Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-05-03 Hearing Transcript - Hamakua CDPWINDWARD PLANNING COMMISSION COUNTY OF HAWAII HEARING TRANSCRIPT MAY 3, 2018 A regularly advertised hearing on the HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN was called to order at 11:15 a.m. in the County of Hawaii Aupuni Center Conference Room, 101 Pauahi Street, Hilo, Hawaii with Chairman Joseph Clarkson presiding. COMMISSIONERS PRESENT: Gilbert Aguinaldo, Joe Clarkson, Donald Ikeda, Myles Miyasato, Thomas Raffipiy, John Replogle. ABSENT & EXCUSED: Donn Dela Cruz. ALSO PRESENT: Michael Yee (Planning Director), Malia Ho Hall (Deputy Corporation Counsel for the Windward Planning Commission), Jeff Darrow (Planning Program Manager), Maija Jackson (Planner), Christian Kay (Planner), Bethany Morrison (Planner) (from 11:18 a.m. to 12:44 p.m.), Melissa Dacayanan (Planning Commission Support Technician) (to 12:25 p.m.), and Sarah Hata-Finley (Commission Secretary). And 29 members from the public in attendance. HAMAKUA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN On December 19, 2016, the Hamakua Community Development Plan (CDP) Steering Committee recommended approval of a revised version of the March 2016 draft Hamakua CDP. After reviewing agency comments, the Planning Director has recommended revisions to the CDP. Pursuant to Section 2-28.1 of the Hawaii County Code, within sixty days after receipt of the Planning Director's recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof, the Windward Planning Commission shall transmit the draft community development plan or any amendment with its recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council. Likewise, pursuant to Section 15.1 of the General Plan, the County Council may modify or amend the community development plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the Steering Committee and the Windward Planning Commission an opportunity to review and comment upon substantive amendments and modifications before final adoption of the plan. The purpose of this meeting and public hearing is to afford all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Hamakua CDP and for the Commission to review the CDP and consider its recommendation to the County Council. CLARKSON: Now, the next item on the agenda is the consideration of the Hamakua CDP. I'd like to find out how many in the audience are—oh. [Three minutes and 50 seconds lapsed. The Chair was waiting for staff to arrive.] Okay, we're going to start now with the Agenda Item No. 4 which I have been instructed to read in its entirety before Planning staff begin their presentation. 10V1111.11 11 On December 19, 2016, the Hamakua Community Development Plan (CDP) Steering Committee recommended approval of a revised version of the March 2016 draft Hamakua CDP. After reviewing agency comments, the Planning Director has recommended revisions to the CDP. Pursuant to Section 2-28.1 of the Hawaii County Code, within sixty days after receipt of the Planning Director's recommendation on a draft community development plan or any amendment thereof, the Windward Planning Commission shall transmit the draft community development plan or any amendment with its recommendation through the Mayor to the County Council. Likewise, pursuant to Section 15.1 of the General Plan, the County Council may modify or amend the community development plan before enacting it by ordinance, but it shall give the Steering Committee and Windward Planning Commission an opportunity to review and comment upon substantive amendments and modifications before final adoption of the plan. The purpose of this meeting and public hearing is to afford all interested persons a reasonable opportunity to comment on the Hamakua CDP and for the Commission to review the CDP and consider its recommendation to the County Council. Good enough? And, with that, Bethany, would you start the presentation on the CDP, please. MORRISON: Thank you, Chair Clarkson. Good morning, Planning Commissioners. My name is Bethany Morrison. I'm a long-range planner with our Planning [sic] Division in the Planning Department, and I was also part of the CDP project team. I also live in the planning area and am honored to present the Hamakua Community Development Plan to you today. I also want to acknowledge the Steering Committee members that are present today. We have Brad Kurokawa and Glenn Carvalho, and Farrah -Marie Gomes joining us as well. Thank you folks for your time and efforts today. For today's presentation, I'd like to provide you with an overview of what the Hamakua CDP includes. This will give you some context about community development plans, the purpose and scope of those plans, what the steering committees' roles are, the process—the planning process that we went through, the outputs of that process, as well as the Planning Director's Background and Recommendation. And, of course, I'll be happy to answer any questions you folks have. Before we get into the Hamakua Community Development Plan or CDP, I wanted to give you some context about the County's planning efforts. In 1971, the County adopted the first General Plan, and that is the long-range planning document for the County. It has been updated along the way, but it has had limited community engagement because it's really an island -wide scale plan. It doesn't get into the specifics of the community's needs. And, so starting in 2005, with the 2005 update to the General Plan, a new chapter was added calling for community development plans, and this was to engage community members into planning for their community. Community planning is very important to keep a balanced perspective, and we have already had four community development plans—actually five now adopted. Ka`u is the last one that was adopted last year. But, prior to that in 2008, we had the Kona, South Kohala, North Kohala, and Puna all adopted, and in the meantime, we started EXHIBIT D 2 working on Ka`u and Hamakua. So, we learned a lot through those first four CDP's and what their process was. And, so, we learned it's very important to keep this, this perspective and keep the local knowledge and all that the community have to offer to keep the plan grounded. Also, important to understand, the local planner's perspective to keep it practical. And, finally, use everything in the planner's toolbox for best practices on planning. It was very important that this be developed in a very open process. With more than just meetings, but really objective analysis and sharing of folks' perspectives. You'll notice that with Ka`u and Hamakua, we followed a very similar process and design, and so if you, Commissioners, were involved in the Ka`u adoption, you might recognize some of the content of the presentation today. We're really here to celebrate a community process. As I mentioned, it was very important to keep the community's perspective in mind when planning for what Hamakua really wanted. This was a highly participatory process. There was a diversity of community members that were engaged at every step of the way. With the Steering Committee, it was always very diverse and keeping in mind what Hamakua really wanted for their community. It was collaborative and involved consultants, community members, steering committee, County agencies, as well as the Planning Department, of course. And, it was systematic. It was built from foundations of community identity through community objectives and all the way through to actions to implement those objectives with the Steering Committee members making key decisions along the way. It was transparent. Everything was available that was being used to create the plan, either on-line or in our office. All the meetings for the Steering Committee were open, and folks could attend and provide testimony. The analysis and decision tools were available for review, and the rationale for all of the policies was documented. It involved a significant amount of vetting. The Steering Committee helped design the community's public review process, and they reviewed all the community input before making recommendations to the Planning Director. And, finally, those recommendations went through a thorough agency review as well. The foundation was very consistent. Each step of the process was grounded to the community objectives that were developed so that we could keep those in mind as we moved along in fact - based analysis and rationale. The Hamakua planning area includes