02-02-2007, 05:55 AM
Submitted by Hannah Hedrick
Puna Community Development Plan
Land Use Work Group Report Suggestions, 2-1-07
Primary Contact
Hannah Hedrick, 968-7013, hedrickhneca@aol.com
Major contributors
Athena Peanut, 965-8183, medicinetalk@yahoo.com
Bettie Van Overbeke, 965-7773, bettievo@msn.com, “Strategies for Retaining Open Space on Highway 137” and “Preserving Land, Air, and Water”
Bette Bidleman, bett@bidleman.net, “Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance” (Natural Resources WG Report—Source document for related content below)
Rick Warshauer, Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone WG
Paula Kekahuna, kekahuna@localnet.com, James Weatherford and others from the Agriculture WG
Kim Tavares, kimtavares@yahoo.com, Steering Committee, and Natural Resource Protection WG
Pat Conant, pat.conant@hawaii.gov
Larry Brown communications, lbrown@co.hawaii.hi.us
Chris Yuen documents forwarded by Larry Brown
Marisa Furfaro, mfurfaro@pbrhawaii.com
Lyn Howe, lynhowe1946@yahoo.com
Clive Cheetham, clivechi3@yahoo.com
Lahilahi Verscheur, lahilahi@hawaii.net
I. General Land Use Issues
Puna is one of the largest and fastest growing communities on the Big Island. The tens of thousands of lots created in the 1950’s and 60’s, without adequate energy, water, or waste disposal systems and accessed only by poor-quality private roads, have serious infrastructure shortcomings. Similar deficiencies in energy, water, waste disposal, and transportation facilities plague the community gathering places, commercial sites, and village centers that have arisen haphazardly. All of these deficiencies have contributed to a serious crisis in health care services.
The 1995 Puna Community Development Plan, completed by a consultant secured by the County of Hawaii but not adopted by ordinance, includes recommendations for land use and design, some of which are related to preserving open space and thereby preserving land, air, and water. Coastal environmental quality, including pollution, is emphasized. “Open space” is specifically referenced in a recommendation for the County of Hawaii to collaborate with subdivision associations and property owners to find means to compensate landowners if open space designations are desired which “take” the use of whole parcels or significantly lower values and use for which there are investment-backed expectations. Recommendations related to development, specifically around Keaau, ask for “ample area for buffers and retention of natural areas to maintain a park-like environment.”
The more recent General Plan, adopted by ordinance in 2005, states that “The land, water, air, sea, and people shall be considered as essential resources for present and future generations and enhanced through the use of economic incentives (2, ECONOMIC, Policies, 2, 3). Courses of Action in several chapters include specific actions related to Land Use. The table of “Historic Sites” (6-1) is followed by support for establishing Hawaiian Heritage Corridors (6.5.1.2. (a). “Natural Beauty Sites (7-1) designates “Grove of Mangoes (ooike Road) as an “Exceptional Tree,” adopted by ordinance. In particular, the 10 recommended actions in “Recreation” are relevant to Land Use. Chapter 14 contains helpful extensive Land Use data, with tables on zoning and LUPAG designations. District profiles for agriculture, commercial development, industrial, multiple residential, single-family residential, and resort uses, are delineated.
Unfortunately, neither the recommendations in the 1995 PCDP nor the Courses of Action in the 2005 General Plan emphasize the importance of preserving land, air, and water in the proposed plans for agriculture, commercial development, industrial, multiple residential, single-family residential, and resort uses. Of even graver consequences for planning efforts to date, the2005 General Plan lacks district profiles and Courses of Action for “Open Space” and “Public Lands.”
Air quality is becoming the world’s number one health issue. If we can’t breathe, nothing else matters! Immediate action to maintain and plant trees, including along road easements, in urban areas, and on public and private lands, is essential not only to our comfort, but to our survival.
Private development, monoculture agriculture, government agencies, greed, and ignorance of the consequences have decimated much of Puna’s rainforest. This suicidal destruction is exaggerated by the world’s most active volcano, which pours forth tons of volcanic carbon sediment daily.
The fossil fuels we burn to move along our modern roadways contribute heavily to deadly carbon dioxide build up. Trees planted along highways greatly reduce the carbon dioxide responsible for global warming. They also provide important economic assets as tourist attractions, open space, esthetics, soil stabilizers, erosion prevention and sediment entrapment.
Current speculation building proposals risk destruction of the very qualities that are being promoted to lure people to “luxury” living on a fragile ecosystem and inadequate infrastructure at all levels.
Lack of proper stewardship of the land, air, and water, significantly diminishes human resources. The Land Use Work Group therefore recommends that the PCDP require that all development be guided by the impact on the quality of land, air, water, and human resources. Placing sustainability above economic considerations, which currently control decisionmaking, would contribute greatly to the continued recognition of the island of Hawaii as the “Land of Aloha,” a major healing destination.
Because of its broad implications for all recommendations related to land use, the PCDP Steering Committee and Work Groups should explain the “taking” issue related to the limits of land use regulation.
[Caution and note from Larry Brown communication--Caution: The summary of the land use regulatory system below does not cover all situations and exceptions. Chris Yuen’s March 2006 paper at http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/planning/Land...System.pdf on the Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System explains the basics of the issue of “takings” in the United States. ]
Although the use of land is highly regulated, a land use regulation that goes too far can be considered a taking of private property, and the government then has to compensate the landowner. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions govern the law of takings. Generally, a regulation can greatly reduce the value of property without being a taking. Courts have sustained downzonings that decreased the value by as much as 95%. But a regulation that deprives the owner of all “economically viable use” of the property will be considered a taking. The denial of a landowner’s request for a rezoning will generally not be a taking, unless the property has no economically viable use under its existing zoning.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also put limits on the kinds of conditions that can be attached to a land use approval.
Conditions must be related to the impact of the land use change: there has to be a “rational nexus” between the land use condition and the problem. For example, it would be illegal to make an applicant pay for the re-roofing of the County Building as a condition of a rezoning to allow a shopping center: there is no “nexus” with any impact created by the shopping center.
There must be a “rough proportionality” between any condition and the impact of the project. For example, making the developer of a small residential project pay for a new fire station would violate “proportionality.”
The state and county can change land use approvals that have already been given. For example, the County Council has the power to “downzone” a property to allow much less development.
