<![CDATA[Punaweb Forum - Land Use Working Group]]>

<![CDATA[Punaweb Forum - Land Use Working Group]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/ Sun, 25 Oct 2026 12:14:31 +0000 MyBB <![CDATA[I dont see any thing here]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4359 Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:40:41 -0500 mik3hal3]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4359
]]>
]]> <![CDATA[Land Use Working Group Final Report -2/12/07]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4358 Mon, 12 Feb 2007 12:02:56 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4358
It will soon be posted on the Hawaii Island Plan web site.
When That is done I will add a link here.

MAHALO to all those who participated in this process from the initial small group meetings to the final reports of all working groups. We need to keep in touch and look for more ways to improve community involvement and work for a good future for our home.

Aloha,

Rob Tucker, Land Use WG coordinator]]>
It will soon be posted on the Hawaii Island Plan web site.
When That is done I will add a link here.

MAHALO to all those who participated in this process from the initial small group meetings to the final reports of all working groups. We need to keep in touch and look for more ways to improve community involvement and work for a good future for our home.

Aloha,

Rob Tucker, Land Use WG coordinator]]> <![CDATA[Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Draft 2/5/07]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4357 Sun, 04 Feb 2007 23:55:46 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4357
Submitted by Rick Warshauer

The Nature of the Volcano Region.
The area surrounding the summit of Volcano exhibits a special natural history and dynamic landscape. Both have fostered a very strong cultural significance for the region by the original human inhabitants of Hawai’i. This significance has extended long past the arrival of the first European visitors and the plethora of settlers and changes that followed. The geology and biological resources of the region inspired the Hawaiians’ reverence for the landscape, which was visited but not lived in. The eruptions and landforms of two of the world’s most active volcanoes, Kilauea and Mauna Loa, have defined the nature of this exquisite landscape. Various aged lava flows, ash and explosion deposits underlie and help define its ecology. The Kilauea summit divides the mountain into wetter windward and drier leeward slopes. The wetter side is covered by thick forests of ‘ohi’a trees and hapu’u tree ferns on all but the youngest of flows or cleared land. On the drier side of Kilauea, vegetation tends to be more open, exposing the underlying geology to view. The variety in conditions and age is reflected in the richness of the biology. These special natural resources have been inspiring awe and appreciation for many centuries. The natural and cultural features have received international recognition at Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park as International Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage sites.

History and Land Use.
Following the deposition of the Hawaiian Kingdom, succeeding governments began a process of disposing of lands in the Volcano area. About the same time, the assembly of Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park began nearby, including some of the wetter forests of Kilauea and later a disjunct portion of Mauna Loa wet forest (the “Ola’a Tract” Wink

. The Volcano area lands that were sold were used primarily for vacation residences and small farms. Subsequent subdivision into smaller vacation lots began as mountain houses for local residents. By the mid-1950’s, the small village next to the National Park had expanded into extensive areas of farms and house lots, all platted over the existing forests. Deep ash soils and adequate rainfall were ideal for farming of a variety of crops and later cattle. Also following World War II, extensive subdivisions were cut into the forests. These huge subdivisions were designed not for local vacation homes or expanding the community, but rather for large-scale real estate sales to land investors, primarily from off-shore. Lot sizes varied, but most were a half-acre or less, and most were far from any stores, power lines or main roads. Periodic subdivision of individual lots has continued on a piecemeal basis to the present. In about 1967 the County of Hawai’i designated land use zones in Volcano and other areas for the first time. Large and small lots alike were zoned residential or agriculture, irrespective of lot size, land use or natural resource content. The consequences of both the subdivisions and zoning actions have recently become evident.

From their beginnings, the National Park and Volcano area community have had interconnected history and economies. Expansion of park budgets over the years has provided some employment for Volcano area residents, and some of the visitors shop and stay in Volcano establishments. Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park has now become one of the larger visitor attractions in Hawai’i. In recent years this considerable visitor flow has stimulated significant exposure to and sales of Volcano real estate, for retirement and resettlement homes next to a premier National Park, and also as an ever-increasing resale commodity driven by and for off-island speculators. Land sales prices and taxes have been rapidly elevating. Instead of formerly built farm houses or cottages nestled into the forest, recent construction features clear-cutting and re-contouring of lots, and architecture inappropriate for the neighborhoods. Volcano had become the venue for others’ money making.

Adverse Consequences of Unplanned Development
Development of unplanned, scattered subdivisions has created problems of expensive yet reduced public services. The conversion of prime agricultural and natural resources
lands to residential use has been squandering their values as native forest areas that connect and buffer the International Biosphere Reserve (National Park) and adjoining State Natural Area Reserves. A lack of adequate controls in the past has allowed the rampant development of Hawaii’s limited and valuable land and natural resources for short-term gain for the few, while it now is resulting in long-term loss and values of our State’s limited natural resources. The Volcano area is a prime example of this wide-spread problem. The deforestation and urbanization of Volcano’s forests, carried out to the maximum extent as defined by its existing zoning and subdivisions will degrade both the International Biosphere Reserve and the adjoining State Natural Area Reserves. This plus potential, rampant development of the area is likely to diminish the attractive qualities of one of the largest visitor magnets in Hawai’i.

The existing zoning in the Volcano area bears little and inconsistent resemblance to the arrangement of lots and applied land use patterns. Volcano has the largest concentration of small lots in Puna, many of them on Agriculture zoned land. The Volcano area currently has 5303 lots which can be used to construct residences. Its current zoning and lot sizes could expand this number to nearly 8700 house lots. The ‘ohana dwelling permit process could extend the number of houses capable of being constructed to a very much larger number. Past and current practices allow simply by ministerial actions the continued approval of subdivisions and ‘ohana permits. Landowner applications are what drive the system, given Volcano’s existing zoning and lot layout. Many of these applications are from new landowners outside Volcano, mostly offshore, and they result in speculative construction and offshore sales, rather than a community’s normal growth. For those Volcano residents who have lived here for the quiet, natural values of the region, there exists a building crisis.

Volcano is suffering from the simple build-out response to the over abundant amount of land zoned for residential use and the very large numbers of small lots. Unchecked, the resulting urbanization will destroy the forest of the area and place a sizeable urban center alongside priceless region of National Park and Natural Area Reserves. The ongoing and anticipated construction removes and fragments ‘ohi’a forest. The natural connections between the large protected areas will be altered at a much greater scale. Native birds and insects often transit between the protected forest areas, flying across Volcano’s forest canopy in between. Regionally, much of the best native ‘ohi’a forest lies within and next to Volcano, a reflection of its underlying geology and overall pattern of rainfall. The ‘ohi’a forest is finite. Even at lower levels of build-out, the National Park will be increasingly isolated from the richer wet forests of its northeast.