the judicial districts of Hamakua, North Hilo, and a portion of the South Hilo District, and all of the lands in between. The purpose of the CDP is to implement the broad goals of the General Plan, serve as a community forum for input on services and facilities, direct land use, plan for natural resource protection, and direct public improvements. As I mentioned, we had a Steering Committee that really led this charge. The Steering Committee are volunteer members, much like yourselves today, who are broadly representative of the planning area. We had representation from Waipi`o, Honoka`a, Pa`auilo, `O`okala, EXHIBIT D 3 Honomu, Pepe`ekeo, and Papa`ikou. So, a very broad presentation of the community. And, these folks also have very different backgrounds. Again, just to keep a broad perspective of the community. The Steering Committee is an advisory County committee, advising the Planning Director to help produce a high quality CDP for the people of Hamakua. The role is to work with the Planning Department and professional consultants to assist in tailoring the planning process to the unique characteristics of Hamakua and the community and to promote the planning process within various sectors of the community to maximize participation while maintaining a neutral and approachable approach. And, finally, they also are to monitor the development of the CDP, always keeping in mind the interests of the Hamakua region as a whole. Therefore, the primary responsibility of the Hamakua CDP Steering Committee is to make sure the CDP truly reflects the will of the Hamakua community. And, again, thank you folks so much for your dedication and commitment to this process. Before the—the Hamakua CDP process was engaged, we really had to come up with a timeline to understand those key decision points that needed to be made and the different phases of the process. So, this first phase was really about identifying the vision of Hamakua. This was initiated in September 2009, and during this first phase, community members identified core community values and a vision of what they'd like to see for Hamakua in 2030. Based on record breaking community input, six key issues and priorities were identified: local economy, recreation, education, health care, `Hina, and public services. At the end of the first stage in 2011, the Steering Committee affirmed a values and vision statement that has since served as a compass guiding the planning process. `O ka mea kupono `Hina ka mea kupono kanaka. What is good for the land is good for the people. The next phase was to learn about Hamakua and to develop the community profile. This, again, required extensive community and stakeholder engagement through a series of sub -regional workshops. The Steering Committee integrated the values and vision statement with insights from that community profile and developed the community objectives. The Steering Committee established 13 community objectives which served as a foundation for the CDP. These objectives served as guiding stars for the strategy development and, in fact, all the strategies were designed to implement one or more of those objectives. In the third phase of the planning process, the working draft of the CDP was developed. The Steering Committee reviewed that draft, discussed it, and made recommendations for revisions. I will walk you through how the draft was developed, the types of policies you'll see in the draft, and what the CDP should be able to accomplish through implementation. EXHIBIT D 4 Each step in the CDP development builds on the previous steps. I've already mentioned how the values and vision statement was established. Next, the community objectives were developed from that statement, and finally, extensive research was conducted to identify the range of strategies that could be used to achieve those objectives. From those strategies, a combination of policies and actions were identified, that when implemented together will realize the community's vision for the future. There are four different types of policy and action strategies in the CDP. The General Plan already sets forth some very clear guidance about what is to be part of the community development plans. It provides regulatory actions, incentive measures, acquisition actions, capital budgeting actions, and programs. But, during the second round of CDP's, we recognized that we needed to even be more clear about what those strategies did. And, so we were careful to identify County land use policies and actions as well as kokua actions for other agencies to implement and community actions that really needed community leadership. The County actions provide the County with next step priorities such as Policy 39 which is calling for an amendment to the Zoning Code to establish inland cliff setbacks or a Policy 35 which is calling to develop and establish viewshed regulations. These would each require separate research and analysis to identify the specific strategies to be used and then that would need to go through a separate public review and hearing process. Please note that these actions are still labelled as policies in the plan. Next, we have the Land Use Policies, and these are what provide the guidance on land use decisions in the planning area. I'm going to describe those a little bit more detailed on the next slide. Kokua actions, as I mentioned, for Hamakua we recognized that most of the natural resources and infrastructure falls within other County or State jurisdictions, so it was very important to get them on board in this planning process. And, so these kokua actions identify priorities for those partner agencies to help us achieve community objectives. An example of that one is going to be Kokua Action 12, which asks for the Department of Land and Natural Resources to update the Hawaii stream assessment. And, finally, with community actions, as I mentioned, we were very careful to identify actions which are most appropriately to be led by the community, and although we would certainly support them in their efforts, they would be initiated by the community as well. And, as an example of community actions would be Community Action 33 that calls for the community to develop emergency response teams in the planning area. Okay, so land use policies. There's a little bit more information that I wanted to share on these for you folks today. There are basically two types of land use policies. Policy intent policies are guidance and express some desired goals or objectives to be achieved. An example of this type of policy is Policy 3, which states, in part, that smaller villages and towns are encouraged to develop neighborhood scale commercial uses. This is an intent, and it does not mandate them to do so. EXHIBIT D 5 The other type of functions of the land use policy are more mandatory and include the term, "shall." Even within these policy controls that are more mandatory, there are again a couple different types that I wanted to make note of today. One of those require certain land use decisions to be made. An example of this would be Policy 2, which limits which land use designation changes outside a designated urban growth boundary and within the Special Management Area could be made. That's very specific in that it requires a certain decision to be made. The other type of policy control is more requiring certain criteria to be used in that decision- making process but does not call out the decision exactly to be made from that. An example of that is Policy 32, which requires a viewshed analysis to be included as part of the environmental report for certain proposed changes of zones. This does not limit the approval of the change of zone specifically, but just requires that an additional analysis be done. It's also important to note that some land use policies in the CDP are reiterations of existing County policies that were needed to be maintained to achieve those community objectives, and those are noted as existing policies in the plan. Complete, sustainable, vibrant communities do three fundamental things. First, they protect the natural and cultural resources that are fundamental to the community. Second, they provide public facilities and services to residents and businesses. And, third, they grow local businesses to provide goods, services, and jobs. The Hamakua Community Development Plan when adopted will become a County policy document and a guide to other agencies in the community that serves as a