At a certain point, however, the rights under existing approvals become “vested” and the government cannot take them away without paying compensation. In Hawaii, rights vest when the landowner has made substantial investments in good faith reliance on the final discretionary permit. For example, a project that has zoning, but still needs an SMA permit, is not “vested” because it has not received its final discretionary permit. If the project only needs a building permit, and the owner has spent money on architect’s fees, then it has “vested” because the building permit is not discretionary.
II. General Land Use Work Group Goals
The Land Use Work Group endorses the goals, objectives, and recommendations of other land-use-related work groups that emphasize planning based on sustainability.
Goals and objectives applicable to LUWG subgroups, along with specific recommendations, are included in the four subgroup reports:
Growth Management (Primary contact Peter
Village Centers/Design Districts (primary contacts,
Preserving Land, Air, and Water (primary contacts Hannah Hedrick and Athena Peanut)
Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone (primary contact Rick Warshauer)
A. Land Use Process and Action Goals – “What” and “How”
1. Contribute to a clear, concise, well-illustrated, “living” Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) that perpetuates community values and collaboration in all recommendations and proposals impacting the land, air, and water
2. Ensure a PCDP that is “of, by, and for the people” and that empowers future generations to make the best decisions for the âina
3. Focus on simple, “doable” activities that benefit the land and its stewards
4. Identify resources to assist in focusing on culturally appropriate and available approaches, including awareness of the interconnected topics of po`okela (economy), mâlama âina (ecology), and ho`ohanohano (social equity and cultural heritage)
5. Include provisions in the PCDP that reflect the living “aloha” spirit by improving, rather than restricting, housing and land use opportunities for residents desiring sustainable living, with special consideration for Hawaiians, the natural stewards of the âina (See California’s legal alternative housing exception in rural areas)
6. Ensure that Working Groups have authentic community roles as full partners in a non-hierarchical and participatory structure facilitating ongoing Community participation in implementing the PCDP, including identifying and acquiring funding
7. Develop a process to keep sincerity and validity in plan development and implementation, including keeping PCDP participants informed about relevant planning documents
B. Land Stewardship Legislative and Policy Goals
1. Amend and/or revise the 2005 General Plan elements related to Land Use to reflect a strong stewardship ethic
2. Ensure adherence to protective land zoning and prohibit amendments that would lessen protection for culturally and scientifically significant land, agricultural land, and/or conservation land, except in cases of extraordinary community need
III. General Land Use WG Objectives and Recommendations
Priority Recommendation Requiring Immediate Actions
Actions that need to be taken while the PCDP is approved, while enabling legislation is being passed, while funding is identified and pursued, and while other necessary actions are taken to implement PCDP recommendations
Priority Actions
Temporarily “pause” upzoning that would permit non-agricultural development on agricultural lands, subdividing parcels for higher density, or expansion of military establishments, so that physical and health care infrastructures can be improved to support current and projected resident, military, and tourist levels. Exceptions to the pause could be made for PCDP recommendations, such as “upzoning” agricultural land to MCX-20 Industrial-Commercial Mixed District (minimum land area of 20,000 square feet required for each building site); CN-20 Neighborhood Commercial District (minimum land area of 20,000 square feet required for each building site); CV-10 Village Commercial District (minimum land area of 10,000 square feet required for each building site).
Identify and support legislation related to using State and DHHL land to help bolster our infrastructure and roadways.
Prohibit speculation building, especially on agricultural lands, in rural areas, and over natural landscapes
Develop appropriate penalties for clearing properties pin to pin
Enforce laws that prohibit larceny of precious natural resources from private and public lands, with appropriate exceptions for native gathering rights (regulated by the State of Hawaii)
Require permits to transport significant amounts of cut maile, hapu’u, ‘ohi’a, and other precious natural resources
Work with the Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Exceptional Tree Ordinance, and the related Arborist Advisory Committee, to establish incentives and disincentives (such as requiring the County to replace trees cut down in error, thereby creating jobs for people able to do this work) related to cutting down mature trees that are helpful to the environment (exceptions include tree farms and commercial forestry plantations)
Develop a strategy for getting the County Council to pass within 18 months (or sooner) an ordinance related to forest preservation and reforestation (see Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance recommendation below)
Objective: Identify and assess key Land Use issues or concerns to promote a constant effort to achieve sustainability
Objective: Track and provide comments on proposals related to Land Use, including, but not limited to:
A. Proposals for commercial development and/or zoning; village centers, etc;
B. Ordinances to change State Land Use and LUPAG to ensure consistency with the PCDP;
C. New or existing ordinances or rules that need to be enacted or amended; and
D. Budgetary items related to operational and CIP requests to implement PCDP priorities
[Action note to guide recommendations: PCDP participants need to develop a legislative strategy and assume an advocacy role in shaping the agendas and actions of the County Council Committees on Planning, Finance, Intergovernmental Relations and Public Works, Public Safety and Parks and Recreation, and Environmental Management.]
Recommendation: Prohibit commercial development along Highway 11 from the 15 mile mark to Volcanoes National Park.
Recommendation: Build a new school at a location in progress in Mountain View off the highway and convert the current school to a community center serving neighboring communities from Glenwood to Hawaiian Acres.
Recommendation: Preserve native forests to the greatest possible extent.
Recommendation: Make good use of land practical for agricultural or farming use.
Recommendation: Protect sacred ground and other places with cultural significance.
Recommendation: Provide incentives for organic agriculture, such as establishing sustainable agricultural parks and programs in which land owners can offer unused portions of their usable agriculture land to interested individuals.
[Rational/example: In Mountain View, where blight hit anthuriums in the 70’s, many farmers and landowners are retired, and lands are overgrown. People interested in agriculture could help developers who have already gotten approval to build on productive agricultural lands come into compliance with zoning requirements. The recommendation could ask the County to help by offering tax breaks to cooperating landowners.]
Recommendation: Reevaluate (and, if desirable, revise) existing codes and then require adherence to these codes, with no possibility of “after the fact” rezoning
Recommendation: Maintain or create zoning codes to provide disincentives for buying land with the intent to subdivide and resell
[Proposals for provision(s) will need to provide for dealing with ‘zoning’ and ‘subdividing’ separately, because they are in different chapters in the County Code.]
Recommendation: Develop a strategy for getting the County Council to pass an ordinance related to forest preservation and reforestation within 18 months or sooner
Recommendation: Require environmental education, via educational programs and print materials, prior to approving permits to clear land, cut and/or transport precious natural resources, etc
Priority Action: Develop an ordinance to create an outreach department within County government that educates anyone looking for or required to have some knowledge about the land, air, and water, especially prior to breaking ground on unspoiled land.