The adverse outcomes can be much reduced. Current land use regulations that have defined this area cannot change what has been created previously without significant changes in local land use policy and practice. The latter is the only way to alter the inevitable trajectory of degradation of forest cover and quality of life in the Volcano area.

The Required Solution: a Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone
Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park is a special place with special resources. It has received international recognition by being designated both an International Biosphere Reserve and World Heritage Site. The quality of life in this Biosphere Reserve (BR) and in the Volcano area are linked to the degree of development of Volcano, and this development is accelerated by the increasing visitor draw to the Park. Therefore, it seems logical that a program and policy to guide and reduce the scale of Volcano development could benefit the priceless qualities of both areas. In that maintaining the attractive natural qualities benefits of both the BR and the Volcano community helps to preserve the economic engine that is built around the flow of visitors to Hawai’i Volcanoes National Park, all of Hawai’i County benefits from protecting this natural and economic treasure.

Worldwide, some BR’s with surrounding communities have created buffer zones to plan the growth and employment opportunities in ways that protect the resources and culture of both the BR and the communities. Volcano can do so as well if the community and County government are sufficiently motivated and united to do so. Creation of a Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone adjacent to the existing BR (the National Park) is a logical way to protect both the qualities of the National Park’s wet forests and the quality of life for Volcano residents and visitors. At the same time it can demonstrate how a faulty subdivision layout can be redirected to work for its residents.

Goals of the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone
The primary goal of the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone (BRBZ) is to retain the generally forested nature of the BRBZ as it develops, so as to retain the natural resource qualities that are desired by its residents and are needed to protect the adjoining Biosphere Reserve and Natural Area Reserves from excessive degradation due to deforestation and other adverse consequences of urban-type build-out.
Another primary goal includes guiding the development activities and extents of the BRBF area so that the Biosphere Reserve core area (Hawaii Volcanoes National Park) and adjoining Pu’u Maka’ala and Kahauale’a Natural Area Reserves are not isolated biologically from each other by the intervening BRBF (the larger Volcano community).
These goals should also retain the quality of life desired by Volcano residents within this BRBZ.

Objectives of the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone
The objectives are two-fold, to set up a Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone with an advisory commission, and to begin and continue the process of installing and implementing measures to operate it.

The objectives of delineating and operating a permanent Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone are as follows:
Within one year of adoption of this Puna Community Development Plan, Hawaii County shall designate a Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone (BRBZ) boundary and create an area of no less than 7, 000 acres within the greater Volcano community as a BRBZ Special District or equivalent category for land use regulation. The attached outline of the BRBZ defines its actual perimeter and area (7,000-10,000 acres) which is to be added to the LUPAG and Zoning maps.
Within the same one year, Hawaii County shall designate a nine-member Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission to be the interface between the Volcano community and the County agencies that establish and implement the regulations of the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone.
Within the same one year, Hawaii County shall pass an ordinance prohibiting any further subdivisions or ‘ohana dwelling permits within the BRBZ and any up-zoning of land within the BRBZ that does not have a favorable recommendation from the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission.
Within the same one year, the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission and Hawaii County shall adopt the first portion of a specialized set of regulations and incentives would encourage the retention of native forest canopy, would reduce the overall building density within the BRBZ, and would redistribute building density to better meet the residents’ needs than do the current zoning designations.
By the end of the second year and on the anniversary of every succeeding year, Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission shall report to the Hawaii County Planning Commission, the County Council and the Mayor on the successes and statutory needs of the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone for the succeeding year. The Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission shall include in their annual report the amount of ‘ohi’a tree canopy lost or gained from all actions during the reporting year.
The objectives of the regulations and incentives that are to apply within the BRBF are as follows:
A primary objective is to reduce the degree of loss of native ‘ohi’a forest canopy as the build-out of the Volcano community ensues. Monitoring the year-to-year amount of ‘ohi’a forest canopy shall be used as a measure of consistency with this objective.
Another primary objective is to reduce the overall building density in the BRBZ.
Another primary objective is to redistribute existing density into areas that meet the needs of Volcano residents over those of outside development markets or landowners.
Another primary objective is to reduce incentives for land speculation in order to allow a planned redirection of land use and natural resource protection.
Another primary objective is to develop innovative and effective measures to achieve the aforementioned objectives while maintaining the quality of life for residents of the BRBZ.

Specific Recommendations for the BRBZ
Amend the Hawai’i County Code (HCC), Article 7 (relating to Special District Regulations), to add sections that will establish and manage a Special District called the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District as per Objectives 1-5 above. This will include the establishment of a Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission to act as the interface between the Volcano area community and the Hawai’i County agencies affected by the operations of the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District.
Pass an ordinance that would direct the Planning Director not to accept or process applications for subdivisions (including for consolidation/re-subdivision) or ‘ohana dwelling permits within the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District. The only exceptions would be applications for subdivision (including for consolidation/re-subdivision) that had received a positive recommendation from the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission.
Pass an ordinance that would direct the Hawai’i County Finance Department to establish procedures that will allow property owners within the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District to receive a permanent, low tax assessment in exchange for establishing a permanent restriction prohibiting any construction or development of their dedicated parcels. Instruments to establish this prohibition shall include Conservation Easements (as delineated in Hawai’i Revised Statutes Chapter 198), non-retractable deed restriction, or similar measure. The collective reduction in taxes paid should be reflected in the reduction of County services for the collective avoided development in the District.
Pass an ordinance that would direct and fund the Planning Director to commission a study to develop procedures to legally institute the processes of “Transfer of Development Rights” and “Land Pooling” within the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District and to investigate other measures to redistribute development type and density.
Pass an ordinance that would direct the Planning Director not to accept or process applications for changes of zone within the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District that would increase the building density or allowable uses above those allowed in residential and agricultural zones. The only exceptions would be applications within the context of Transfer of Development Rights and/or Land Pooling, and which had received a positive recommendation from the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone Advisory Commission.
Pass an ordinance that would direct the Hawai’i County Public Works and Planning Departments to prohibit any mechanical land clearing or removal of healthy ‘ohi’a trees within required building site yard areas of properties within the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District, except for a single fifteen-foot wide driveway access. This ordinance should include a $10,000 fine (each, per violation) for violating owners and equipment operators, and an efficient process to collect the fine. These fines would be directed into a fund to be set up for purchasing property rights within the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District.
Pass an ordinance that would prohibit the Hawai’i County Public Works and Planning Departments from approving any residential building permit that includes a leach field for disposal of septic system effluent. Instead, these departments should accept alternative and experimental septic system effluent disposal methods using a small-footprint design that is approved by the State Department of Health.
Pass an ordinance that would direct and fund the Planning Director to commission a study to develop procedures to allow small-scale development that does not require a change of zone, such as by Use Permit, Special Permit, Planned Unit Development, and similar allowed and not yet allowed procedures, permits for which that do not run with the land. The goals would be to allow needed small-scale development in areas of predominantly agricultural and residential zoning without encouraging land speculation.
Pass an ordinance that would direct and fund the Planning Director to commission a study to identify the flood paths and source areas in the Biosphere Reserve Buffer Zone District, and to design and recommend ordinance language to implement innovative ways to reduce the scale and impacts of flooding, including the acquisition of or right to strategic vacant, forested lots to use for absorbing floodwaters.
Pass a County Council resolution to ask the State Department of Land and Natural Resources to reassess their unencumbered lands east of Wright Road and convert them to Forest Reserve or Natural Area Reserve status.
]]> <![CDATA[Growth Management draft 2/2/07]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4356 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 08:39:41 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4356
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 15000 square foot house lot is less than 125 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 statements received by the county in the recent comment gathering phase of the CDP. 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.

