03-13-2015, 06:32 AM
Anything in Puna within and South of the Basin to Volcanoes National Park.
I'm curious as to why the PCDP assumes heavy development and sprawl will occur throughout this region and it must be managed as proposed. I find that such concerns are valid in the majority of near urban zones about the United States but such consideration within the shadows of one of the most active volcanos in world approaches a certain disregard for reality.
I would add that the growth in this region of Puna is not accompanied by newly established subdivisions but rather an occupation of that which has already been designated. In this case, there has been little to no previously undesignated area sprawl. Nor will there be due to the presence of Kilauea's activity. This again is like no other circumstances experienced by other planning efforts in the USA.
I see the PCDP as a gallant effort and well thought out North of the Basin but within the basin and South of it there is a disconnect from it's dynamic nature and certain absence in foresight to these dynamics and the situations that will be encountered.
I'd like to see that which is addressed within the Basin and South of it "re-visited" with dynamic consideration applied. No designated park will prove itself of intended value when inundated by lava. I would like to see the permanence standards devolved into acceptance of mobility and other flexibilities accompanied by a broader range of necessary options. These dynamics should be inclusive of a wider range in ingress/egress options as well as dwelling and commercial building practices. Special zoning allowances can be applied to a region that is exposed to higher incidents of unique natural hazards and the PCDP should call for and apply these dynamic needs.
I'm curious as to why the PCDP assumes heavy development and sprawl will occur throughout this region and it must be managed as proposed. I find that such concerns are valid in the majority of near urban zones about the United States but such consideration within the shadows of one of the most active volcanos in world approaches a certain disregard for reality.
I would add that the growth in this region of Puna is not accompanied by newly established subdivisions but rather an occupation of that which has already been designated. In this case, there has been little to no previously undesignated area sprawl. Nor will there be due to the presence of Kilauea's activity. This again is like no other circumstances experienced by other planning efforts in the USA.
I see the PCDP as a gallant effort and well thought out North of the Basin but within the basin and South of it there is a disconnect from it's dynamic nature and certain absence in foresight to these dynamics and the situations that will be encountered.
I'd like to see that which is addressed within the Basin and South of it "re-visited" with dynamic consideration applied. No designated park will prove itself of intended value when inundated by lava. I would like to see the permanence standards devolved into acceptance of mobility and other flexibilities accompanied by a broader range of necessary options. These dynamics should be inclusive of a wider range in ingress/egress options as well as dwelling and commercial building practices. Special zoning allowances can be applied to a region that is exposed to higher incidents of unique natural hazards and the PCDP should call for and apply these dynamic needs.