Rationale: If tourism & the environment are combined, jobs are created that take care of the land, air and water resources (environmental workforce), and teach others to appreciate it all (and use it properly to sustain the growing local populations of residents and visitors without dependency on barged in supplies), This could create a new industry related to the environment, with new jobs for local folks who could interpret the scenic points, monitor hiking/biking trails for visitor safety and trash dumping prevention, remove invasive species, landscape (properly) the roadsides, restore lands that needs restoration, propagate these plants so more of them can be planted, etc.
Potential Funding Source: Create some kind of tourist and/or vehicle tax, or get more “infrastructure” funds from various State sources. The more eco-tourists we attract, the more bathrooms and other facilities we will need. . Handing tax credits and incentives out to everyone who saves trees is not likely to happen, unless revenue is generated elsewhere to balance the tax losses due to incentives and credits. A higher quality visitor experience (that costs more too), could be a source. DBEDT should be able to support all kinds of sustainable new businesses. USDA-NRCS has qualified staff and sometimes even funding to accomplish long-term goals across landscapes.
Mission: “Malama Aina”
Preserving Land, Air, and Water Subgroup
Recommendations and Priority Actions
I. Recommendation: Support viable existing programs to preserve trees and open space and to establish planting corridors
Rationale: Maintaining, preserving, and restoring forests, trees, and foliage are key to sustainability and to preserving land, air, and water. Implementing existing program would help to sequester carbon dioxide, stabilize soil, prevent erosion, entrap sediment, retain soil via root systems (example: palm trees at ocean edge), and maintain the natural beauty of Puna for residents and tourists.
Implementation: See Bill l231, Hawaii County Council 1-4-07, to add to Chapter 25, Article 6, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), “Division 6. Scenic Corridors,” which delineates criteria and procedures for establishing and initiating scenic corridors.
II. Recommendation: Adopt strategies for retaining open space on Highway 137, oceanside corridor
Action: Establish 15-foot planting easements on road frontage of private lots
Action: Encourage retention of native and large standing trees
Implementation: Provide tax credits and commendation awards.
1. Award tax credits based on square footage in planting easement deducted from the lot size.
2. Provide recognition through landscape commendation awards given to owners who retain trees, which could be referenced if the property is listed for sale.
3. Extend the above incentives to property owners who replant easements already cleared.
4. Instruct the departments of county planning and building to provide property owners with lists of recommended native and food trees suitable for planting at roadside easements
Action: Establish markers and small visitor parking areas at historical sites, such as the two Kehena area sites listed in the General Plan. Neither site is marked, and an adjacent property owner is using one of the areas as an extension of his lawn.
Action: Create vista pullouts are needed along Hwy 137 so tourists and residents can safely view the beautiful scenery.
Action: Mark and retain easement paths to the ocean from Hwy 137.
Action: Reduce width of tree cutbacks needed to accommodate power lines.
Rationale:. HELCO does not need to cut trees 50 feet back from power lines in coastal Hawaiian Homelands development.
Action: Bury power lines along Highway137
Rationale: Buried power lines woul Improve safety, avoid dangerous salt build up, prevent storm damage, and preserve the natural scenic beauty of the area, so valuable to residents and to expanding an eco-tourism industry.
Action: Preserve mangos, Kamani groves, and monkeypod tree tunnels.
Action: Limit street light installation to areas where they are mandatory for safety.
III. Recommendations for Preserving Land, Air, and Water
A. Develop a new ordinance that reasonably limits the amount of a lot to be cleared of native forest or preferred species for residential, urban or agricultural uses (includes information from Chris Yuen, provided by Larry Brown)
Ordinance components
Include a specific variance or use permit that would provide consideration of clearing a greater area for bona fide agricultural purposes.
A. Notify property owners adjacent to the property that the owner is applying for a grubbing/bulldozing/building permit with a variance to the tree ordinance.
B. Require the owner to post a copy of the application for a grubbing/bulldozing/building permit with a variance to the tree ordinance, with a 30-day period for community response.
Establish a "Tree Watch" (based on Neighborhood Watch principles), under the the County Arborist and/or Arborist Committee umbrella.
Establish a procedure to identify long-term health, societal, and financial returns from sustainable planning. For example, carbon dixiode sequestering, shaded property, and road corridors
reduce air conditioning and heating fuel costs, improve pulmonary and cardiovascular health, conserve water, contribute to urban forest conservation and renewal, etc.
Clearing Limitation Process
Use a procedure similar to that of other cities with tree ordinances:
Property owner indicates on a Tax Key Map all trees meeting protection criteria (ex: circumferance
measured at four feet above ground) and submits a grubbing/bulldozing/building permit describing the exceptions with specific reasons for wanting to cut specific trees
Clearing Limit Penalties
Owners giving false information on an application will not be allowed to resubmit on application for one year.
Bulldozer operators who violate the tree ordinance will lose their license for one year.
Challenges
Enforceability of the ordinance
Process for mapping areas to be protected
Evaluating the actual benefit to native forest preservation
Overall staff commitments that would be required to make the program work.
B. Limit subdividing AG land in lava zones 1 and 2
1. Prohibit subdividing Ag lands into parcels smaller than 5 acres.
2. Limit the percentage of a land parcel that can be clear cut
3. Create A’apuaha based planning to coordinate water flow and sheet flow during heavy rains common to the area
4. Ease building codes to allow for “lighter” buildings
C. Require that green infrastructure of trees for oxygen production be incorporated into land use plans
1. Require parks to have trees, in addition to grassy areas.
2. Provide guides to prevent “overtrimming” of trees in parks and county lands
3. Provide property tax credits to reward reforestation efforts on private and commercial lands.
D. Honor the original intention of CZM and SMA legislation to protect the natural beauty of the land.
E. Prohibit expansion of military bases on the island
1. Prohibit use of depleted uranium in any form on the island
2. Declare Hawaii Island a “Nuclear Free Zone”
F. Conduct air quality testing with oxygen readings at grade school
Rationale: Testing a schools would cover Puna..
G. Prohibit destruction of unique geological features such as spatter cones, pit craters, and lava tubes and collapsed lava tubes and provide incentives for protecting these features
1 .Do not provide permits, even on private land, to destroy or significantly alter these features
2. Provide a tax credit for the footage occupied by these features, since it cannot be developed
H. Broaden the mail-out notification distance required for a zoning change application to prevent undue influence by a smaller group of people who might benefit from making a decision that impacts a larger area.
Needed: A more detailed explanation or some examples, such as indicating how broad the mail-out notification distance ought to be.