road map to achieve those three ends. First, strategies in Section 4 of the CDP focus on protecting and enhancing Hamakua's rich heritage of natural and cultural resources including coastal areas, agricultural land, mauka forests, scenic resources, ecosystems, historic and cultural features as well as public access and trails. Four basic approaches are used in this section: land preservation, land use policy, governmental initiative, and collaborative action with landowners and non -profits. Second, Section 5 in the CDP prioritizes improvements and services such as housing, water and wastewater systems, roads, mass transit, emergency, and health services and facilities, waste management, parks and telecommunications. These improvements will require County and State, as well as community leadership. Third, Section 6 of the Hamakua CDP supports economic development in three ways. First, it establishes firm foundations for growth through the protections and improvements in Sections 4 and 5 by providing room for development in the land use section. Second, the CDP outlines strategic steps to seize sector specific market opportunities. And, third, the CDP provides a roadmap to guide coordinated, community -led economic development strategies. The land use policies in Section 3 of the CDP tie the environmental infrastructure and economic elements of the CDP together by clearly segregating protected areas, agricultural land, and structured settlement areas. EXHIBIT D 6 So, that was the draft of the CDP. The next phase was really to get that broader input from the community and stakeholders. They have the same opportunity to review the draft, and the Steering Committee used that input to make further revisions before it finalized the CDP. Oops, sorry—stakeholders were engaged through newsletters, bulletin boards, email, the CDP website, social media, focus discussions, and speak -out opportunities. During that community review, the draft was available for review in digital and print copies at various locations throughout the planning area. Feedback could be provided on line by email, fax, or mail. The Planning team also conducted three speak -outs which served as drop-in listening sessions. And, finally, the Planning team held focus discussions on coastal, Waipi`o Valley, agricultural, and strong town topics. This information was all then provided to the Steering Committee for their review. After their review, the Steering Committee provided their final recommendations on December 19, 2016. In order for them to review all of the community input that came in, the Steering Committee had facilitated discussions while maintaining an objective viewpoint. The Steering Committee was provided a summary of all the community input sorted by subject matter. They were provided the proposed minor edits, proposed revisions, and additions consistent with community objectives. And, finally, potential revisions on issues requiring Steering Committee deliberation. The facilitated discussions helped the Steering Committee with incremental affirmations at an appropriate pace because there was a lot of information to, to review. So, it was done incrementally until they were able to provide final recommendations. After the Steering Committee provided their recommendations for the CDP revisions and adoption, the Planning Director initiated an agency review after which the Planning Director recommended additional revisions to include pertinent agency feedback. The Department reached out to County agencies, relevant State and Federal agencies, as well as some private organizations. Generally, the agency comments were sorted into three categories. Some comments included non -substantive changes such as typographical errors or formatting inconsistencies. Some required substantive changes regarding recommendations for revisions on the CDP strategies. And, a third category was information that really was inconsistent with what the CDP's authority was where agencies might not have understood what was appropriate to be included in the CDP. Exhibit 3 of your document binders includes the revision summary, but it does not include revisions that were made to glossary edits or additions or format changes. It only includes those substantive changes. If you want to see all of the changes that were done, they are available from the track changes version linked on Page 13 of the Background and Recommendation report. After reviewing the comments, the CDP project team and the Planning Director saw additional opportunities for strengthening the CDP and subsequently recommended revisions to the CDP. EXHIBIT D 7 The Planning Director's recommendations refine language to provide clarifications in intent and implementation of the policies. For example, the recommendations changed "shall" to "should" for Policy 8. The changes in the verbiage were based on input from Corporation Counsel to provide clarity and not to be confused as mandates. Since the intent of Policy 8, which you can read in the rationale document in your binder, the intent was to encourage and incentivize clustering development as an existing planning tool and to provide some flexibility in site planning. So, because the intent was to encourage and incentivize, this was not a mandate and the recommendation would be then to remove the "shall" language. Similarly, the recommendations changed "shall" to "should" for Policy 22. Again, this was to provide clarity on the intent of the policy to provide guidance for preserving agricultural lands during the Planning Director's review of consolidation and resubdivision applications. This was to provide guidance again so that's why the language was changed from "shall" to "should." To summarize, the rationale for these changes was to clarify the distinction between policy intent and policy control which I explained previously in the presentation. The Director's recommendations also deleted policies that were made obsolete due to clarification or changes to the State law since the Steering Committee finalized the recommended draft. This included prohibiting cesspools, developing clustered rural subdivisions, and allowing farmers' markets on ag land. Finally, the Planning Director's recommendation added a new Policy 39 to develop inland cliff setbacks which was a policy gap noted during the agency review. Please note that this is a County action which as noted earlier would require separate research and analysis to identify the draft strategy that would need to go through another public review process. The CDP project team then provided the Planning Director's recommendations as an update and overview to the Steering Committee on February 26, 2018. The Steering Committee heard testimony from members of the public and had the opportunity to ask questions and engage in discussion. They discussed the recommended changes that I just outlined as well as some of the other non -substantive revisions that were presented. The draft minutes from that meeting have been included in your Exhibit 16 or you can read the specific discussions that were had. The Planning Director recommends a favorable recommendation from the Planning Commission including the recommended revisions based on agency review and recommendations, organizational improvements and language clarification. Your binders include the Recommendation, the Background Report that includes the CDP program, the plan elements, the planning process, and the CDP implementation that I have outlined today. And, your binders also include several exhibits. The first exhibit is the most important, that is the Hamakua Community Development Plan that would be adopted. Exhibit 2 is the strategy rationale for that document and so anytime we have a question about why a certain strategy was written a certain way, you can refer to the rationale for that discussion. Exhibit 3 is the revision summary and the remaining exhibits are comments that were received. 