harvest pressure on what’s a very small, fragile little spot of coastline from non- Kohala residents who have equal rights under public laws to use this access – goes back to the EXHIBIT A 20 comment that Commission Bowman made earlier about the broader impacts of this use expanding outwards; 3. From a landowner’s perspective it will also open up a large area of private property along the shoreline to public park-like use, assuming that people don’t just stay in their areas and to the coastline but the area around it is going to be exposed to that kind of activity without management or compensation to the landowner; and 4. It will bypass the role of the surrounding landowner to manage traffic through their property and force them to live with the impacts that they can’t responsibly manage. For those reasons, we believe it’s not appropriate to state specifically in the CDP that a vehicular access should be required. We believe that the correct answer lies in a collaborative, non- mandated approach that enables a responsible set of local fishermen and community members to partner with the landowner to afford themselves the convenience of vehicular access to precarious fishing sites. And under this approach all parties will need to be accountable for building the kinds of sustained relationships that will insure the good stewardship of both the public and private lands and resources that exist along the shoreline. This would be in addition to the rights of the broader public to use the lateral pedestrian access that will provide legal and practical access to the shoreline as soon as the County accepts that responsibility. So we urge the Commission to remove the reference; we suggest that, we ask, you remove the reference to require a future vehicular access to the Ainakea shoreline in favor of a more collaborative effort to retain the relationship-based fishing practices as they have been in the past. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Melrose. MELROSE: Thank you. WATANABE: Do we have any questions of Mr. Melrose? Yes, Ms. Bowman. BOWMAN: Sorry, so many questions, but because I’m familiar with the property. How far is it from the lighthouse road, would you say? MELROSE: A quarter of a mile. BOWMAN: A quarter of a mile? Okay, so the lateral access, I mean, people could get down to the lighthouse and walk laterally to that area. MELROSE: Yes, certainly, absolutely. BOWMAN: Okay, thank you. WATANABE: Any further questions? Okay, thank you, Mr. Melrose, for your testimony. You may be seated. Let’s see. Mr. Hoyt? HOYT: The truth is when I signed in, I didn’t have my glasses on. So I didn’t know I was signing up to do this. EXHIBIT A 21 WATANABE: Okay. Would you state your name and address, though, for the record. HOYT: My name is Jack Hoyt. I live at 53-356 Kapanaia Road. When I’m wearing a different hat – tonight I’m just attending another community meeting – I represent a landowner that owns a substantial portion of the same coastline that Jeff was referring to. So as long as I’ve signed in, I will mention that those landowners are very much in favor of the lateral access; it’s recorded on their deed. But they have the same fears that there is no one, not yet, no one to date has taken the responsibility for the liability issues or the maintenance issues and they are quite concerned. With the current use patterns that I’ve alerted them to where it’s quite common for pickup trucks to come down the lighthouse road and drive laterally on what is theoretically a pedestrian access, set up camp, spend the weekend. I find myself occasionally cleaning up; for the most part the campers are very good about packing out what they pack in. But I have visited on weekends when there are as many as three or four children under preschool age running around less than 10, 15 yards from the cliffs with literally 100-foot drop-offs. I have gone down on weekends and had to pick up plenty of trash. I have gone down on weekends and had to break down a cockfighting arena and truck it away. I’ve also gone down and found extremely nice people who have no idea that there is anything wrong with what they are doing and they are just there for the weekend and enjoying a good time, and we have a pleasant conversation about packing out what they’ve packed in. And I don’t go too closely into the details about what toilets they are using because I know there aren’t any, and I can tell that they don’t have any port-a-john type facilities with them. So I’ll just support what Jeff had to say. The access idea is a great idea I’ve been pushing forward; it’s one of the first things that I wrote down on my list. But the liability and the maintenance issues have got to be addressed sooner or later, if you’re going to mandate it. And there was an earlier speaker who was concerned about what the numbers represented. And I’ve only attended the community meetings; I haven’t attended the individual sub-committee meetings, except that one occasion. But I would like to make it clear to the man from Oahu that every single community meeting when the community has been asked to come out to see what the hardworking Steering Committee members have done has been extremely well attended. This is one of the smallest turnouts that I’ve seen; and I think the reason it’s a small turnout is because we all know what’s in there. We’ve downloaded it, we’ve read it, we’ve been to the previous community meetings, we realize how hard the work is and how much time it’s taking for the people who dedicated themselves to it, and we support it. So we are just here, the few of us are here tonight, the 65 of us as you said, because we want the Commission to know that we support it. It’s not the case, definitely not the case, that a few individuals did the bulk of the work and that they represent 1,000 people because they came 300 times each – that’s definitely not the case. WATANABE: Thank you, Mr. Hoyt. Do we have any questions of Mr. Hoyt? Seeing none. Thank you for your testimony. Okay, Carolyn Lancaster, right? LANDASTER: That’s me. EXHIBIT A 22 WATANABE: Would you kindly state your name and address, please. LANCASTER: I’m Carolyn Lancaster. My