[Note from Brown communication: A legal analysis of such a recommendation should be initially conducted by the consultant and County in their review and analysis of all recommendations. Even if the recommendation poses some legal or constitutional problems, it will emphasize to the consultant and County the importance the community places on the issue and perhaps inspire creative or intense problem solving activity.]
IV. Recommendations for a Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Full document available from the Natural Resources Work Group)
Purpose: The purpose of the ordinance is to mitigate the impact of future development on trees and vegetation (primarily native but other desirable species as well, hereafter referred to as preferred plant species) on all Puna lands within the jurisdiction of Hawai’i County. The recommended ordinance would establish a new county department responsible for its administration and enforcement, overseen by a newly created position of County Arborist. The ordinance applies to private and public land, including County roadways and public facilities.
Recommendations for components of the Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance
Preserve and maintain existing preferred plant species
Restore preferred plant species on deforested land
Remove targeted invasive plant species
Require a tree protection plan, on-site county inspection, and approval of a land disturbance permit for all applications for commercial, agricultural, or residential development, regardless of the acreage, which necessitate grading or grubbing of the land.
Request the County to work with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, other interested public agencies, non-profit Puna citizens groups, and Puna community associations to set minimum standards regarding the quantity, size, and species of the preferred plant species to be preserved or restored, considering the proposed land use, the quality of soil, and the land’s cultural and/or historical significance.
Establish a “Tree Bank” to which developers will contribute to reforest other land to offset the removal of trees that were not able to be preserved.
Develop an enforcement mechanism that requires developers to submit a tree protection plan and an application for a land disturbance permit before county approval of building permits, timber harvesting permits, or any proposal for public or private development.
Require any developer who disturbs land in violation of the ordinance to replant at double the minimum standard formerly required.
Require large development proposers to post a bond before receiving permit approval, at double the cost of replanting or restoration should protective measures fail
Levy fines for violations of the ordinance that also include enforcement costs.
Set minimum standards to restore native vegetation on lands that have been degraded by invasive plant species.
Implementation
The County Arborist will designate the preferred plant species to replace invasive plants that threaten preservation of the native forest.
The Tree Preservation Ordinance will be accompanied by a concerted effort by local and state government, working with community representatives, to promote the value of preserving native trees and vegetation throughout the county.
County personnel will post information about the ordinance in all county offices. They will inform public and commercial sectors by providing brochures and posters to island nurseries, building supply and home improvement businesses.
The County Arborist’s duties will include retraining county employees whose duties will be affected by the ordinance.
The County Arborist will hold regular workshops at county demonstration sites for public and commercial sectors.
The Arborist will exhibit methods for preservation, maintenance and restoration of native forest
Relationship to Small Group Meeting preliminary themes and objectives
Theme: Grading/Grubbing Ordinance (1)
Objective: Produce a strategy to minimize clearcutting on new lots (A)
Theme: Invasive Species Control (2)
Objective: Pursue effective solutions to control invasive species (B)
Theme: Environmental/Sustainability Education (3)
Objective: Create educational programs about the environment and sustainable living ©
Theme: Sustainable Living (6)
Objective: Proactively promote more sustainable economic, environmental and social development policies (G)
The recommended ordinance meets the County of Hawai’i General Plan edicts and intent to retain the overall natural beauty of the land. It also supports the goal of the 1995 Puna Community Development Plan recommendation that land use patterns be integrated with preserving the health of forests.
Implementation Support and Resistance
Participants in the initial stages of the Puna Community Development Plan expressed strong support for preserving natural resources, including native trees. The ordinance addresses three of the suggested remedies: education of the private and public sector on plant species in need of preservation; stricter enforcement of current grading/grubbing regulations by linking them to final approval of building permits; and a new ordinance with county staff to support and enforce it.
Resistance to the proposed ordinance will most likely come from concern about:
· Increased costs of land development due to fees for on-site inspections by the county, review of tree protection plans, and land disturbance permits, as well as costs related to posting bonds to cover restoration if preferred plant species are destroyed and to preparing documentation.
· Possible use of property taxes to support additional county staff may create concern about support for other activities.
· Private property owners, including those who own one acre or smaller lots who may currently remove all vegetation without penalty, may resist restrictions ors through fines and loss of building permits.
· A shift in county resources, workloads, and lines of authority and increased responsibility of a new department may be opposed by County officials and employees.
· Some citizens may oppose increased government regulation as an intrusion on private decision making, arguing that preservation of native and preferred plant species should be restricted to public lands.
APPENDICES
I. Resource Documents Related to Land Use Report
Space Preservation Committee and Save Our Land Citizens’ Committee recommendations and priorities, including biannual payments (March and September) to the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund (see appendix)
1. 2005 General Plan re Puna (dlc, 1-2-06); full text at http://www.hawaii-county.com/la/gp/2005/main.html
2. 1995 Puna Community Development Plan (not adoped by ordinance)
3. “The Puna Community Is Asking For Answers from the Department of Public Works,” with information on flood control projects, a new grubbing and grading ordinance, and protection for archeological and cultural sites, burials, and provisions for vegetation
Public Works and Planning
State Land Use
State Historical Planning Department
4. Larry Brown email with responses from Chris Yuen and others
5. “Recommendations for a Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance”
6. Volcano Community Association, “Building in the Forest” and “Preliminary Resource List”
7. Warshauer, Rick, 967-7476, “Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone: A Starting Point,” items 1-10, VCA Voice, January 2007
8. Resources Related to Tree Preservation Ordinance, Bette Bidleman
http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide.htm describes the process for creating a tree protection ordinance.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/publicworks...efault.asp (includes permit forms, native tree lists, protected tree lists—public trees, landmark trees, specimen trees). Defines what native trees are protected, diameters (at least 8”
and location on lots.
http://www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/...reeley.pdf (“Tree Protection Ordinances—Can They Work?”
http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/z...c26-82-010: Sonoma County, CA tree protection ordinance.
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/...6tree.html
Draft tree preservation ordinance prepared as part of the implementation program for the Marin Countywide Plan (adopted January 1994).
http://www.fultonecd.org : Fulton County Tree Preservation Ordinance, Georgia
“Some Considerations for Promoting Forest Protection Practices in Puna,” prepared by Hawai’i County consultant John Whalen.