HAWAII COUNTY 2005 GENERAL PLAN GOAL #1. 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 Puna. Very few advocated significantly increased development and those that did emphasized current urban areas for the purpose of more local 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 judgment, a complementary policy of focused intensive development in good contiguity to currently intensively developed locations. Many people prefer the closeness of urban/ suburban neighborhoods. Job and business development opportunities grow in a physically close environment. In well planned developments environmentally low impact infrastructures become development requirements. From a rural preservation point of view there are many good reasons to support well focused and well planned 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.

HAWAII COUNTY 2005 GENERAL PLAN GOAL #2. 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.

HAWAII COUNTY 2005 GENERAL PLAN GOAL #3. 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.

LAND USE - GROWTH MANAGEMENTGOALS & RECOMMENDATIONS

GOAL #1: Prevent population sprawl and scattered development
OBJECTIVES: ?All intensive development must be physically adjacent to existing intensively developed areas or in a small number of well placed new urban expansion zones such as the Orchidland Drive expansion zone. ?Guide non-intensive growth into existing subdivisions rather than create new subdivisions; support this guidance with funding mechanisms for infrastructure improvements in substandard subdivisions.

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Focus all intensive development in areas that are already intensively developed (i.e., Kea'au, Pahoa, Volcano). In new intensive developments require integrated communities supporting residences, schools, services and recreation either within or adjacent to the new subdivision. ?Create and seed funding mechanisms such as self-sustaining revolving loan funds to encourage upgrading existing large subdivisions to better standards of livability, safety and reduced environmental impact. ?Excluding all current subdivisions and improved properties rezone A-1a zones in Puna to A-5a. ?Increase county staffing to increase code enforcement activity; increase county initiative for prosecution of the most obvious nonconforming uses, particularly along major roadways.

DISCUSSION: This is perhaps our most fundamental goal in managing Puna's future population growth. As noted in the working groups' mission, our definition of rural character is a low population density. A definition of population sprawl is intensive residential development not associated with any other intensively developed area. Conjoining intensive development with current urban zones, encouraging growth in existing subdivisions rather than creating new subdivisions and enforcing a five acre minimum in agricultural zones offers the best possibility of retaining a rural and agricultural character in Puna. The 2005 General Plan policy 14.1.3(j) "encourage urban development within existing zoned areas already served by basic infrastructure, or close to such areas, instead of scattered development" directly supports these recommendations. Our working group believes that we need to send a clear message to the executive branch that obvious non-conforming land uses, from ad-hoc car lots, junkyards, fast food stands, chicken grills, satellite dishes and the like, need to be prosecuted as a matter of standard county business rather than requiring a formal citizen complaint as the basis of action. We support budget increases for additional county personnel to carry out this enforcement, particularly as we found that investigations from 2003 are still not complete. While down-zoning A-1a zones to A-5a may be difficult for the county, allowing continued one-acre dwelling parcels in otherwise low density rural areas results in essentially suburban sprawl and is decidedly inconsistent with maintaining the rural character of Puna. The best example of such inappropriate zoning is the large A-1a area east of Kalapana as it is embedded in A-5a and larger zoning. Inevitably such areas become only residences and are never developed for agriculture. Therefore maintaining large areas of undeveloped property in the A-1a category is inconsistent with maintaining the rural and agricultural character of Puna. ________________________

GOAL #2: Maintain subsurface water quality

OBJECTIVE: Eliminate residential sources of groundwater pollution

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?No cesspools allowed for any new building ?Require septic system or composting toilets for single family residence ?Require aerobic wastewater treatment or composting toilets for new dwellings within 1000' of drilled wells or SMA areas ?Require aerobic wastewater treatment or composting toilets for new intensive (less than 1 acre) development ?Prepare an Environmental Assessment to estimate wastewater contamination of the Puna aquifer comparing septic systems versus aerobic systems as a function of expected increased population.

DISCUSSION: Increasing population has a clear impact on groundwater quality (in areas less blessed with rainfall than Puna, it also has an impact on groundwater availability). We are concerned that Puna's highly draining subsurface structure very quickly moves minimally treated wastewater into our aquifers. With towns and villages typically drilling wells for high volume water usage water quality will decline as population increases. In addition, while better than cesspools, septic systems offer a relatively low level of treatment. Therefore, for areas of intensive development full aerobic wastewater treatment (or composting toilets) should be required. ___________________

GOAL #3:Maintain high residential infrastructure standards for subdivisions and building permits

OBJECTIVES: ?No new substandard parcels less than five acres ?Reduce physical, social and environmental impacts of inadequate residential infrastructure

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?All new subdivisions and residential building permits for parcels below five acres must meet all county standards for building with no variances for wastewater, drainage, road, water and other requirements ?Begin a non-punitive assessment of non-permitted dwellings for property taxes. ?Increase county staffing to increase code inspection and enforcement activity DISCUSSION: The County should alleviate the impact of speculative and haphazard building by insuring that smaller parcels are up to county infrastructure requirements. Create consistent expectations for developers by consistently enforcing standards. It must be noted that the continued tolerance of large numbers of unpermitted buildings, of whatever quality, creates disrespect for the construction principles underlying the building code and the County itself as the enforcers of the code. Just as some people feel that they are not getting a fair return on their tax dollar, having some citizens escape valuation of their homes entirely seems even less fair. There are any number of reasonably well built unpermitted dwellings that contribute nothing (via property taxes) to support the roads, parks, police and fire, civil defense, etc. that they depend on. Nonetheless, for the purposes of taxation, assessment should be disassociated from punitive actions such as red-tagging a dwelling. __________________________

GOAL #4: Manage highway usage resulting from increased population pressure.

OBJECTIVES: ?Increase safety by focusing on improved intersection controls ?Decrease congestion on Hwy 130 by providing alternative routes

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Add safety improvements such as longer merging lanes and stop lights at subdivision intersections to Hwy 130 ?Add alternate types of transportation routes (bicycle, small motor bikes) parallel to existing and new routes ?Alternative access routes between Puna and Hilo are the best long term solution to manage growth. The Transportation Working Group is considering detailed proposals and we will defer to their recommendations as to how alternative routes should be implemented.