10V1111.11 11 The next up for the document would be after your recommendation is made, it would be forwarded to the County Council for review and decisions. That concludes my presentation. CLARKSON: Thank you very much. Commissioners, are there any specific questions for Ms. Morrison? If not, at this time—thank you, Bethany—we'll begin with public testimony. Before I do that, though, for the record, I would like to note that I talked to Commissioner Aguinaldo, and he has had a chance and has read the transcript from the April 12' meeting. At this time, we're going to begin our public testimony. We have 20 signed up. We're going to limit testimony to three minutes a piece except perhaps for Steering Committee members, who I'm going to ask come up first and give the Commission their reactions to the final draft CDP and then we'll proceed with general public testimony. If you haven't signed up already, please do so, if you intend to testify, please do so near the front door. So, at this time, I'd like to ask however many of the Steering Committee are present and wish to testify to please come forward and take a seat at the table in front of the Commission. Two of you? Would you raise your right hands, please? Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission? KUROKAWA/GOMES: I do. CLARKSON: Thank you. GOMES: Good morning, Windward Planning Commission. Farrah -Marie Gomes, Vice -Chair for the Hamakua Community Development Plan Steering Committee. I do not have additional testimony to provide today. I do want to say that I need to leave at 12:30, so if there are any questions of this Planning Commission, I would be more than happy to answer them at this time. KUROKAWA: I'm Brad, Brad—is it on? Brad Kurokawa, Chair of the Steering Committee, and not a whole lot to add. Most of you were present at the last Planning Commission meeting, and I'd just like to say just to reiterate that I'm really proud of the Steering Committee and the Planning Department and the process that we went through. It was a very thorough and transparent one, and we listened. I think we listened to the community's voices, and have put forth a draft that we hope that you will move ahead. It's been a long haul of over nine years, and we're ready to get on with implementation. So, again, thank you very much for your opportunity, the opportunity to testify. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any specific questions for these testifiers? No? Okay, thank you. Be seated. At this time, I would like to call up the first four members of the public to testify. Steven Shropshire, Dwight Vicente, Michael Johnson, and David Longacre. Once again, please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Commission? TESTIFIERS: I do/yes. [Mr. Vicente did not respond.] EXHIBIT D 9 CLARKSON: Thank you. We'll proceed. Please on this end, please speak into the microphone. Identify yourself and where you reside and then proceed with your no more than three-minute testimony. JOHNSON: Okay. You can hear, okay? Hi, my name is Michael Johnson. I live in Hakalau on the Hamakua Coast. I'm a farmer. The name of the farm is Ono Gardens. And, my testimony is around zoning of Hakalau Point and changing that zoning from Industrial residential to Open lands, and I recommend that we keep it the way it is as Industrial and Open lands and also the land down in the valley is zoned Conservation. I would like to see that changed to Ag, Agriculture. The plan is to have agricultural demo gardens, demonstrating the Hawaiian plants in that area so changing it from Conservation to Ag will help further that. My desire and my vision for the Point is to see it continued as industry as it has been for centuries. The Hawaiians used that land as their center of commerce for centuries and trading and bartering. That was downtown in their culture. Then, it was sugar cane from 1876 to 1974, I think it was. It was the center of sugar cane industry. I'd like to see it continue in this vein to honor the desires and guides of the community objectives put forth in this plan. The land is currently in the State designated as Urban, and the County it's designated as General Industrial. And, the community objectives are to promote, preserve, and enhance a diverse, sustainable local economy. Changing it to Open lands will not do this. The objective number 9 is to encourage the increase and diversity of employment, and changing it to Open lands does not do that. The Objective Number 42 develops a distinctive identify for the Hamakua region to enable public and private industries. Changing this to Open lands does not do that. Page 87 Strengthening Local Agriculture. This section of the CDP guides efforts to strengthen the local ag value, agricultural parks, diversified ag based businesses, and ag tourism. I took a survey and had a petition signed by over 72 local people that want to see it remain Industrial, and I asked people what they wanted to see happen at Hakalau Point, and the number one thing they wanted to have happen was ag tourism. The number two thing was food production, food processing, which it currently does. It processes potatoes; it processes ginger; it can process coffee beans and so on. So, the process to turn it to Open lands was a corrupted process, and it was brought up in a vote without alerting the public, and it was voted on for meetings after that, for months after that until the, it was an unanimous vote. And, I protested that vote, and many people protested that vote to turn it from Industrial residential to Open lands and get rid of the Industrial zoning all together. We were told that this wasn't about zoning, but it's all about zoning. It's all about what the future use of this land will be, and what is good for the land is good for the people, and this land has always been used for centuries to benefit the people's local economy. And, I'd like to see it remain that. CLARKSON: Thank you. Please proceed. LONGACRE: Okay, I'm David Longacre, and I live in Hakalau up Chin Chuck Road. I'm a farmer and aexcuse me, a reforester, and you know, my take is that the CDP that's been presented is generally a really good document, and I think that those who helped craft it really deserve a lot of kudos, but it does contain some serious contradictions in one of its most EXHIBIT D 10 important objectives which is the support of agriculture. And, in particular, Paragraph 4.5.4 asks the County to develop viewshed regulations, and it's followed by Paragraph 4.5.6 which seeks to discourage what it refers to as tall, vegetative windbreaks. And, you know, I can't find anything in the CDP that contains any real clear definition of what these viewsheds or viewscapes are nor how enhancement or protection of them meshes with factors such as ag zoning, private property rights, State law, State statutes, or the protection of watershed ecosystems, which is something the CDP itself calls for. And, so these paragraphs that I cited, in my opinion, I think they have set the stage for some kind of zoning overlay or zoning change that could severely restrict current as -of -right ag land uses. And, I think to take away a right is not something that most citizens or legislators should view lightly. And, on top of that, Hawaii Revised Statutes 165, the State's Right to Farm Statute, was crafted to protect farmers from the very pressures that something like a viewshed regulation seeks to impose. The fact is that the language about viewsheds or viewscapes, it's too broad, it's too permissive, and opening the door to sweeping legislation to impose significant restrictions on ag land use. Who is going to decide which viewscape or which viewshed requires protection? In other words, restricting what landowners, in the line of sight of that particular viewshed, can do with their land. And, recognize, restriction of private land uses in favor of viewsheds could be challenged as a government taking, and people could ask for compensation. My point is that attempts to weaken ag land use rights, will be opposed, and that farm from being a community document that supports community, this could support community division, and it could end up in some sort of debate pitting neighbor against neighbor with nasty, bitter divisiveness, kind of similar to what happened with that ag—ag lands rooster debate. And, I should add, too, people like me who have this perspective, we're not killjoy ogres. I love looking at the ocean and mountains, but I also recognize as a farmer and forester that sometimes what you do on ag lands doesn't always accommodate the desire of say a homeowner or a home renter to have an unobstructed view of some distant site like the ocean or the mountain. And, in the end, I feel that if there has to be some language in the CDP about protecting views, only a restricted version that withstands legal scrutiny should be offered such as perhaps protecting views of the ocean from identified public viewing areas adjacent to or makai of the Belt Road. And, that's why