Puna Community Development Plan
Land Use Work Group Report Suggestions, 2-1-07
Primary Contact
Hannah Hedrick, 968-7013, hedrickhneca@aol.com
Major contributors
Athena Peanut, 965-8183, medicinetalk@yahoo.com
Bettie Van Overbeke, 965-7773, bettievo@msn.com, “Strategies for Retaining Open Space on Highway 137” and “Preserving Land, Air, and Water”
Bette Bidleman, bett@bidleman.net, “Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance” (Natural Resources WG Report—Source document for related content below)
Rick Warshauer, Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone WG
Paula Kekahuna, kekahuna@localnet.com, James Weatherford and others from the Agriculture WG
Kim Tavares, kimtavares@yahoo.com, Steering Committee, and Natural Resource Protection WG
Pat Conant, pat.conant@hawaii.gov
Larry Brown communications, lbrown@co.hawaii.hi.us
Chris Yuen documents forwarded by Larry Brown
Marisa Furfaro, mfurfaro@pbrhawaii.com
Lyn Howe, lynhowe1946@yahoo.com
Clive Cheetham, clivechi3@yahoo.com
Lahilahi Verscheur, lahilahi@hawaii.net
I. General Land Use Issues
Puna is one of the largest and fastest growing communities on the Big Island. The tens of thousands of lots created in the 1950’s and 60’s, without adequate energy, water, or waste disposal systems and accessed only by poor-quality private roads, have serious infrastructure shortcomings. Similar deficiencies in energy, water, waste disposal, and transportation facilities plague the community gathering places, commercial sites, and village centers that have arisen haphazardly. All of these deficiencies have contributed to a serious crisis in health care services.
The 1995 Puna Community Development Plan, completed by a consultant secured by the County of Hawaii but not adopted by ordinance, includes recommendations for land use and design, some of which are related to preserving open space and thereby preserving land, air, and water. Coastal environmental quality, including pollution, is emphasized. “Open space” is specifically referenced in a recommendation for the County of Hawaii to collaborate with subdivision associations and property owners to find means to compensate landowners if open space designations are desired which “take” the use of whole parcels or significantly lower values and use for which there are investment-backed expectations. Recommendations related to development, specifically around Keaau, ask for “ample area for buffers and retention of natural areas to maintain a park-like environment.”
The more recent General Plan, adopted by ordinance in 2005, states that “The land, water, air, sea, and people shall be considered as essential resources for present and future generations and enhanced through the use of economic incentives (2, ECONOMIC, Policies, 2, 3). Courses of Action in several chapters include specific actions related to Land Use. The table of “Historic Sites” (6-1) is followed by support for establishing Hawaiian Heritage Corridors (6.5.1.2. (a). “Natural Beauty Sites (7-1) designates “Grove of Mangoes (ooike Road) as an “Exceptional Tree,” adopted by ordinance. In particular, the 10 recommended actions in “Recreation” are relevant to Land Use. Chapter 14 contains helpful extensive Land Use data, with tables on zoning and LUPAG designations. District profiles for agriculture, commercial development, industrial, multiple residential, single-family residential, and resort uses, are delineated.
Unfortunately, neither the recommendations in the 1995 PCDP nor the Courses of Action in the 2005 General Plan emphasize the importance of preserving land, air, and water in the proposed plans for agriculture, commercial development, industrial, multiple residential, single-family residential, and resort uses. Of even graver consequences for planning efforts to date, the2005 General Plan lacks district profiles and Courses of Action for “Open Space” and “Public Lands.”
Air quality is becoming the world’s number one health issue. If we can’t breathe, nothing else matters! Immediate action to maintain and plant trees, including along road easements, in urban areas, and on public and private lands, is essential not only to our comfort, but to our survival.
Private development, monoculture agriculture, government agencies, greed, and ignorance of the consequences have decimated much of Puna’s rainforest. This suicidal destruction is exaggerated by the world’s most active volcano, which pours forth tons of volcanic carbon sediment daily.
The fossil fuels we burn to move along our modern roadways contribute heavily to deadly carbon dioxide build up. Trees planted along highways greatly reduce the carbon dioxide responsible for global warming. They also provide important economic assets as tourist attractions, open space, esthetics, soil stabilizers, erosion prevention and sediment entrapment.
Current speculation building proposals risk destruction of the very qualities that are being promoted to lure people to “luxury” living on a fragile ecosystem and inadequate infrastructure at all levels.
Lack of proper stewardship of the land, air, and water, significantly diminishes human resources. The Land Use Work Group therefore recommends that the PCDP require that all development be guided by the impact on the quality of land, air, water, and human resources. Placing sustainability above economic considerations, which currently control decisionmaking, would contribute greatly to the continued recognition of the island of Hawaii as the “Land of Aloha,” a major healing destination.
Because of its broad implications for all recommendations related to land use, the PCDP Steering Committee and Work Groups should explain the “taking” issue related to the limits of land use regulation.
[Caution and note from Larry Brown communication--Caution: The summary of the land use regulatory system below does not cover all situations and exceptions. Chris Yuen’s March 2006 paper at http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/planning/Land...System.pdf on the Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System explains the basics of the issue of “takings” in the United States. ]
Although the use of land is highly regulated, a land use regulation that goes too far can be considered a taking of private property, and the government then has to compensate the landowner. A series of U.S. Supreme Court decisions govern the law of takings. Generally, a regulation can greatly reduce the value of property without being a taking. Courts have sustained downzonings that decreased the value by as much as 95%. But a regulation that deprives the owner of all “economically viable use” of the property will be considered a taking. The denial of a landowner’s request for a rezoning will generally not be a taking, unless the property has no economically viable use under its existing zoning.
The U.S. Supreme Court has also put limits on the kinds of conditions that can be attached to a land use approval.
Conditions must be related to the impact of the land use change: there has to be a “rational nexus” between the land use condition and the problem. For example, it would be illegal to make an applicant pay for the re-roofing of the County Building as a condition of a rezoning to allow a shopping center: there is no “nexus” with any impact created by the shopping center.
There must be a “rough proportionality” between any condition and the impact of the project. For example, making the developer of a small residential project pay for a new fire station would violate “proportionality.”
The state and county can change land use approvals that have already been given. For example, the County Council has the power to “downzone” a property to allow much less development.
At a certain point, however, the rights under existing approvals become “vested” and the government cannot take them away without paying compensation. In Hawaii, rights vest when the landowner has made substantial investments in good faith reliance on the final discretionary permit. For example, a project that has zoning, but still needs an SMA permit, is not “vested” because it has not received its final discretionary permit. If the project only needs a building permit, and the owner has spent money on architect’s fees, then it has “vested” because the building permit is not discretionary.