address is 54-630 Hao Road in Kapaau. And I’m a member of the Steering Committee for North Kohala. And I was also a member of the Community Readiness Logistics Team. And a lot of what I wanted to say tonight has already been said; but I’m sitting here and I have to say it. If one were to measure the success of the North Kohala Community Development Plan based on the amount of paper that was generated in this process, I mean, I didn’t bring it with me tonight, but if you measured it in inches or pounds of paperwork that we’ve gone through that’s been printed, collated, distributed, read, reviewed, saved and filed during the process of the creation of what you have before you, then this document is an overwhelming success, if it were measured on the amount of pounds of paper. If one were to measure the success of the Plan based on the number of volunteer hours that have been spent by all of the dedicated people in this community in researching and collecting data, attending Focus Group meetings, Steering Committee meetings, general public meetings, then one would have to say that this Plan definitely reflects the thoughts of this community to the best of our abilities. If one were to measure the success of the North Kohala Community Development Plan by the dedication and the perseverance of the people of Kohala to create this Plan, given the time restrictions that we had and the many diverse interests that we were considering, and I think we’ve succeeded. Certainly, it’s not enough to adopt a Community Development Plan based on pounds of paper generated or volunteer hours spent or even the deep concern that was demonstrated in the process of its creation. However, it is important that you all recognize the enormous effort that’s gone into this Plan. There are those that say our Plan doesn’t have teeth – the teeth that they would hope that it would have had. But the fact that the Plan allows for continued chewing on the issues of North Kohala makes this Plan worthwhile. So I support the adoption of the North Kohala Community Development Plan because the Plan represents the end result of a long community process that began in 2005 with the Community Readiness. However, and perhaps even more importantly, and it has already been stated tonight, its adoption will mark just the beginning of a new chapter in a long and precious history of this very amazing community. Thank you for being here. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Lancaster? Seeing none. You may be seated. Thank you, ma’am. Okay I have two other testifiers who have signed up: Susan Fischer and Nancine Lloyd. Would both of you come up, please. Okay, could you raise your right hand, please. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth now before the Planning Commission? TESTIFIERS: Yes. WATANABE: Thank you. Maybe we can start with you, ma’am. You would be Susan Fischer? FISCHER: Susan Fischer. My physical address is 59-323 Iliahi in Kohala Estates. I’m here tonight representing the Kohala Estates Community Association. EXHIBIT A 23 Representatives of the Kohala Estates Community Association attended the North Kohala CDP community meetings, Steering Committee meetings, and Focus Group meetings. Throughout the CDP process, endless effort, expended by countless community members, was directed toward constructive compromise, with special attention toward policies inclusive of the widely diverse community. The CDP’s Growth Management goals direct development to concentrated areas, so as to protect Kohala’s rural character, large amounts of open space, and cultural resources. The Kohala Estates Community Association supports the North Kohala Community Development Plan and urges a positive recommendation by the Hawaii County Planning Commission. Thank you to the Planning Commission for coming to North Kohala. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Fischer? Thank you, Ms. Fischer. You may be seated. Okay, Nancine. LLOYD: All right. My name is Nancine Lloyd. You can hear? WATANABE: Maybe you can try the other mike. Do you know why? We are having some feedback problems – that’s why. I’m sorry. LLOYD: My name is Nancine Lloyd. I live at 55-3545 Akoni Pule Highway in Ahupuaa of Pahoa. Before I read my statement, I want to answer some of these people’s comments. The operative word is public access, and we are wanting what was – I was in a Focus Group for the accesses here in Kohala in our CDP program – and we are wanting what was to be again because our accesses were taken away. When they speak of maintenance and liability – I’ve lived here a long time – I don’t remember too many injuries; I remember a lot of deaths, and nobody turned around and sued anybody, and nobody was held liable for those deaths. Our coastline – I’m a Hawaiian – and there was PASH, which gave us public access to our shorelines. And I’ve said it before and I’ll say it again: Landowners need to fence themselves in and not fence the public out. It’s been a long arduous journey. I’m looking forward to continued participation in the implementation of the North Kohala Community Development Plan. And on that note, I ask this Planning Commission accept and adopt this, our North Kohala Community Development Plan. Thank you. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any questions for Ms. Lloyd? I guess none. Thank you, Ms. Lloyd. Okay. By the way, is there anyone else within the audience who would like to provide testimony? Seeing none. Then I guess -. Would you like to cap some of this off, Mr. Yuen, with regard to the shoreline access? Not so much that -, I don’t think anybody is really opposed to it, you know; it’s just we do obviously have some issues with regard to potential liability, sanitation, who’s going to pay for it, etc.And I realize that potentially not EXHIBIT A 24 everything that is written here will become law in and of itself without further action from either the Council or other bodies. So I thought you might want to cap some of that off. YUEN: Sure. Thanks for the opportunity to say something. I want to start by thanking all the people in the community who contributed to the Plan for the great deal of hard