Growth Mgmt Mission Statement Discussion

[peteadams]

Mission

In accordance with the Puna Community Development Plan the mission of the Land Use/Growth Management working group is to provide recommendations to Hawaii County regarding land use in order to manage the large projected population growth in Puna in the near future. The broad goals in our recommendations are to retain Puna's rural and agricultural character, preserve and improve the quality of the natural environment and provide high standards of livability and economic opportunity for its residents.

Discussion

The working group understands that significant population increase in Puna is nearly inevitable. The purpose of our recommendations is to manage the population increase with respect to where it is located (e.g., density) and how it is supported by infrastructure at the residential level as well as the county infrastructure level. We are preparing for the day when Puna is "filled up." That is, when nearly all land parcels in Puna are occupied under whatever zoning regimes exist between now and then. What will the "look and feel" of Puna be then? Will it be many small house lots with houses less than a hundred feet apart everywhere (the side of a square 7500 square foot house lot is about 87 feet)? Or will it be a relatively dispersed population with several intensively developed areas? The vision of the Growth Management working group is for the latter outcome which is consistent with most of the "'aina-malama" and other comments received by the county.

In order to establish a basic direction our recommendations are further grounded in the three goals expressed in Hawaii County's 2005 General Plan, section 14.1.2. These goals are next discussed in the context of growth management and specific policies and standards, as described in section 14.1.3,4, are noted in our specific recommendations.

(a) Designate and allocate land uses in appropriate proportions and mix and in keeping with the social, cultural and physical environments of the County.

Many, many of the specific comments solicited in previous community meetings called for maintenance of a rural and agricultural character in most of Puna. Very few advocated significantly increased development and then typically in already developed areas, such as more job and shopping opportunities. Our working group believes a rural and agricultural character should be maintained. While agriculture will be further discussed, it should be noted here that our concept of "rural" is essentially a low density of residential dwellings or no dwellings at all. Therefore, throughout our recommendations we specify a five acre minimum parcel in many areas of concern that touch upon population density. Also, in accordance with this goal, we provide recommendations for areas such as transportation and industrial land use in the context of growth management.

(b) Protect and encourage the intensive and extensive utilization of the County's important agricultural lands.

While there are technical descriptions of very "important" agricultural lands, our working group feels that agriculture, including food, nursery, forestry, native woodlands and conservation, is both historically and currently the best and highest use of nearly all of Puna's land area. Even rough and otherwise unpromising land in Puna can produce significant agricultural products or can be conserved as natural areas expressing Hawaii's unique native environment.

For the longest range impact and sustainability, and to not put unrealistic expectations on the powers of the County, we emphasize commercial agriculture. As a working definition, commercial agriculture either provides some or all of a household's income or can demonstrate significant agricultural investment that could provide income in the future, such as forestry. There are numerous other non-commercial agricultural activities that the County might support which may be addressed by other CDP groups. However, for the purposes of growth management and land use consistent with the expressed comments of the people, agriculture as a livelihood must be protected and supported.

© Protect and preserve forest, water, natural and scientific reserves and open areas.

Population growth will broadly and potentially negatively impact all the areas specified in this goal. In our working group's recommendations we focus on supporting agriculture and significant building standards, especially affecting water quality in the Puna aquifer. Similarly, maintaining a relatively low population density by sustaining the minimum five acre parcel size for any new subdivision reduces impacts on all these resources.

[Rob Tucker]

Hi Pete, I have printed out your write up and given it one reading with a highlighter. I thing that you have done a concise job and I thank you. In one or more places I might have used slightly different language which, essentially, would mean the same thing. So I will not burden you or anyone else with such minor points.

I will read it over again.

Meanwhile, I am thinking about how the growth management developments touch and need reinforcement from other WG areas. More on that in a new topic line.

Aloha

[wax]

Pete,

I think we need to balance the discussion by noting that to maintain the rural and agricultural nature of the district, more intense development will be required in and around current population centers. (This is mentioned but the purpose and location of the more intense development is not laid out). Specifically, with a population expected to approach - if not exceed - 75,000 within 25 years there is a need for sufficient urban cores to accomodate the services AND jobs needed by this population. By focusing this need in and around existing population centers we are able to more of the area rural and agricultural.

I would also point out that while much of the area is suitable for agriculture, some areas have not been actively (successfully) in agriculture at all. There are vast acreages of pahoehoe lands that are so costly to prepare for agricultural use that their agricultural use cannot be justified. Further, some of the areas that are in agriculture have beeen marginally profitable over this expanse - but only becuase individual farmers have been willing to pour heart and soul into them - even though they produce much less than other agricultural lands would with less effort. The problem here is not so much one of land but of what would happen if there were no longer men and women willing to put that level of effort into those lands. Should they be left simply fallow although the culture could no longer produce people willing to cultivate on them?

[wax]

On the agricultural uses part of the discussion, it is important to note that Puna Sugar was the first plantation in the State of Hawaii to cease operations specifically because of the marginal nature of the land for agricultural use.

[peteadams]

This is a good point about the truly marginal agricultural lands. Since we are looking at all of Puna in terms of land use, is there some statement we can make about these areas? For instance, I realized that I did not have anything about industrial areas in the mission statement.

Details about intensive versus rural development should come in the specific recommendations, but we should add some language in the mission statement to balance the rural emphasis.

[peteadams]

Update to section (a) to emphasize our concept of rural preservation requiring complementary policies supporting focused intensive development. The main change is in brackets.

Many, many of the specific comments solicited in previous community meetings called for maintenance of a rural and agricultural character in Puna. Very few advocated significantly increased development and then typically in already developed areas, such as more job and shopping opportunities. Our working group also believes a rural and agricultural character should be maintained in most of Puna. While agriculture will be further discussed, it should be noted here that our concept of "rural" is essentially a low density of residential dwellings or no dwellings at all. Therefore, throughout our recommendations we specify a five acre minimum parcel in many areas of concern that touch upon population density. [But a realistic policy of retaining a primarily agricultural character in Puna requires, in our judgement, a complementary policy of focused and intensive development in good contiguity to currently relatively intensively developed locations. Many people prefer the closeness of urban/suburban neighborhoods. Job and business development opportunities grow in a physically close environment. Environmentally low impact infrastructures become development requirements. From a rural preservation point of view these are good reasons to support well-focused intensive development.] Also, in accordance with this goal, we provide recommendations for areas such as transportation and industrial land use in the context of growth management.