II. General Land Use Work Group Goals
The Land Use Work Group endorses the goals, objectives, and recommendations of other land-use-related work groups that emphasize planning based on sustainability.
Goals and objectives applicable to LUWG subgroups, along with specific recommendations, are included in the four subgroup reports:
Growth Management (Primary contact Peter
Village Centers/Design Districts (primary contacts,
Preserving Land, Air, and Water (primary contacts Hannah Hedrick and Athena Peanut)
Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone (primary contact Rick Warshauer)
A. Land Use Process and Action Goals – “What” and “How”
1. Contribute to a clear, concise, well-illustrated, “living” Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) that perpetuates community values and collaboration in all recommendations and proposals impacting the land, air, and water
2. Ensure a PCDP that is “of, by, and for the people” and that empowers future generations to make the best decisions for the âina
3. Focus on simple, “doable” activities that benefit the land and its stewards
4. Identify resources to assist in focusing on culturally appropriate and available approaches, including awareness of the interconnected topics of po`okela (economy), mâlama âina (ecology), and ho`ohanohano (social equity and cultural heritage)
5. Include provisions in the PCDP that reflect the living “aloha” spirit by improving, rather than restricting, housing and land use opportunities for residents desiring sustainable living, with special consideration for Hawaiians, the natural stewards of the âina (See California’s legal alternative housing exception in rural areas)
6. Ensure that Working Groups have authentic community roles as full partners in a non-hierarchical and participatory structure facilitating ongoing Community participation in implementing the PCDP, including identifying and acquiring funding
7. Develop a process to keep sincerity and validity in plan development and implementation, including keeping PCDP participants informed about relevant planning documents
B. Land Stewardship Legislative and Policy Goals
1. Amend and/or revise the 2005 General Plan elements related to Land Use to reflect a strong stewardship ethic
2. Ensure adherence to protective land zoning and prohibit amendments that would lessen protection for culturally and scientifically significant land, agricultural land, and/or conservation land, except in cases of extraordinary community need
III. General Land Use WG Objectives and Recommendations
Priority Recommendation Requiring Immediate Actions
Actions that need to be taken while the PCDP is approved, while enabling legislation is being passed, while funding is identified and pursued, and while other necessary actions are taken to implement PCDP recommendations
Priority Actions
Temporarily “pause” upzoning that would permit non-agricultural development on agricultural lands, subdividing parcels for higher density, or expansion of military establishments, so that physical and health care infrastructures can be improved to support current and projected resident, military, and tourist levels. Exceptions to the pause could be made for PCDP recommendations, such as “upzoning” agricultural land to MCX-20 Industrial-Commercial Mixed District (minimum land area of 20,000 square feet required for each building site); CN-20 Neighborhood Commercial District (minimum land area of 20,000 square feet required for each building site); CV-10 Village Commercial District (minimum land area of 10,000 square feet required for each building site).
Identify and support legislation related to using State and DHHL land to help bolster our infrastructure and roadways.
Prohibit speculation building, especially on agricultural lands, in rural areas, and over natural landscapes
Develop appropriate penalties for clearing properties pin to pin
Enforce laws that prohibit larceny of precious natural resources from private and public lands, with appropriate exceptions for native gathering rights (regulated by the State of Hawaii)
Require permits to transport significant amounts of cut maile, hapu’u, ‘ohi’a, and other precious natural resources
Work with the Public Works, Parks and Recreation, Exceptional Tree Ordinance, and the related Arborist Advisory Committee, to establish incentives and disincentives (such as requiring the County to replace trees cut down in error, thereby creating jobs for people able to do this work) related to cutting down mature trees that are helpful to the environment (exceptions include tree farms and commercial forestry plantations)
Develop a strategy for getting the County Council to pass within 18 months (or sooner) an ordinance related to forest preservation and reforestation (see Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance recommendation below)
Objective: Identify and assess key Land Use issues or concerns to promote a constant effort to achieve sustainability
Objective: Track and provide comments on proposals related to Land Use, including, but not limited to:
A. Proposals for commercial development and/or zoning; village centers, etc;
B. Ordinances to change State Land Use and LUPAG to ensure consistency with the PCDP;
C. New or existing ordinances or rules that need to be enacted or amended; and
D. Budgetary items related to operational and CIP requests to implement PCDP priorities
[Action note to guide recommendations: PCDP participants need to develop a legislative strategy and assume an advocacy role in shaping the agendas and actions of the County Council Committees on Planning, Finance, Intergovernmental Relations and Public Works, Public Safety and Parks and Recreation, and Environmental Management.]
Recommendation: Prohibit commercial development along Highway 11 from the 15 mile mark to Volcanoes National Park.
Recommendation: Build a new school at a location in progress in Mountain View off the highway and convert the current school to a community center serving neighboring communities from Glenwood to Hawaiian Acres.
Recommendation: Preserve native forests to the greatest possible extent.
Recommendation: Make good use of land practical for agricultural or farming use.
Recommendation: Protect sacred ground and other places with cultural significance.
Recommendation: Provide incentives for organic agriculture, such as establishing sustainable agricultural parks and programs in which land owners can offer unused portions of their usable agriculture land to interested individuals.
[Rational/example: In Mountain View, where blight hit anthuriums in the 70’s, many farmers and landowners are retired, and lands are overgrown. People interested in agriculture could help developers who have already gotten approval to build on productive agricultural lands come into compliance with zoning requirements. The recommendation could ask the County to help by offering tax breaks to cooperating landowners.]
Recommendation: Reevaluate (and, if desirable, revise) existing codes and then require adherence to these codes, with no possibility of “after the fact” rezoning
Recommendation: Maintain or create zoning codes to provide disincentives for buying land with the intent to subdivide and resell
[Proposals for provision(s) will need to provide for dealing with ‘zoning’ and ‘subdividing’ separately, because they are in different chapters in the County Code.]
Recommendation: Develop a strategy for getting the County Council to pass an ordinance related to forest preservation and reforestation within 18 months or sooner
Recommendation: Require environmental education, via educational programs and print materials, prior to approving permits to clear land, cut and/or transport precious natural resources, etc
Priority Action: Develop an ordinance to create an outreach department within County government that educates anyone looking for or required to have some knowledge about the land, air, and water, especially prior to breaking ground on unspoiled land.
