PCDP public hearing August 30th in Keaau

[Rob Tucker]

The letter below is from Dan Taylor of the Puna Community Development Plan (PCDP) Action Committee. Since the passage of the PCDP in 2008 there has been a concerted effort to weaken it by some of our council members and our largest landowner, W.H. Shipman, Ltd. Most recently Bill 194 from J Yoshimoto was at council and there was a call for a public hearing regarding his 83 amendments.

That public meeting will be on August 30th at Keaau Middle School at 6 pm.

Only the Puna community plan has been subjected to manipulation and revision by council who, like W.H. Shipman Ltd, seem to feel that too much community input is not a good thing.

You are invited to attend the meeting and speak on the topic.

Moderator

Letter from Dan Taylor:

Aloha, fellow PCDP/Amendments watchers:
We call your attention to an important public hearing. Subject will be amendments proposed for our PCDP, called by County Council. They are looking for community opinion regarding certain issues raised in Bill 194, which we on the Action Committee object to.

efully you will remember from early this year, Frank Commendador and I formed a sub-committee to help articulate guidance for the Planning Director regarding amendments that were proposed for the Puna Community Development Plan. There were some-80 proposed amendments, mostly editorial and inconsequential. However, four
substantial issues emerged and remained unresolved. These were:

1) diminish the "action-word" syntax of the original PCDP by subsituting conditional language
2) delete reference to flexible planning strategies such as "floating zone," and "transfer of development rights" from the PCDP
3) weaken proposed agricultural zoning classifaction that would keep large land parcels intact
4) failure to protect the quality of the entire aquifer betwen Kea'au and Kapoho

The Action Committee presented these concerns to the Windward Planning Commission (June, 2010,) and also indicated to the PC our interest in seeing greater community participation in the development of town and village centers. The planning Commission took note of our concerns, and declined to accept the amendment package that had been supported by the Planning Director and the County Council. As a result, County Council will hear public testimony on Bill 194, Aug 30, at Kea'au Middle Schoo, 6 PM. We on the Action Committee certainly hope you will be able to attend and express your concerns.

Council Chairman, Jay Yoshimoto, met with the Action Committee last week, and indicated to us that he is willing and eager to resolve at least Items #1 and #2, above. He asked us to provide him with language that might be added to the PCDP that will articulate the roles of the Planning Director and the County Council in implementing community development plans, and he similarly asked for language that would enable inclusion of "floating zone" and "Transfer of Development Rights" as options, considering that there are legislative issues to be resolved. We can do this. Mr Yoshimoto also indicated he had no problems with communities working out
their own ideas for town and village centers, and was pleased we did not intend to override any of the progress WH Shipman Co has made with their plan for a town center in Kea'au.

Items #3 and #4, above, were not discussed. Though they are not now contentious, Council might like to hear community feelings on these as we go through the process of implementation, and as we develop work plans for projects.

We hope you will continue to support the Action Committee, as we work to articulate implementing programs. One of the great services you could provide would be to appear before the County Council at the hearing on Aug 30 and express your support for community involvement in the planning process and for good stewardship of our natural and cultural resources.

Thank you for your great support and encouragement.

Dan and Frank

[Bill Walter]

It is often interesting to see how one's actions are perceived from other perspectives. Far from trying to weaken the PCDP, the amendments supported by Shipman and many others within Puna and the broader East Hawaii community are designed to strengthen Puna and the CDP. It is noteworthy that when the CDP was first passed then Planning Director Chris Yuen stated that if the County Council wanted the PCDP to be taken seriously the Council should pass the amendments. These are the amendments now up for consideration. The current Planning Director has also expressed her support for the amendment package.

We all see the rapid growth in population within Puna yet with this growth there has been very little growth in infrastructure and less growth in the services needed to support the community. The County and State estimate that in the coming 20 years Puna will house 70,000 to 80,000 residents. A recent study showed that Puna now has less than 1/3 the State average retail, restaurant and service space as the rest of the island. As a community we are highly dependent on Hilo and West Hawaii for the jobs and services that we need. Among other needs, Puna needs a solid job and service (retail, etc.) base if we are to move from being a essentially a suburb of Hilo to becoming a community that can be self sustaining, supporting itself and exporting goods (largely agricultural) to the rest of the State. How to do this while maintaining our raw beauty and rural nature is difficult. But it can be done. The millions of dollars that are needed to accomplish this will come and can come into those areas that the County's General Plan and the PCDP designates - if those parts of the plan that are stopping them from coming are amended. Both Planning Directors appear to have recognized this in their statements.

What are the changes?

1) The document requires that towns/villages use "floating zones" for any new zoning efforts. The County Zoning Code has no such designation. Leaving this requirement in the PCDP puts zoning efforts at risk, diminishing the efforts to plan and zone carefully. Similarly the PCDP strongly infers that Transfer Development Rights - a tool proven unsuccessful across the US and not in the State or County Code - are to be used. Again this inhibits planning and zoning efforts by those who might invest here.

2) Since the last half of the1970's governments have required developers to put in infrastructure to support development AND to upgrade infrastructure affected by such development. The consultant used by the County for the PCDP informed us that restrictions on the amount of retail space to be allowed in Puna were based on the assumption that the Government should put in the infrastructure. We have done the math - the restrictions in table 5-1 virtually eliminate the possibility of bringing the needed services into Puna. These restrictions we were told were "from a book somewhere." The community needs the services and jobs. The LUPG map which is part of the General Plan limits where services can be put - and that is not in question. The point is to allow the market to determine how much is built within the designated areas rather than allowing those limitations to come "from a book somewhere."

3) The document suggest downzoning that would make it very difficult and in some cases impossible for local families to pass usable land on to their heirs. In a high cost area such as Hawaii keeping families - many of whom have this as one of the few ways to keep their families together - from breaking their lands into such parcels is less than fair to those families.

4) It is interesting to note that one of the State's most respected environmentalists has written a letter on the aquifer to the County Council. After reviewing and being involved in many studies he concludes that the restrictions in the PCDP are not called for. Of further note, these restrictions pass on a requirement that would increase costs primarily to the Hawaiian Community on DLNR lands that are not and have not been required of others within the district. One might somehow be able to justify such a pass on if there were scientific evidence supporting it. But there is not, so what we have is a requirement that only the Host Culture must face and then for no well grounded reason. (Interestingly, at the end of the Planning Committee meeting in July Rob Tucker was heard telling Emily Naeole-Beason that he agreed with her that this requirement should be removed from the plan).

Understand that those of us who support the amendments are following up on the call in 2008 to "Pass it now, amend it later." We, too, want to retain the beauty and unique character of Puna. The unintended consequences of the unamended document are significant inhibitors to keeping Puna Puna.

Bill Walter