DISCUSSION: It is doubtful that any highway widening project in any urban area has ever resulted in long term reduction of traffic congestion unless population growth does not occur. Every projection indicates Puna will have significant population increases. Eventually alternatives to simple highway widening must be sought, as Honolulu is demonstrating at this time with its proposed guided rail system. Until significant job and shopping opportunities exist in Puna, automobile commuting to Hilo will be a fact of life. While buses and bicycle transportation may be addressed by other working groups, it is the firm recommendation of this group that removing traffic from Highway 130 to alternate routes mauka and makai provides the best hope of significant congestion alleviation for a longer term than widening.
Alternate corridor routes should be selected for optimum access from the larger subdivisions into Hilo but development should be phased to accommodate funding realities and to work with the subdivisions on routing. The initial stages may not involve taking of subdivision property but should emphasize establishing the best routing over the long term to handle the significant increase in traffic that will occur in Puna. _______________________________

GOAL #5: Maintain integrity of zoning as reflected in property taxation and allowed activities.

OBJECTIVE: Parcel usage and property taxation should reflect parcel zoning

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Develop standards defining commercial agricultural activity for purpose of assigning property tax rates ?Adjust tax rates to confer advantage on commercial agricultural and conservation land use. Per http://www.hawaiipropertytax.com, current tax rates per $1000: Improved Residential - $8.10; Agricultural - $8.35; Conservation - $8.55; Homeowner - $5.55, mitigate against agricultural and conservation land use. By contrast, residential property is the most expensive type for the county to support, requiring roads and schools for instance. ?Move parcels in agricultural zones that do not demonstrate commercial agricultural activity into a residential property tax bracket. ?Support taxation at (reduced) conservation zoning rates in exchange for owners agreeing to land banking or conservation easements for significant periods of time such as ten years. Include penalties for early withdrawal. No significant alteration of the conserved property would be allowed other than removal of invasive and other non-native plants and planting of native species.

DISCUSSION: Our working group found it very surprising that commercial agriculture and conservation property is taxed at higher rates than residential property. The benefits of commercial agriculture in retaining rural character, creating jobs and maintaining continuity with the history and culture of Puna, should be supported by the property tax rates. On the other hand, the pressure of substantial population growth is placing ever larger demands on the county to provide infrastructure and services. Therefore residential land uses must shoulder much more of the costs that they themselves are creating. However, for the purpose of taxation, commercial agriculture must be distinguished from hobby farming (a small number of trees or grazing animals, trivial investments) and backyard gardening by such criteria as a business license in an agricultural business, significant investment in agricultural assets or actual or projected (such as forestry) ability to produce income, thereby demonstrating long term intent.________________________

GOAL #6: Provide for long term future job opportunities and industrial services availability while minimizing impact on rural and agricultural character by industrial zoning a significant amount of appropriately located land within Puna.

OBJECTIVES: ?Prevent spot commercial and industrial development to avoid sprawl and inappropriate mixed uses ?Confine larger-scale commercial and industrial development to planned areas often characterized as "parks" or in conjunction with existing intensive development. ?Insure that a useful amount of industrially zoned land with good proximity to infrastructure and population resources is allocated in several locations in the Puna district.

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Define industrial/commercial zoned areas that are physically associated with current Urban zoning but have minimal impact on residential use. ?Define industrial/commercial zoned areas in larger acreages for development into planned industrial parks. A possible example is the Hawaiian Homelands property behind the proposed Pahoa fire station. The state and county should encourage partnerships with private investment to achieve this goal. ?Disallow any industrial/commercial zoning or special use permit in any location substantially separated from other intensive uses to reduce sprawl unless such properties are part of a large planned development that will itself concentrate industrial/commercial land uses in one location. ?Investigate such locations as the large geothermal power plant leasehold, Pahoa mauka, DHHL and State of Hawai'i properties for possible industrial parks. ?Insure that no strip development occurs along major roads; eliminate any existing illegal commercial development ?Maintain high standards of safe access and green belt setback for all commercial development adjacent to primary highways to minimize traffic safety risks and visual impact. Shipman Industrial Park in Kea'au is a good example of a well planned park. ?Insure meaningful buffer space between industrial development and residential or agricultural areas.

DISCUSSION: Today's reality is that Hilo contains a large amount of commercial and industrially zoned land while Puna contains relatively little. A major aspect of managing growth in Puna is to make available significant amounts of land for commercial and industrial development. However this development must be implemented in ways consistent with good land use planning practices and, even more importantly, the maintenance of the essential rural and agricultural character of Puna. The expected result should be increased availability of goods, services, investments and jobs in Puna. ____________________

GOAL #7: Minimize rezoning by restricted application of Special Use Permits

OBJECTIVE: ?Avoid rezoning as much as possible consistent with clear public interests ?Utilize Special Use Permits

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?No special use permit shall be issued that substantively contravenes the 2005 General Plan, PCDP recommendations or generally accepted planning practices. ?Insure that any special use permits are issued based on broad county interests rather than the interests of the property owner ?All special use permit applicants must demonstrate substantial public need or public interest relating to issues such as safety, public infrastructure or education to justify issuance of a permit for nonconforming uses. ?Insure that substantial and broad community input be part of any Special Use Permit application

DISCUSSION: Rezoning should be severely restricted across the board, both as the the PCDP is in development and once it is in place consistent with these recommendations. Instead we favor an increased use of carefully considered Special Use Permits in order to evaluate the benefit to the community for a specific nonconforming use. We are generally opposed to rezoning which will allow current and subsequent owners to do anything whatsoever that falls within the altered zone's conforming uses. A Special Use Permit can have significant conditions and restrictions compared to a rezoning. In addition to demonstration of public interest we strongly recommend an extended and geographically increased notification process in order to get as much community input as possible as part of the permit process. Even if there is a clear and overriding public interest for issuance of a permit, good planning practices and community input should still be fully considered and applied to the issuance of the Special Use Permit. __________________

GOAL #8: Increase knowledge of natural dangers in Puna

OBJECTIVE: Property purchasers and builders must be informed of the natural dangers inherent in building in Puna

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Require informational form specifying lava, tsunami and subsidence issues of property location as part of land purchase and building permit processes with signed acknowledgment of understanding. ?Indemnify County from any damages resulting from purchasing land or buildings impacted by lava, tsunami or subsidence.