I call upon you folks. Please in your wisdom, demand the moderation of this damaging language and resolve these flaws now. Don't kick it down to the County Council. Thank you. VICENTE: My name is Dwight Vicente representing the Hawaiian Kingdom. For the record, I—this statement is not a sworn statement. The CDP is based on the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. These are not public lands. These are either Crown or Government lands, and the history of the application of the Northwest Ordinance goes back to the 1875 Reciprocity Treaty between the Hawaiian Kingdom and the United States. For the record, the United States is only 13 states under Article 1, Section 2, Clause 3. There is no amendment, so there is no State of Hawaii. In the limits of the Northwest EXHIBIT D 11 Ordinance and the U.S. Constitution is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2. One can read Sai vs. Clinton, 2011. The land speculation the Kingdom did not allow because of the native tenant rights involved. Lands was only leased out, and if you look at the history, the lease is about to end in the early 1920's, so when they create—the U.S. Congress illegally created the Hawaiian Homes Commission Act. It only, it was limited to 1.8 million acres. The rest of the lands was left out because they had plans on claiming they owned the lands and that's, that's why it's left out. So, in the 1959 Admission Act, you can read that the fake State of Hawaii was given 1.8 million acres only. Limited. Not beyond that. So, a lot of lands was left out. But, anyway, the Admission Act is based on the Northwest Ordinance. Every element of it is based on that. So, the lands are still Crown and Government lands. We're still in the jurisdiction of the Hawaiian Kingdom. There's no State of Hawaii. The courts here are kangaroo courts based on that. They cannot make decisions over the Northwest Ordinance. The Northwest Ordinance is limited to the courts in Washington D.C. only. They are the only courts that have jurisdiction over the Northwest Ordinance and the U.S. Constitution question over the treaty, the Reciprocity Treaty. So, with that, I'll end with the reservation of the rights of this Kingdom under the Queen's protest of January 7, 1893 against U. S. Minister Stevens, as he has to make his way to the U.S. Supreme Court, Article 3, Section 2, Clause 2, original but limited jurisdiction only over U.S. Minister Stevens. The other question is whether the U.S. can extend the Article Five of the Northwest Ordinance which is Article 4, Section 3, Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution beyond the limits to include the Hawaiian Kingdom and beyond. Thank you. SHROPSHIRE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Steve Shropshire. I reside in Papa`ikou, and I'm the owner of Hakalau Point, which is an approximately 8 -acre parcel of land makai of the highway. It's the same piece of property that was referenced to earlier. I'm a fourth generation farmer. I spent my entire life in the ag industry. I currently have farms here that we have ornamental plants, tropical fruit, and other cattle operations, so I'm very vested in farming and agriculture. I purchased this piece of property roughly 15 years ago, and I bought it, and I've invested millions of dollars in this property. I bought it because it'sI felt it was a very unique opportunity. It represents one-tenth of one percent of the available Industrial land that's on this island. It's a very rare commodity. I started participating in the Hamakua CDP with my son. I attended over 20 meetings. As you heard earlier, it's a seven-year process. We contributed. We provided input, and we were very excited about our ability to use our property and make it available to really help to fill the goals and visions of the Hamakua CDP which includes promoting, preserving a sustainable diverse economy, local economy, a lot about supporting agriculture and ag-tourism, sustainable agriculture, farming, ranching, revitalizing retail services, dining. Hakalau was once a thriving EXHIBIT D 12 community. There were over 2,000 people that lived there. People tend to forget that, so I always talk about redeveloping Hakalau, not developing Hakalau. Unfortunately, what happened during this process is that after we participated in several meetings, there was a—the community by the way voted, vetted this process, and there were, it was a variation of the land use maps that were selected that all included the property's current zoning which was a mix of Industrial, Residential, and Open space. So, although these four choices varied in the way they were laid out, it was consistent. That's what the Hamakua community wanted. At the last minute, the Steering Committee voted to strip the zoning in the land use policy maps to Open. That motion was made by the chairman, Brad Kurokawa, who is actually the architect, landscape architect of the proposed park, which you're going to hear about later. Basically, what I want to say is, you know, this is not right. It's not pono. It's not legal, and I'm going to, you know, I'm definitely going to defend myself. You're private property owners. Why don't we take Wainaku Center? What's next? Why don't we take your property? Your home? Your business? This is not good land use policy, and this is what, you know, you're put here to do, is make these decisions on behalf of the community, and I strongly urge you, I beg you to really take a rational look at this because taking people's private property rights away amounts to taking, and this is a taking because there's no other word for it, and I'm going to defend myself. I've already spent twenty some thousand dollars defending myself. It's crazy. I'm trying to do what's right for the community and what's right for this plan. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you. Are there any questions for these testifiers from the Commission? I have a question for staff because it was brought upI guess if there are no questions for you folks you may be seated. Thank you. There was a lot of discussion in this testimony about the change in the LUPAG designation from, to Open. I just want to get a clarification as to how the CDP affects existing zoned designations, whether these actually immediately overwrite them or whether these are advisory to the Council in making possible zone changes. KAY: I'm actually going to have Bethany address that if it's okay with you, Mr. Chair. MORRISON: Thank you for that question, Mr. Chair. In reference to that, I think the best way to look at that would be through the rationale document that's provided in your Exhibit 2, and if you look at policy—the policy that's recommending several LUPAG amendments. Let me see, let me find the page number for you. KAY: Page 30. MORRISON: Thank you, Page 30. So, this specifically talks about the Hakalau Land Use Guide Map, and if you don't mind, I can just read from this Chair Clarkson. This is the rationale for that change. The Hakalau and Wailea communities are inexorably linked together in identity by geographically, but geographically divided by Highway 19. Both are traditional plantation towns surrounded by working agriculture with historic buildings on both side of Highway 19. EXHIBIT D 13 For the Hakalau coastal area, the CDP land use guide map designates the current LUPAG Industrial area to be designated as LUPAG Open to convey the preferred land use for that area. Currently, the LUPAG Industrial designation stretches across multiple parcels, including a County -owned parcel and several residential parcels. There are three shoreline parcels with County Industrial zoning, one of which is owned by the County and contains the steep gulch and Hakalau Beach Park area, and the other two are privately owned and possibly intended for redevelopment. Note: While the CDP recommends changing the designation for these parcels to LUPAG Open, the land maintains its underlying Industrial zoning and its associated permitted uses. The CDP does not have authority to change zoning. Due to the site's proximity to the ocean and Hakalau Stream, this parcel is no longer seen as ideal for heavy industry; and therefore, the proposed designation conveys that the County Planning Department would likely support a zoning change to a less intensive use such as the LUPAG Open. The designation of LUPAG Open was chosen as the community's preference after lengthy discussions relating to protecting coastal resources, viewshed