work, especially the members of the Steering Committee, thank Bruce Tsuchida who did a great job in putting the Plan together and our own staff for all the work that they did on it. It is a very good Plan. The Planning Department is advocating that it be enacted. We are having hearings to -, there have been some discussion about things that need clarification – it’s one of the purposes of having review. Sometimes you as individuals familiar with the Plan, you know how it’s supposed to be read; somebody else may read it a different way that you hadn’t thought of, and that’s always legitimate perspective and something that you need to hear. On this question of public access, for the most part the Plan is identifying – instead of goals – desired accesses. And I think this is very useful to somebody in position of planning, Director, Planning Department, because as landowners come in for land use changes like SMA Permits, subdivision approvals, this gives a community direction as to what the community would like to see. So you are not -, it’s there, it’s laid out, and it’s something that is very useful. It would have to be implemented typically -, unless the County is going to acquire rights of way through purchase or from the landowner voluntarily giving them up, the main other way of doing it is through land use approvals. And whether you can require it, there are constitutional limits on how much you can require; it has to bear a reasonable relationship to the development that’s proposed, and there are other legal limits as to what kinds of public access and how much public access you can require. Jeff Melrose made some very good points about management issues and safety issues. On the level of the Plan you are not going to solve those kinds of issues; the Plan cannot get into that kind of detail. They are out there, they need to be dealt with, and somebody needs to do it. Lani made a couple of points about how people behave and how we manage people. I’m convinced that unless we instill in everybody on the island a sense of responsibility, aloha aina of how to behave, we’re going to destroy all the natural resources that we have. That’s something that has to go with the ability to have access to the ocean. As far as my role or the County’s role, I think we need to be advocates for people to have the ability to go to the shoreline to enjoy the shoreline or the mountains, enjoy the beautiful things of Hawaii, and not take the attitude that misconduct by minority is going to keep us from offering people this overall opportunity. There are things we have to do.There are lots of things that – you know, we’ve created a lot of public access on a map in North Kohala in the last few years – there are things that need to be done in implementation and things that the County really needs partnership of people in the community as far as handling those kinds of management, cleanup, safety, signage and behavior issues that have to go along with responsible use of public access. WATANABE: Okay, thank you. Do we have any further -? Yes, Mr. Iwashita. IWASHITA: Thank you, Mr. Chair. I just wanted to make a comment that I had made a note to earlier, but I didn’t, so -. It re-emphasizes to me the great impression this community has made upon me tonight to see, you know, the great interest and concern that you all have for your community, and I agree with the Director in terms of, you know, our communities need to take care of ourselves. And there’s a comment in here in the Background about, you know, planning EXHIBIT A 25 commission and what we can do and a proposal to or some concern expressed about wanting lots of planning commissions. I’ve been on the Planning Commission three years now – how long, Rodney, about there? WATANABE: Three and a half. IWASHITA: Three and a half already? Okay. WOODWARD: Time flies. IWASHITA: When you are having a good time. And you know, it’s my opinion, or impression, having been on this Commission this long is that – we are an advisory body to the Council on zoning changes; we make determinations on SMA applications – but our effectiveness in terms of planning, you know, or really implementing the General Plan, in my mind, is very limited because it’s basically on a piece-meal basis. What the Community Development Plan process, to me, what it provides is an opportunity for each community that has a Community Development Plan with the implementing of the Action Committee to oversee it. And it’s really going to be crucial how active that Action Committee is; if you are just a name and you meet once a year and you meet the Director once a year, you know, and that’s the way it’s going to go, it’s going to be ineffective. This is really the beginning. And the Action Committee, how well and how effective it operates is going to dictate to me, you know, how much you can impact your community, the development of your community. I walked around -, I have an individual interest in this school because my grandfather back in the 50s built part of this school – I was trying to figure out which part he built, walking around before the meeting started, couldn’t figure out, I think it’s down there. And my father actually worked on this job when I was like about four years old; so it was quite a while ago. But when I went up here to the Elementary School, there is a sign painted on the wall – mural, I guess. And it said -, and to me I guess it really ties into, the words painted on the wall ties into what I experienced tonight; and in Hawaiian it’s – I hope I don’t mess this up too bad – “PUPUKAHI I HOLOMUA KAKOU” and the translation on the wall says, “United We Grow.” Another translation that I found is “Unite in Order to Progress.” And it seems to me that the children are learning a lesson that you are living by your showing up tonight.Please continue to do that. Thank you, Mr. Chair. WATANABE: Thank you. Do we have any other comments from the Commissioners? It doesn’t look like it. And no one else is here to testify. So then this meeting will stand adjourn. Thank you. The discussion ended at 8:25 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Noriko Sauer, West Hawaii Secretary EXHIBIT A 26