Rationale: If tourism & the environment are combined, jobs are created that take care of the land, air and water resources (environmental workforce), and teach others to appreciate it all (and use it properly to sustain the growing local populations of residents and visitors without dependency on barged in supplies), This could create a new industry related to the environment, with new jobs for local folks who could interpret the scenic points, monitor hiking/biking trails for visitor safety and trash dumping prevention, remove invasive species, landscape (properly) the roadsides, restore lands that needs restoration, propagate these plants so more of them can be planted, etc.
Potential Funding Source: Create some kind of tourist and/or vehicle tax, or get more “infrastructure” funds from various State sources. The more eco-tourists we attract, the more bathrooms and other facilities we will need. . Handing tax credits and incentives out to everyone who saves trees is not likely to happen, unless revenue is generated elsewhere to balance the tax losses due to incentives and credits. A higher quality visitor experience (that costs more too), could be a source. DBEDT should be able to support all kinds of sustainable new businesses. USDA-NRCS has qualified staff and sometimes even funding to accomplish long-term goals across landscapes.
Mission: “Malama Aina”
Preserving Land, Air, and Water Subgroup
Recommendations and Priority Actions
I. Recommendation: Support viable existing programs to preserve trees and open space and to establish planting corridors
Rationale: Maintaining, preserving, and restoring forests, trees, and foliage are key to sustainability and to preserving land, air, and water. Implementing existing program would help to sequester carbon dioxide, stabilize soil, prevent erosion, entrap sediment, retain soil via root systems (example: palm trees at ocean edge), and maintain the natural beauty of Puna for residents and tourists.
Implementation: See Bill l231, Hawaii County Council 1-4-07, to add to Chapter 25, Article 6, Hawaii County Code 1983 (2005 Edition), “Division 6. Scenic Corridors,” which delineates criteria and procedures for establishing and initiating scenic corridors.
II. Recommendation: Adopt strategies for retaining open space on Highway 137, oceanside corridor
Action: Establish 15-foot planting easements on road frontage of private lots
Action: Encourage retention of native and large standing trees
Implementation: Provide tax credits and commendation awards.
1. Award tax credits based on square footage in planting easement deducted from the lot size.
2. Provide recognition through landscape commendation awards given to owners who retain trees, which could be referenced if the property is listed for sale.
3. Extend the above incentives to property owners who replant easements already cleared.
4. Instruct the departments of county planning and building to provide property owners with lists of recommended native and food trees suitable for planting at roadside easements
Action: Establish markers and small visitor parking areas at historical sites, such as the two Kehena area sites listed in the General Plan. Neither site is marked, and an adjacent property owner is using one of the areas as an extension of his lawn.
Action: Create vista pullouts are needed along Hwy 137 so tourists and residents can safely view the beautiful scenery.
Action: Mark and retain easement paths to the ocean from Hwy 137.
Action: Reduce width of tree cutbacks needed to accommodate power lines.
Rationale:. HELCO does not need to cut trees 50 feet back from power lines in coastal Hawaiian Homelands development.
Action: Bury power lines along Highway137
Rationale: Buried power lines woul Improve safety, avoid dangerous salt build up, prevent storm damage, and preserve the natural scenic beauty of the area, so valuable to residents and to expanding an eco-tourism industry.
Action: Preserve mangos, Kamani groves, and monkeypod tree tunnels.
Action: Limit street light installation to areas where they are mandatory for safety.
III. Recommendations for Preserving Land, Air, and Water
A. Develop a new ordinance that reasonably limits the amount of a lot to be cleared of native forest or preferred species for residential, urban or agricultural uses (includes information from Chris Yuen, provided by Larry Brown)
Ordinance components
Include a specific variance or use permit that would provide consideration of clearing a greater area for bona fide agricultural purposes.
A. Notify property owners adjacent to the property that the owner is applying for a grubbing/bulldozing/building permit with a variance to the tree ordinance.
B. Require the owner to post a copy of the application for a grubbing/bulldozing/building permit with a variance to the tree ordinance, with a 30-day period for community response.
Establish a "Tree Watch" (based on Neighborhood Watch principles), under the the County Arborist and/or Arborist Committee umbrella.
Establish a procedure to identify long-term health, societal, and financial returns from sustainable planning. For example, carbon dixiode sequestering, shaded property, and road corridors
reduce air conditioning and heating fuel costs, improve pulmonary and cardiovascular health, conserve water, contribute to urban forest conservation and renewal, etc.
Clearing Limitation Process
Use a procedure similar to that of other cities with tree ordinances:
Property owner indicates on a Tax Key Map all trees meeting protection criteria (ex: circumferance
measured at four feet above ground) and submits a grubbing/bulldozing/building permit describing the exceptions with specific reasons for wanting to cut specific trees
Clearing Limit Penalties
Owners giving false information on an application will not be allowed to resubmit on application for one year.
Bulldozer operators who violate the tree ordinance will lose their license for one year.
Challenges
Enforceability of the ordinance
Process for mapping areas to be protected
Evaluating the actual benefit to native forest preservation
Overall staff commitments that would be required to make the program work.
B. Limit subdividing AG land in lava zones 1 and 2
1. Prohibit subdividing Ag lands into parcels smaller than 5 acres.
2. Limit the percentage of a land parcel that can be clear cut
3. Create A’apuaha based planning to coordinate water flow and sheet flow during heavy rains common to the area
4. Ease building codes to allow for “lighter” buildings
C. Require that green infrastructure of trees for oxygen production be incorporated into land use plans
1. Require parks to have trees, in addition to grassy areas.
2. Provide guides to prevent “overtrimming” of trees in parks and county lands
3. Provide property tax credits to reward reforestation efforts on private and commercial lands.
D. Honor the original intention of CZM and SMA legislation to protect the natural beauty of the land.
E. Prohibit expansion of military bases on the island
1. Prohibit use of depleted uranium in any form on the island
2. Declare Hawaii Island a “Nuclear Free Zone”
F. Conduct air quality testing with oxygen readings at grade school
Rationale: Testing a schools would cover Puna..
G. Prohibit destruction of unique geological features such as spatter cones, pit craters, and lava tubes and collapsed lava tubes and provide incentives for protecting these features
1 .Do not provide permits, even on private land, to destroy or significantly alter these features
2. Provide a tax credit for the footage occupied by these features, since it cannot be developed
H. Broaden the mail-out notification distance required for a zoning change application to prevent undue influence by a smaller group of people who might benefit from making a decision that impacts a larger area.
Needed: A more detailed explanation or some examples, such as indicating how broad the mail-out notification distance ought to be.