preservation, and a desire for preserving open space. The Low Density Urban designation is made to better align the State Land Use Urban designation and to move the LUPAG Urban designations away from the agricultural lands along Highway 19. Considering the infill potential with current land use designations, there is adequate development potential in the Wailea/Hakalau area to accommodate the anticipated growth without further encroachment into working agricultural lands. The Medium Density Urban area in Hakalau is removed and designated as LUPAG Low Density Urban. Since there are existing nodes of commercially zoned parcels in Hakalau and Wailea, it is not necessary to maintain the LUPAG designations for the types of density or uses that the LUPAG Medium Density Urban would allow. Again, while the CDP does not change the underlying State Land Use District or County Zoning, it is the County's preferred land use for these towns to be revitalized at an appropriate scale to their surroundings, and the LUPAG Medium Density Urban designation is now seen as an excessive approach to small town development goals. In summary, the proposed changes for Hakalau effectively shrink the LUPAG Low Density Urban away from Highway 19 and the larger lot agricultural areas, and clearly define the town's urban border. They remove the LUPAG Industrial designation along with coastal area, and they remove the Medium Density Urban designations to ensure that commercial development at the appropriate scale for the character and population of the town. Note, the CDP land use guide designations reflect the County's preferred land use for specific areas, but the CDP does not change the General Plan LUPAG map, the underlying State Land Use District, or County zoning. Even if the CDP land use guide map recommendations are incorporated into the LUPAG, a property owner may still need to go through a State Land Use Boundary Amendment and/or a County zoning process to ultimately obtain a land use consistent with this designation. However, due to the water system constraints in the planning area, County water system improvements may be required for a Change of Zone due to concurrency rules. In EXHIBIT D 14 other words, a CDP land use guide designation or a LUPAG designation does not automatically grant a type of land use. It merely conveys that the County Planning Department would likely support this type of land use through a Change of Zone and a State Land Use Amendment if all other requirements have been met. CLARKSON: Okay, thank you. So, now it's clear to me, and I hope to the Commission that the adoption of this development plan, community development plan, does not actually change any zoning for any land parcel in Hamakua. Okay. JOHNSON (from audience): It's your recommendation. CLARKSON: Yes, it's a—it's the expressed preference of the community. JOHNSON (from audience): It carries a lot of weight. CLARKSON: I'd like to begin again with public testimony. Thank you, Bethany. MORRISON: Thank you, Chair. CLARKSON: Robert Nishimoto, Dana—let me get my glassesSusina, Barry Stanturf, and James Kallman, please come forward. Okay, who is HALL: What's your name sir? NISHIMOTO: Robert Nishimoto. HALL: That's Robert. Dana and Robert are here. CLARKSON: Okay. They're here. Barry and James are not here. Then, I will call up Jennifer Weinert and James Friday. Please raise your right hands. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: Yes. CLARKSON: They all agreed. Please start, sir. Identify yourself and speak into the microphone with your NISHIMOTO: —Are we on? Can you hear me? Good morning, my name is Robert Nishimoto. I live in Ninole. I'm a retired program manager for the Department of Land and Natural Resources, Division of Aquatic Resources. I have a PhD in marine biology. I'm also an adjunct faculty at University of Hawaii at Hilo. Our grandson is the fifth generation in Ninole, so we've grown up all out lives at Mile Marker No. 19.6. I fully support acceptance of the Hamakua CDP because as Brad as leader, really, really convinced me when he said, "what's good for the land is good for the people." This comes from someone whose really grown up and lived at the Hamakua Coast. EXHIBIT D 15 I'd like to also thank the Steering Committee. They are very kind, very transparent, and very open and willing to discuss all issues. Again, thank you. What I'd like to focus on is to support revised Policy No. 18 which says shoreline and building setbacks for environmental health and safety are priorities. I've given you a handout. The first page is an outline of my presentation. I hope you have it right there. You got it? And, the second page is a picture of Hakalau Bay at Mile Marker 16. If you look at that picture, look at that insert, January 2015, there was a huge landslide in front of somebody's property. I was out there fishing two weeks ago, and look at that picture on April 2018. Nothing has healed. Once a landslide happens, it's forever. Its forever, obliterates people talk about land rights. I understand that. But, is this landowner going to clean up this? This is really a trust resource. This is our resources. I've cut an ace that nobody's willing to clean this trash up, but this habitat is gone and lost forever. Therefore, it's very critical, I think, the shoreline and setback should be very, very seriously considered. This is nothing to deal with, to play with. The second handout, I wrote about a story called, "The Lonely Life of a Hamakua `Opihi." Those of you who like `opihi as food or those of you who consider it as a natural resource heritage, please read this article. I think it's trying to explain to everyone what it means to all of us. Lastly, I'd like to say the, I'd like to encourage the continuation of a working relation with UHH, Hilo has created a group called a manager climate corporation. It's a collaboration between managers, County in this example and academics at UH Hilo, to develop adaptive capacity resealing with climate change impacts. I'd like to specifically praise the collaboration between Dr. Peroy for UH Hilo and your own Bethany Morrison from the Planning Department for guiding Rose Hart, a graduate student who did a great work on documenting historical and present cliff rate erosions. What it really does for me, it gives us a level playing field. As planning agencies, you always hear this crying about local jobs. It's about local jobs, local jobs, but nobody stands up for environmental issues. This is our heritage. This is, once it's destroyed, it's destroyed. Think about that. Okay, we're not—we're not telling no development. Just be cautious, okay? So, it provides that level playing field so again, I'd like, as a planning division, we have our own backyard expertise. Please encourage this collaboration to go forward because it really helps us in our decision-making. Thank you. FRIDAY: Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity to testify. I'm J. B. Friday. I'm a resident of Hilo. I'm a professional forester. I work with the University of Hawaii, but today, I'm testifying on my own behalf, not on the behalf of the University. This is a great plan. It's tried to incorporate a lot of stuff trying to balance a lot of issues as more and more people move up to the Hamakua Coast. One concern I did have from it I want to bring out again is the discussion of viewplanes. As people move up, they build their lovely house up on the hill, then they start talking about what their neighbors are allowed to do. EXHIBIT D 16 As a forester, I love trees. I think trees are a good thing. I work with people planting trees both on an industrial basis and on a small but commercial basis of people planting trees. But, I also want to speak up for the farmers. Much of the land on Hamakua is very windy. Windbreaks are necessary for productive farms. I know that you cite frequently Natural Resources Conservation Service in the document. They very much promote windbreaks for protecting your farms. So, I have a concern about the viewplanes and how that could adversely affect the working landscape. In particular, singling out windbreaks is a technology that you will steer people away from. I don't think that's appropriate. I'd like to see that taken out of there. I think for the viewsheds for scenic lookouts and getting the County to maintain scenic lookouts to provide viewsheds, that's a positive thing I think you can do, as far as the viewsheds go. Other points that