DISCUSSION: Our group strongly recommends that without exception all land acquisitions and building permits require a signed statement stating the specific lava and flood zone or any other known dangerous conditions of the property in question, therefore unequivocally indicating knowledge by the owner of any dangers they may face. _________________________

GOAL #9: Reduce or eliminate property speculation ("flipping" Wink

OBJECTIVE: Reduce or eliminate incentives for property speculation and resulting excessive price increases

RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Impose significantly higher conveyance fee for short term ownership (we suggest less than two years) unless genuine hardship demonstrated or dwelling meets criteria for affordable housing. ?Require building permit for sale of property that can be reasonably construed as having a dwelling. ?Support affordable housing, either through funding mechanisms for low income or first time buyers, subsidies to affordable housing projects, or other programs to encourage such housing.

DISCUSSION: The practice of purchasing, then rapidly turning over a property for profit, leads to distortions in land prices in the direction of unaffordability for most local people. Our state and county policies must support the goal of affordable home ownership for the purpose of residency rather than turning a quick buck. Some, perhaps most, of the growth in Puna will come from locally born children. Maintaining or encouraging a speculative climate through laws and policies regarding land and dwelling sales will only make it more difficult for them to become home owners in the future and impair their ability to remain in Puna. Any additional conveyance fees collected should be earmarked to support affordable housing. _________________________]]> <![CDATA[Land Use WG meeting Feb 10 Olaa Comm. Center]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4355 Fri, 02 Feb 2007 00:43:16 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4355
This is a large group meeting and we can have the facility to as late as 5 pm. I do not expect it to take so long.

Once again, donations for the community center are requested.

Aloha,

Rob Tucker]]>
This is a large group meeting and we can have the facility to as late as 5 pm. I do not expect it to take so long.

Once again, donations for the community center are requested.

Aloha,

Rob Tucker]]> <![CDATA[S.L.A.W. Work Group Report Suggestions, 2-1-07]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4354 Thu, 01 Feb 2007 23:55:45 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4354
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” Wink

and location on lots.
http://www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/...reeley.pdf (“Tree Protection Ordinances—Can They Work?” Wink

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” Wink

and location on lots.
http://www.californiaoaks.org/ExtAssets/...reeley.pdf (“Tree Protection Ordinances—Can They Work?” Wink

A. Report Goal #1: To encourage and support communities in our rapidly growing Puna region that wish to enhance existing or establish new village centers (VCs) and gathering places where residents can obtain basic goods and services without needing to travel long distances. Communities will continue to grow. In the process, neighbors can take initiative to address their distinct desires, and preserve and enhance the character of their community by having a voice in the village centers form of commercial development. The alternative is accepting what developers independently decide.

B. Report Goal #2: To encourage and support communities in Puna to seek ways to guide development and preservation of structures and settings that is environmentally responsible and reflective of Hawaiian history and culture. Design planning is an established tool for "smart growth"; therefore design district processes should be available to interested community associations wishing to achieve a common vision.

Note: The Census population count for Puna District from 2000 was 31,707. Per John Whalen, Principal of Plan Pacific, Inc. the 2006 Puna District population was 38,500. Mr. Whalen's population projection for 2030 is 75,000. Population growth creates impacts on a community's services such as emergency, transportation, elderly, youth disabled etc. Planning for the growth now by implementing Village Design Districts will provide a fair and functional process for smart growth.

II. OBJECTIVES ("How to meet goals" Wink

A. Objective #1: Communities will begin to consider supporting creating village centers with scope and size suitable for their immediate and surroundings areas. County planning resources will facilitate community efforts to achieve thoughtful commercial planning results. Currently the County of Hawaii General Plan, Land Use Commercial Development (14.3.4 Standards) does provide descriptions of three basic types of village centers with general parameters as an initial reference point:

There are three basic types of shopping centers:

(a) Neighborhood Centers
• Provide: Convenience goods, e.g., foods, drugs, and personal services.
• Major Shops: Supermarket and/or drug store.
• Number of Shops: 5 to 15.
• Acreage: 5 to 10 acres.
• Approximate Market: 3,000 people.
(b) Community Centers
• Provide: Convenience goods, plus "soft line" items, such as clothing, and "hard
line" items, such as hardware and small appliances.
• Major Shops: Variety or junior department store.
• Number of Shops: 20 to 40.
• Acreage: 10 to 30 acres.
• Approximate Market: 15,000 people.
© Regional Centers
• Provide: Full range of merchandise and services.
• Major Shops: Full size department store.
• Number of Shops: 40.
• Acreage: over 30 acres.
• Approximate Market: 50,000 people.

B. Objective #2: There will be Puna-wide community input, and encouragement and support of the County Planning Department and other departments as necessary to accomplish development of cohesive design district processes and guidelines.

C. Objective #3. Communities will examine their own community cultural, social and economic history and goals when deciding whether to pursue design district status and guidelines.

III. RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Recommendation #1: County Council should effect a moratorium on all subdividing and any rezoning that would allow development until the Puna Community Development Plan is completed. Special permit requests should be subject to public notice and review, affected community associations' acceptance, and approval by the (to be created) Puna Communities Council.

B. Recommendation #2: Communities should first consider the following general criteria and situations as they pertain to their area when exploring village center possibilities:

Set back off highway
Acreage based on population density
Enterprise zone
Access to water, sewer, electric
Roads (into & out of)
Hazards awareness
Proximity to historic/established community areas
Sufficient municipal parking
Ecological, agriculture and archaeological considerations
Impact on community quality of life

C. Recommendation #3: Communities should consider a list of village center "people focused" possible attributes when exploring village center possibilities in their areas. A list of attributes has been compiled and suggestions as to each attribute's suitability for each type of village centers are offered below:

1. Neighborhood Village Center (NVC) - Example: Kurtistown
a. 5-10 acres
b. 3,000 population
c. 5-15 shops such as convenience (prefer Mom & Pop type), food, drugs, personal services

VC Possible Attributes:

Community Flavor- mandatory vs. 7-11 strip mall type flavor
Meeting space/community center- in every neighborhood desired
Social Opportunities- to talk story such as places for chance
meetings like central post office box location, neighborhood bulletin boards, community pavilion mandatory
Design District-Maybe too small to institute Design District, on the other hand, Volcano Village good example of where it could work
Farmer’s Market-may be of too big a scale to have in NVC but a few stores w/ outside product stands should be allowed
General Store-may be too big for NVC but small mom & pops more desirable, depends what you mean by General Store
Banking-NVC may be too small to support small bank branch but at least one ATM should definitely be provided in NVC
Food-NVC should definitely make provisions for small food establishments such as small mom & pop type like BBQ Chix shops but no major fast food establishments such as Taco Bells should be allowed in NVCs
Green centers- like a small neighborhood park where you could have neighborhood BBQ and covered gathering space should be part of every NVC
People pedestrian friendly- shall definitely be an attribute of any village center regardless of size; the most important subattribute of a Village Center being pedestrian friendly is for the village to be safe for pedestrians and should have adequate sidewalks and crosswalks
Small scale accommodations- such as B&B’s don’t necessarily have to be located in NVC but should be allowed in neighborhoods as long as they meet the normal, “Special Use” zoning requirements
Healthy activities- like walking and biking should be allotted for within every NVC by the use of tree shaded walks, benches and bike parking
Hawaii-Big Island feel design- with height restrictions, environmental building standards, visual guidelines and native landscaping etc should be mandatory for any village center
Multi-family housing- may not be appropriate except for live/work units above small shops in NVC
Medical facilities- like a few small doctor/dentist offices should be allowed within NVC
Cultural opportunities- may be more appropriate in large village centers but small neighborhood coffee shop could be venue for cultural opportunities within NVCs
Smart parking- i.e. parallel in front w/larger parking lot in ancillary locations should be part of NVC such as in Honomu
Transit centers- need to be considered as part of NVC so that commuters could also have easy access to neighborhood stores and services
County, State & other public services -may be of too small scale to have in every NVC
Public restrooms- not necessary to provide in every neighborhood but nice if they are as part of park
Live/work concept -like plantation villages should definitely be part of neighborhood village centers such as Papaikou
Security/Neighborhood Watch/Positive police response- shall be part of every neighborhood village center
Education centers/opportunities- would be nice in every neighborhood but may not have facilities, therefore should be relegated to CVC
Legacy- and prepare for future generations should be part of every NVC, therefore plots of land should be set aside for specific uses like parks, community services
Open space preservation- big & little ways should also be part of every NVC, for example, preserve some green buffer zone and wildlife habitat in every neighborhood
Encourage tax $ to stay in area- by encouraging local businesses to thrive vs. big box stores in every NVC
Business improvement area- see if can get designated federal dollars to help set infrastructure in place for dedicated community Village Centers as antidote for sprawl and traffic congestion
Lighting- appropriate to the area shall be part of every Neighborhood Village Center, i.e. that is minimally invasive to the environment lighting that will ensure safety but not pollute the nighttime sky for telescope viewing should be utilized
Small business- friendly and conducive atmosphere should be promoted in NVC by limiting big box competition

2. Community Village Center (CVC) - example Volcano
a. 10-30 acres
b. 15,000 people
c. 20-40 shops such as convenience, soft line, hard line & small appliances

VC Possible Attributes:

Community Flavor- mandatory vs 7-11 strip mall type flavor
Meeting space/community center- mandatory for a Community Village Center
Social Opportunities- to talk story such as places for chance meetings like central post office boxes location, neighborhood bulletin boards, community pavilions & gardens, mandatory
Design District-medium sized Village Center should definitely consider having mandatory Design District Guidelines to make sure all the buildings in the CVC look cohesive and of the area rather than imported Subway, for example type buildings
Farmer’s Market -definitely appropriate in Community Village Centers because will have critical mass to support market. For example, Maku’u Farmer’s Market
General Store-definitely appropriate here, e.g. Ace or True Value Hardware, J. Hara’s
Banking-small bank branch should definitely be provided in Community Village Center, for example, BOH and 1st Hawaiian in Pahoa but we need also in Mt. View
Food-medium sized food establishments such as coffeeshops, plate lunch establishments that reflect the community should be allowed in CVC
Green centers- should also be part of every community village center; village greens should be the size to have a couple of ball fields, dog park, recreation activities, a covered gathering space etc.
People pedestrian friendly- shall definitely be part of any village center regardless of size. The most important subattribute of a Village Center being pedestrian friendly is for the village to be safe for pedestrians and should have adequate sidewalks and crosswalks
Small scale accommodations- such as B&B’s don’t necessarily have to be located in CVC but should be allowed w/I the community as long as they meet the normal, “Special Use” zoning requirements
Healthy activities- like walking and biking should be allotted for within every Community Village Center by the use of tree shaded walks, benches and bike parking
Hawaii-Big Island feel design- with height restrictions, environmental building standards, visual guidelines and native landscaping etc should be mandatory for any village center
Multi-family housing- may be more appropriate such as live/work units above small shops in CVC
Medical facilities- like a few small doctor/dentist offices and maybe a small but not too large clinic should be allowed within CVC
Cultural opportunities- in small to medium sized venues such as coffee house size up to small theater should be considered for CVCs
Smart parking- i.e. parallel in front w/larger parking lot in ancillary locations should be part of CVC such as in Honoka’a
Transit centers- need to be considered as part of CVC so that commuters could also have easy access to community stores and services, i.e. medium sized stores, services near bus stop
County, State & other public services- such as small scale Police substation should be considered as part of CVC
Public restrooms- nice to provide as part of Community Village Centers Park Live/work concept- like plantation villages should definitely be part of community village centers such as Papaikou
Security/Neighborhood Watch/Positive police response- shall be part of every community village center with possible mini police substation and security video cameras
Education centers/opportunities -would be nice in every community, therefore should be mandated in CVC
Legacy- and prepare for future generations should be part of every CVC, therefore plots of land should be set aside for specific uses like parks, community services
Open space preservation- big & little ways should also be part of every CVC, for example preserve a medium sized green buffer zone and wildlife habitat in every community
Encourage tax $- to stay in area by encouraging local businesses to thrive vs. big box stores in every CVC
Business improvement area- See if can get designated federal dollars to help set infrastructure in place for dedicated Community Village Centers as antidote for sprawl and traffic congestion
Lighting- appropriate to the area shall be part of every Community Village Center, i.e. that is minimally invasive to the environment lighting that will ensure safety but not pollute the nighttime sky for telescope viewing should be utilized
Small business friendly- and conducive atmosphere should be promoted in CVC by limiting big box competition

3. Regional Village Center (RVC) - example Kea'au
a. > 30 acres
b. 50,000 population
c. > 40 shops, full range of merchandise & services

VC Possible Attributes:

Community flavor mandatory vs 7-11 strip mall flavor
Meeting space/community center- mandatory, at least one for Town Hall type meetings
Social Opportunities- to talk story such as places for chance meetings like post office boxes, neighborhood bulletin boards, community pavilions & gardens mandatory
Design District-having a design district for the Regional Village Centers will enhance the sense of place and cohesive architectural design will unify the community and could only increase property values; for example Waimea vs. Walmart/Hilo
Farmer’s Market- definitely appropriate here; for example, Kea’au Farmer’s Market
General Stores- may get sized out by larger stores in Regional Village Center
Banking-Regular size bank branches as well as alternatives such as Credit Unions should be provided in Regional Village Centers such as Kea’au
Food-Large food establishments such as McDonalds, Pizza Hut should be and are already allowed in Regional Village Centers such as Kea’au Shopping Center
Green centers such as W.H. Shipman Regional Park should be part of every Regional Village Center; the green centers to be considered should be of the recreation complex size.
People pedestrian friendly- shall definitely be part of any village center regardless of size; the most important sub-attribute of a Village Center being pedestrian friendly is for the village to be safe for pedestrians and should have adequate sidewalks and crosswalks.
Small scale accommodations- such as B&B’s don’t necessarily have to be located in RVC but should be allowed in the region as long as they meet the normal “Special Use” zoning requirements
Healthy activities- like walking and biking should be allotted for within every Regional Village Center by the use of tree shaded walks, benches and bike parking.
Hawaii-Big Island feel design- with height restrictions, environmental building standards, visual guidelines and native landscaping etc should be mandatory for any village center
Multi-family housing- definitely appropriate in RVC especially live/work units above small shops
Medical facilities- including small clinic/hospital should be allowed, planned for and mandated within RVC
Cultural opportunities- in medium to large sized venues such as small theater to large auditorium should be considered for RVCs
Smart parking- i.e. parallel in front w/large parking lot in ancillary location should be part of RVC such as in Hilo
Transit centers- need to be considered as part of RVC so that commuters could also have easy access to community stores and services, i.e. large sized stores, services near bus transfer station like Ala Moana
County, State & other public services- shall definitely be provided in “second city” offices of RVC
Public restrooms- nice to provide as part of RVC but will most likely be in multiple places such as public buildings
Live/work concept- like plantation villages should definitely be part of regional village centers such as Papaikou
Security/Neighborhood Watch/Positive police response- shall be part of every be part of every community village center with possible mini police substation and security video cameras
Education centers/opportunities- mandatory in every RVC so that one doesn’t have to travel great distances for education
Legacy- and prepare for future generations should be part of every RVC, therefore; plots of land should be set aside for specific uses like parks, community services
Open space preservation- big & little ways should also be part of every RVC, for example preserve a large green buffer zone and wildlife habitat in every region
Encourage tax $- to stay in area by encouraging local businesses to thrive vs. big box stores in every RVC
Business improvement area- see if can get designated federal dollars to help set infrastructure in place for dedicated Regional Village Centers as antidote for sprawl and traffic congestion
Lighting- appropriate to the area shall be part of every RVC, i.e. that is minimally invasive to the environment lighting that will ensure safety but not pollute the nighttime sky for telescope viewing should be utilized.
Small business friendly- and conducive atmosphere should be promoted in RVC by limiting big box competition

D. Recommendation #4: In general, light industry would not be encouraged in the core of the village center. Noise, space, visual characteristics and air quality impact should relegate much of light industry away from the core of a village center or to a separate location. The General Plan should continue to identify appropriate locations for light industry subject to smart planning principles and allow appropriate special permits where the industry's impact does not conflict with the level and type of other development planned. Suitable design considerations are needed when the light industry facility is situated in a design district.
.
E. Recommendation #5: Communities should consider their area location, population base with build-out, general characteristics and geographical situation in relation to other Puna neighborhoods when exploring scope and size of village centers. Using these criteria, potential general locations in Puna are listed below and a suggested type of village center for each. These may be appropriate for servicing that immediate and surrounding area and reducing congestion and long distance driving.

1. Kea’au – Regional Village Center
2. Pahoa - Regional Village Center
3. Haw’n Shores/Beaches - Neighborhood Village Center
4. Kaimu to Opihikao - Neighborhood Village Center w/ Black Sand, Kehena, Kaimu, Puna Beach Palisades, Seaview, Royal Gardens as catchment or feeder areas
5. Nanawale - Neighborhood Village Center
6. Leilani Estates - Neighborhood Village Center
7. Glenwood - Neighborhood Village Center w/ Fern Forest, Orchid Isle Estates, Eden Roc & Aloha Estates as catchment or feeder areas
8. Kurtistown - Neighborhood Village Center w/ Hawaiian Acres as a catchment or feeder area
9. Mt. View - Community Village Center w/Pacific Paradise Mt. View Manor, Eden Roc, Fern Acres, Hawaiian Acres, Aloha Estates, Ola’a Scenic Lands, Hawaiian Island Paradise, Hilo Acres, Pacific Paradise Development as catchment or feeder areas
10. Orchidland - Neighborhood Village Center
11. HPP - Community Village Center
12. Volcano - Community Village Center w/ Royal Hawaiian, Ohia Estates, Volcano Village, Hawaiian Orchid Island, Mauna Loa Estates & Volcano Golf & Country Club as catchment or feeder areas
13. Ainaloa - Community Village Center w/ Tiki Gardens & Hawaiian Acres as catchment or feeder areas
14. Kapoho - Neighborhood Village Center

Continue to page 12, Figure 2

F. Recommendation #6: Commercial zoning for village centers should be allocated based on the goals of the community, population and general criteria in III.B.
Note: Commercial zoning deficiencies in Puna were depicted in the 1992 Community Development Plan Technical Report: Puna has 2.84 acres per 1,000 population yet the islandwide ratio is 10.77 acres per 1000.

G. Recommendation #7: Wherever infrastructure is unavailable for needed commercial development of village centers the county will support alternatives that satisfy the needs for development and public health and safety, ie solar energy and well or catchment water systems that meet health and safety standards.

H. Recommendation #8: If stakeholders or area residents desire to have a village center or design district they should notify county planning authorities. The county should prepare and make information available about collaborative community driven planning processes (including design warranted variance requests) and how to initiate them to ensure community desires are implemented.

I. Recommendation #9: A Puna district-wide set of broad design guidelines should be established and adopted in the General Plan that applies to all Puna design districts to ensure development and preservation efforts are locale based and consistent with Hawaiian characteristics. Individual communities should then be able to create specific design guidelines for voluntary compliance or seek regulatory design standards if so desired. Both commercial and residential areas can consider using the design district concept to provide a workable and positive direction to achieve development and community identity goals.

J. Recommendation #10: Create a Puna Communities Council, that with the assistance of a planning consultant will do the following in Puna related matters:
• review proposed General Plan changes and rezoning requests
• be involved in creating county design district processes
• assist in development of Puna wide broad design district guidelines
• have first tier approval authority for community based new (regulated) design district proposals and subsequent guideline revision requests
• have first tier approval authority for special permit requests

K. Recommendation #11: County design district processes and guidelines should conform to state law (Act 119, SLH 1973) which requires counties to adopt urban and rural design plans based on:
1. Land Use
2. Pedestrian and vehicular circulation
3. Public and private community services
4. Historic sites
5. Significant land and water features
6. View and vistas
7. Basic concepts of environmental and architectural character

L. Recommendation #12: The following key questions should be considered by communities to explore their design district potential (condensed from a guide written by John Whalen):

1. What distinctive characteristics or historical sites in their community do they wish to preserve or enhance?
2. What are the existing or desired focal points for community activity?
3. Would the design guidelines apply to residential as well as commercial and public buildings?
4. What features should be preserved or enhanced?
5. What features are incompatible with the desired character of the village?
6. What should be the guidelines for infill development?
7. Is it possible (or necessary) to prohibit undesirable uses?
8. Would there be regulatory controls or voluntary guidelines?
9. If regulatory controls, would there be specific, prescriptive design standards or more general design principles coupled with a design review process?
10. Who would be responsible for design review and decisions?
11. If the guidelines are voluntary, how will they be promoted?