[Note from Brown communication: A legal analysis of such a recommendation should be initially conducted by the consultant and County in their review and analysis of all recommendations. Even if the recommendation poses some legal or constitutional problems, it will emphasize to the consultant and County the importance the community places on the issue and perhaps inspire creative or intense problem solving activity.]
IV. Recommendations for a Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance
(Full document available from the Natural Resources Work Group)
Purpose: The purpose of the ordinance is to mitigate the impact of future development on trees and vegetation (primarily native but other desirable species as well, hereafter referred to as preferred plant species) on all Puna lands within the jurisdiction of Hawai’i County. The recommended ordinance would establish a new county department responsible for its administration and enforcement, overseen by a newly created position of County Arborist. The ordinance applies to private and public land, including County roadways and public facilities.
Recommendations for components of the Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance
Preserve and maintain existing preferred plant species
Restore preferred plant species on deforested land
Remove targeted invasive plant species
Require a tree protection plan, on-site county inspection, and approval of a land disturbance permit for all applications for commercial, agricultural, or residential development, regardless of the acreage, which necessitate grading or grubbing of the land.
Request the County to work with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, other interested public agencies, non-profit Puna citizens groups, and Puna community associations to set minimum standards regarding the quantity, size, and species of the preferred plant species to be preserved or restored, considering the proposed land use, the quality of soil, and the land’s cultural and/or historical significance.
Establish a “Tree Bank” to which developers will contribute to reforest other land to offset the removal of trees that were not able to be preserved.
Develop an enforcement mechanism that requires developers to submit a tree protection plan and an application for a land disturbance permit before county approval of building permits, timber harvesting permits, or any proposal for public or private development.
Require any developer who disturbs land in violation of the ordinance to replant at double the minimum standard formerly required.
Require large development proposers to post a bond before receiving permit approval, at double the cost of replanting or restoration should protective measures fail
Levy fines for violations of the ordinance that also include enforcement costs.
Set minimum standards to restore native vegetation on lands that have been degraded by invasive plant species.
Implementation
The County Arborist will designate the preferred plant species to replace invasive plants that threaten preservation of the native forest.
The Tree Preservation Ordinance will be accompanied by a concerted effort by local and state government, working with community representatives, to promote the value of preserving native trees and vegetation throughout the county.
County personnel will post information about the ordinance in all county offices. They will inform public and commercial sectors by providing brochures and posters to island nurseries, building supply and home improvement businesses.
The County Arborist’s duties will include retraining county employees whose duties will be affected by the ordinance.
The County Arborist will hold regular workshops at county demonstration sites for public and commercial sectors.
The Arborist will exhibit methods for preservation, maintenance and restoration of native forest
Relationship to Small Group Meeting preliminary themes and objectives
Theme: Grading/Grubbing Ordinance (1)
Objective: Produce a strategy to minimize clearcutting on new lots (A)
Theme: Invasive Species Control (2)
Objective: Pursue effective solutions to control invasive species (B)
Theme: Environmental/Sustainability Education (3)
Objective: Create educational programs about the environment and sustainable living ©
Theme: Sustainable Living (6)
Objective: Proactively promote more sustainable economic, environmental and social development policies (G)
The recommended ordinance meets the County of Hawai’i General Plan edicts and intent to retain the overall natural beauty of the land. It also supports the goal of the 1995 Puna Community Development Plan recommendation that land use patterns be integrated with preserving the health of forests.
Implementation Support and Resistance
Participants in the initial stages of the Puna Community Development Plan expressed strong support for preserving natural resources, including native trees. The ordinance addresses three of the suggested remedies: education of the private and public sector on plant species in need of preservation; stricter enforcement of current grading/grubbing regulations by linking them to final approval of building permits; and a new ordinance with county staff to support and enforce it.
Resistance to the proposed ordinance will most likely come from concern about:
· Increased costs of land development due to fees for on-site inspections by the county, review of tree protection plans, and land disturbance permits, as well as costs related to posting bonds to cover restoration if preferred plant species are destroyed and to preparing documentation.
· Possible use of property taxes to support additional county staff may create concern about support for other activities.
· Private property owners, including those who own one acre or smaller lots who may currently remove all vegetation without penalty, may resist restrictions ors through fines and loss of building permits.
· A shift in county resources, workloads, and lines of authority and increased responsibility of a new department may be opposed by County officials and employees.
· Some citizens may oppose increased government regulation as an intrusion on private decision making, arguing that preservation of native and preferred plant species should be restricted to public lands.
APPENDICES
I. Resource Documents Related to Land Use Report
Space Preservation Committee and Save Our Land Citizens’ Committee recommendations and priorities, including biannual payments (March and September) to the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Fund (see appendix)
1. 2005 General Plan re Puna (dlc, 1-2-06); full text at http://www.hawaii-county.com/la/gp/2005/main.html
2. 1995 Puna Community Development Plan (not adoped by ordinance)
3. “The Puna Community Is Asking For Answers from the Department of Public Works,” with information on flood control projects, a new grubbing and grading ordinance, and protection for archeological and cultural sites, burials, and provisions for vegetation
Public Works and Planning
State Land Use
State Historical Planning Department
4. Larry Brown email with responses from Chris Yuen and others
5. “Recommendations for a Puna Tree Preservation Ordinance”
6. Volcano Community Association, “Building in the Forest” and “Preliminary Resource List”
7. Warshauer, Rick, 967-7476, “Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone: A Starting Point,” items 1-10, VCA Voice, January 2007
8. Resources Related to Tree Preservation Ordinance, Bette Bidleman
http://www.mnstac.org/RFC/preservationordguide.htm describes the process for creating a tree protection ordinance.
http://www.ci.pasadena.ca.us/publicworks...efault.asp (includes permit forms, native tree lists, protected tree lists—public trees, landmark trees, specimen trees). Defines what native trees are protected, diameters (at least 8”
and location on lots. http://www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/...reeley.pdf (“Tree Protection Ordinances—Can They Work?”
http://www.sonoma-county.org/prmd/docs/z...c26-82-010: Sonoma County, CA tree protection ordinance.
http://www.co.marin.ca.us/depts/CD/main/...6tree.html
Draft tree preservation ordinance prepared as part of the implementation program for the Marin Countywide Plan (adopted January 1994).
http://www.fultonecd.org : Fulton County Tree Preservation Ordinance, Georgia
“Some Considerations for Promoting Forest Protection Practices in Puna,” prepared by Hawai’i County consultant John Whalen.
Assume the best and ask questions.
Punaweb moderator
Punaweb moderator