jumped out at me from this plan was working with the Big Island Invasive Species Committee. I'm on the advisory council for the Big Island Invasive Species. Really positive to work on with BIISC on all the issues that BIISC is working on. Working with the Plant Pono thing to encourage planting non-invasive, non-native and native plants with planting things, I appreciate the call out for protection of our forest from Rapid `Ohi` a Death, one of the main things that I'm working on. I appreciate the Little Fire Ants—Little Fire Ants to me are the biggest threat that we have on the island from being able to enjoy our forests and our farms. And, I appreciate also the discussion of working with the Mauna Kea Watershed Alliance. I think the Watershed Alliance is a great forum for coming together to manage the land. Thank you very much. CLARKSON: Thank you. Will the next testifier please introduce yourself and proceed. SUSINA: Good morning, if it's still morning. My name is Dana Susina. I am a resident of Hakalau on Hanamalo Loop down in the Hakalau Plantation Village. My husband and I are homeowners there and have just lived there since October, so this is kind of our first viewing of the document and how it's going to affect us and our community. We wanted to express our support of the document generally, but we do have a few concerns. One specifically that will affect us and Hakalau is the recommendation of the Hakalau Point to become designated as Open zoning rather than the current Industrial residential use. We would support it remaining Industrial residential and to facilitate Mr. Shropshire in his planned development. We see it as a fantastic opportunity and for community development and really community cohesiveness. We are frequent visitors of the Papa`aloa Country Store and Cafe and see that as a beautiful shining light of what a small community economy can become, and we think that the Point project has a lot of positive aspects that do jive well with the current visions of the Hamakua Community Development Plan including supporting local economy, rural agricultural tourism, and revitalizing that retail service, dining, and entertainment center within the Hakalau community. And, thank you so much for listening to my testimony. EXHIBIT D 17 WEINERT: Aloha, my name is Jennifer Weinert, and I'm speaking from my heart in asking that you please accept the CDP as written. It is a reflection of the community, of the community's well over nine years it took to compile it. Many, many meetings. Many, many, much input from the community. I feel that as you do accept it as written that you will be enacting harmony as opposed to division. I feel that if you listen to one person, one developer that wants to do something that none of the community wants, very few of the community wants, that you're going to cause huge division within our community. I do live in Papa`ikou between Papa`ikou and Pepe`ekeo, and I feel very strongly that I'd like to keep Hamakua as its intended by the people that live there now. People that live there. When people that say that live in Papa`ikou but really don't live in Papa`ikou? Mm -mm, no. So, thank you for voting and enacting the will of our community. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. Commissioners, any questions for these testifiers? If not, thank you for your testimony. Please be seated, and we'll call up four more. Joe Guo, Elizabeth Hansen, Akiko Masuda, Dan Kelly? Okay, Pam Elders? Please raise your right hands. Do you all swear or affirm that you will tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? GUO/HANSEN/ELDERS: Yes. MASUDA: Yes, I do. CLARKSON: Please, sir, if you would begin. GUO: Good morning, yes. My name is Joe Guo. I live in Hakalau about 20 years. I'm a farmer, actually sweet potato farmer. I know recent 10 years potato farmers in the Hakalau area, got it good, developing. As in total for Hamakua side, we got about a yearly, about a thousand acres, potatoes growing. [Inaudible] most market is mainland we ship, mainland is about 80 percent. Even now, we're shipping to the mainland market about each week about eight, 40 -foot containers now, some for locals. So, I really support the Hakalau, this business for keep for industry processing plant—no, now our potatoes will be shipped to mainland all for fresh market. We need and looking for different market, too, not only for fresh market. Sometime, if get same time, get a lot farmers harvest, yeah? We wait for the flat market. So, we looking for processing plant to different food for shipping out, so I'm really support business, industry on the processing. Anything for processing plant. Thank you so much. MASUDA: I remember you hard worker. Aloha, my name is Akiko Masuda. I am the owner of Akiko's Buddhist Bed and Breakfast in Wailea, and I would like and request that you accept the CDP as presented. Just a few very simple stories. I don't have any degrees or anything fancy like that, but I've lived in Wailea now for 27 years so I've had a chance to meet our kupuna, our elders, and be with them when they crossed over to the pure land. When I first came to Wailea and lived there, I was encouraged to go to the kumiai picnic, and we still have a kumiai by the way. And, when I went to the kumiai picnic in 1991, it was down at Kolekole Park. There must have been three tables like this loaded with food, and there was namasu and nishime and sushi and pancit and laulau and potato salad, and you go on and on, and EXHIBIT D 18 another two tables loaded with desserts. And, most of the community at that time were local, mostly Japanese, but it was mixture, Japanese, Filipino, Chinese, some Hawaiian, and at least 70 people. And, maybe after eight years of going to kumiai, it was always on the last Sunday of July, one of the grandmas, Grandma Chinen, and she doesn't say too much, she just makes a really good nishime and great potato salad, she came up to me and she said, "Akiko-san, look, you see that boy over there." I saw him and he brought potato chips and dip, and look him now. He's loading his plate with all kine food and when go home time, he took plenty food with him. That's not right. So, one of the things I learned right away is I had to speak about values, so I went up to the boy and I just said, "You know, in Hawaii, generosity is a virtue. You bring plenty. Plenty food. Whatever you have, but bring plenty, and you share so everybody can take home and everybody has a good time." Thank you. All right, one minute left. [Referring to the time she had left to testify.] So, it's my prayerI am not against development, but I would like very, very much to see that the people come in here and live in Hakalau settle. They don't buy a house and flip it or try to raise the value up, because most of my local friends cannot afford to live in Hakalau. I think I'm a near extinct breed there. There's not too many of us left, and I'm trying to find my own way so I don't grieve to death crying for my, our local people, is to purchase some land, little bit land, so I can provide housing and some work for two local families before I die. And, I really hope Planning Commission or whatever keeps in mind that Hawaii is for our people, local people, and new residents, but we have to find ways to come with aloha and not just build big mega places. Mahalo plenty. HANSEN: Hello, my name is Elizabeth Hansen, and my mailing address is Hakalau. I live about 4.5 miles away from the Hakalau Point, so first I just wanted to address that. I was very concerned when I first moved here. My son, who is an environmentalist, said to me, "well, mother, when you move here, you have to make sure you take care of the `aina." You have to go to all these meetings which I've tried to go to for the last six years, so I really respect all the things that have been happening, and I really hope that you as the Commission support this plan which I think has been very well developed and has a lot of community input. One of the concerns when we talk about Hakalau Point is that at the first thing that anybody will tell you it was an industrial area and it's loaded with arsenic. So, one always has to be very careful with what he's doing when it's near the major setback for the ocean, and I just want to thank you for your support and hope you do support this program. ELDERS: Good afternoon, Commissioners. My name is Pam Elders. I live in Laupahoehoe. You have a very tough job. I can see that. You, part of your responsibility is to weigh the multiple land use issues that have, of course, come up in any community development plan and the conflicts that arise from that. The CDP that you have before you is the product of a nine-year community based process of consensus. All stakeholders have had ample opportunity to try to convince everyone else of the rationale of their proposals all along the way through nine years. And, of course, as in any process, there are those who think that their interests are not being heard or served by the decisions that ultimately come out of that process. EXHIBIT D 19 That being said, I think the overwhelming consideration of the community process was to the extent possible preservation of natural resources and agriculture. There was little support for more development which would exacerbate existing use conflicts, and you've heard those throughout this process. I ask that you give due consideration and weight to the results of this process that you've heard today and to uphold the plan as it is. The arguments about viewsheds, additional setbacks, and development at Hakalau Point have been repeatedly vetted, discussed, argued about, and ultimately not thank you ultimately not affirmed by this process and the goals and visions that the community set out in the beginning. I hope that you will not heed sour grapes, threats, or promises when you consider this plan and vote to pass it along for approval. Thank you. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. Are there any questions for these testifiers? Thank you. You may be seated. And, we'll call up our last group of people for public testimony. John Kaye, June Kaye, Susan Forbes, and Ken Forbes. This will be our last group unless there are people that still wish to sign up to testify. If so, please do so near the front door. Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth on this matter before the Planning Commission today? TESTIFIERS: I do/yes. CLARKSON: All agreed. If you would start, ma'am, please. JUNE KAYE: I'm June Kaye. I live in Hakalau right across from the subject property, and I am here to thank all of the participants over these eight or nine years for working hard to produce this document, and I encourage you to pass it the way it is. There's been many, many, many opportunities to discuss every side of every issue, and that's my position. That I just wanted to encourage you to pass that. Thank you. JOHN KAYE: My name is John Kaye, and I also live in the same house as June Kaye, across the street. We've been working on the CDP for about six years, and we came from the mainland, and I was shocked that there was this whole process going on. I've never seen this on the mainland. I was really impressed. I still am. That people listen to the people who live there when it comes to major planning. I hadn't seen this before. Usually you leave it in the hands of experts, the planners, but to give the actual people who live there a say was an amazing idea to me. So, we went to all these CDP meetings, and we put our input in, and we listened to others and so on. It's been going on a long time, and one of the things, of course, that's come up is this particular parcel of land at Hakalau Point. The Hamakua CDP makes it very clear, the General Plan makes it very clear that what the community wanted was the idea to preserve the coastline. The Hamakua Coast is one of the most beautiful places on the face of the Earth and everybody knows it. And, tourists, when they drive down, they've never seen anything that looks like that with the ocean views and the beauty and so on. So, it made sense to preserve it. It made sense, EXHIBIT D 20 and when the Hamakua CDP says things like the objectives are to encourage development so that they are not coastal dependent to move somewhere else, that makes perfect sense because you have this resource. It also made sense to just protect the views, protect the beauty of it, and all of that. So, what happens is this one parcel of land that we all know about has been very controversial in the sense that the community wants to try to protect that land as much as we can as long as we can. And, that's what's been going on. So, again, I think the Steering Committee did an incredibly fantastic job of patience and everything else to weigh this thing out. I think the CDP makes perfect sense the way it is, and the only thing that bothers me is some of the comments that you will hear about threats—again, this has been brought up a couple times. We won't stand for this; we won't stand for that. And, you know, I just think you need to understand that the developer in this particular case bought it as Industrial. He bought in a Special Management Area. He keeps it in a Special Management Area. He keeps it Industrial. Nothing changes. Nothing changes for him, and that's the way it is. Thank you. K. FORBES: Hi. I'm Ken Forbes from Hakalau. I had a little more here, but I think I can cut it down for you. I just wanted to make one point just to reinforce a lot that has been said at this table. As you know the PONC commission is charged with prioritizing an island -wide list of lands worthy of preservation from development. That's their whole purpose, and the Commission rated Hakalau Point highly, and the County Council voted to make an offer to purchase. The purchase didn't work out, and I have no problem with that. That just didn't work out, but my point is that the commission's finding and this community view that we're presenting to you is saying much the same thing. This is property that's worthy of preservation, and the petitions on Hakalau Point done at the time indicated that as well, about 600. Thank you. S. FORBES: I'll be very brief. This is our 42nd meeting dealing with the Hamakua Community Development Plan. We've looked at issues from all sides and heard many, many views and worked out hard points. There has been great consistency over time. I've said that before. I would just say one of the things that we took into account was Hawaii State laws as it relates to Coastal Zone Management, and I know you've heard a special presentation on that, but there is a particular section under program objectives and policies. It says encourage those developments that are not coastal dependent to locate in inland areas, and that's what we've been seeking related to Hakalau Point and other coastal areas. So, that's all I have to say, and I thank you all for your attention to this. CLARKSON: Thank you, all. Are there any questions of these testifiers from any Commissioner? If not, thank you. Please be seated. I just want to remind everyone that this isn't the last chance for you to testify. From here, whatever comes out of this meeting today, hearing today, it would go to the County Council for their consideration. You can all make your case again before the Council, and then at subsequent hearings on SMA's, rezones, so I'm going to assure you that there's plenty of opportunity to make you case whichever way you feel about EXHIBIT D 21 the property within this Hamakua CDP. And, if there are no further testimony from new testifiers, I would ask for a motion for closing of public testimony. REPLOGLE: I move that we close public testimony. IKEDA: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded that we close public testimony at this time. All those in favor? COMMISSIONERS: Aye. CLARKSON: Opposed? Motion carries. Would staff like to respond to any of the public testimony or make any further clarifications as to the process? MORRISON: [Shook head to indicate no.] CLARKSON: If not, we need a motion for action. REPLOGLE: I move that a favorable recommendation be forwarded to the County Council on the Hamakua Community Development Plan based on the Planning Director's recommendation, recommended amendments, findings, which shall be adopted. IKEDA: Second. CLARKSON: It's been moved and seconded. Christian, would you take the vote, please? KAY: Yes, thank you, Mr. Chair. Commissioner Replogle? REPLOGLE: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Ikeda? IKEDA: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Aguinaldo? AGUINALDO: Aye. KAY: Commissioner Dela pardon me—Commissioner Raffipiy? RAFFIPIY: Aye. KAY: And Chair Clarkson. CLARKSON: Aye. EXHIBIT D 22 KAY: Thank you. Motion carries five, nothing. The discussion ended at 12:44 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Sarah Y. Hata-Finley, Secretary Windward Planning Commission 23 I0V1111.11 11