M.. Recommendation #13: The county should take necessary steps to process community association approved design district proposals to completion when submitted for Puna communities as long as they meet current existing laws and standards and the intent of the CDP.

IV. HOW RECOMMENDATIONS ADDRESS:

A. Relationship to recommendations and statements in 2005 General Plan and other previously written plans

• County of Hawaii General Plan, Land Use Commercial Development (14.3.4 Standards) . Types of basic village centers used in this report are excerpted from this plan.
• Hawaiian Paradise Park Community Master Plan (draft)REV. 2005 SECTION II LAND USE PLAN 2.1 OBJECTIVES OF THE LAND USE PLAN. This community supports a village center approach as shown in its plan below.
The major development theme that is a change to the plan of the original developer of the subdivision is the addition of mixed-use areas which may include light industrial and commercial development. It is central to the Plan that the rural theme of the original developer should be preserved. It is recommended that, as property is developed, a green border of approximately 10 feet be left along the side and back boundaries to provide habitat for birds and wildlife. It is further recommended that general landscaping preserve native plants such as the ohia tree.

In the developer’s original plan there were several 20-acre parcels set aside for commercial development although none have ever been zoned for that purpose. It is proposed in this Master Plan that three of those 20-acre parcels be designated as “Village Centers” and zoned for mixed use. The HPP community envisions each Village Center as a small neighborhood shopping and professional services center surrounding a village green. Typical commercial establishments would be small food stores, fruit and vegetable outlets, variety stores, hardware stores, small clothing stores, professional offices, small restaurants, branch banks. We encourage the development of residential walkup apartments of no more than two stories in height to meet the needs of the elderly or for families just starting out. The village greens could be used for entertainment or farmer’s market type of activities as well as just a large green space for relaxation, lawn sports and recreation.
• Volcano Vision 2020; REVISION YEAR 2001; DESIGN GUIDELINES: This plan's intent would preserve Volcano's visual character by employing protective zoning and design district methods:
Goal 1: Preserve the forested environment by reducing, or mitigating the amount of forest which would have to be removed for any development:
1. Encourage the sharing of access roads and parking especially for contiguous commercial development.
2. Explore ideas such as a transfer of parking requirements, which would allow businesses to avoid removing forest for parking by the establishment of a village parking lot on already cleared lots, appropriately located and designed.
3. Continue to lobby the County to defer enforcement of the requirements for curbs, gutters, and sidewalks.
4. Encourage the preservation of the native landscape and the replanting of unused or vacant cleared lands with native species.
5. Strongly encourage the utility companies to share the same poles to prevent the proliferation of overlapping pole lines; and encourage underground utilities wherever possible.
6. Encourage the installation of underground utilities in commercial corridors.
7. Work to enforce litter laws in the Volcano Community.

Goal 2: Preserve the historic structures and, in future construction, the flavor and feel of the core area of the Village:
1. Encourage the establishment of a new zoning category, “CR - Rural Commercial,” to include an amended set of permissible uses, setbacks, minimum lot size, etc.
2. Encourage the establishment of a set of design guidelines for Rural Commercial, which would contain: restrictions on use, and stipulations for buffers, setbacks, lighting and building height; considerations of landscape elements, roof line, building materials, issues of compatibility with surrounding uses and structures, appearance, colors, etc.
3. Encourage the preparation of a design workbook for Rural Commercial zoning based on the existing structures in the Village to act as a guide for landscaping, site planning, designing and building commercial structures that would merely be suggestions of how structures could look in order to be well-integrated into the community; and the creation of a community design review committee, which would be available for consultations about the design guidelines.
4. Explore the creation of a Special Design District, which would set new standards in the commercial corridor.

• Orchidland Community Design Plan 2007. This plan's purpose and vision reflects the desire of the community to define its commercial development parameters:

Prepared by members of the Orchidland Estates (OLE) community to guarantee its residents and lot owners a strong voice in future development and to ensure control over its destiny through ongoing communication with residents and lot owners and dialogue with potential developers and the County of Hawaii.

Further, the plan seeks to protect the natural beauty of OLE and to uphold the community's vision of Orchidland Estates as a peaceful, desirable, rural and agricultural community. It sets guidelines for commercial development consistent with a Neighborhood Center-style design to prevent strip mall-type development while providing basic, essential goods and services to community members, thus mitigating reliance on Highway 130 as a lifeline to necessary services.

• Puna Community Development Plan – Prepared by Community Management Associates, Inc. for The County of Hawai’i Planning Department – October 1995
This report encourages creating village design guidelines for Pahoa, Kea 'au, Mountain View and Volcano in cooperation with their residents. It also recommends developing a community-based planning process to plan preservation, restoration and redevelopment in those areas and new towns with similar traditional character and pedestrian scale.
• Puna Community Development Plan: Technical Reference Report – Prepared by Community Management Associates, Inc. for The County of Hawai’i Planning Department – January 15th, 1992 (Copy currently available to borrow at Hawai'i County Department of Research and Development. Section 9.3 Commercial Land Use & Zoning acknowledges commercial zoned land deficiency in Puna in 1992 and the failure to plan adequately for population-center based commercial services in the following excerpt:
"There has been no planning for location of commercial centers in the subdivisions. Highway by-pass patterns around existing commercial centers have often been placed between existing town centers and emerging population centers in the subdivisions (i.e. Volcano, Mt. View, and Pahoa)--physically alienating existing towns from subdivisions. This pattern further encourages the primary economic relationship to Hilo which is already stressing the capacity of the main roadways. (The 1982 SMS survey showed that subdivision residents tended to by-pass Puna towns on their way to Hilo, while town dwellers did more of their shopping in the towns.) There is increasing pressure for strip development along collector roads and by-passes, as population centers shift without comprehensive planning for balanced land uses integrated into areas convenient to residential centers."
• W.H. Shipman Ltd's Keaau development plan: Article, Hawaii Tribune-Herald July 16, 2006: Shipman's 30-50 year long-range development plan for portions of its 16,000 acre Puna landholdings is in the beginning stages. It includes full scale community objectives: homes, a 32 acre shopping center, government facilities, public services, and park space. Assisted by its planning consultant, Shipman officials explain how they are involving the surrounding communities in the initial outreach phase:

"Trips were made to lower Puna neighborhoods to meet with landowners and Native Hawaiian elders. Members of the business community, public and private school representatives, Hawaii County planners, and emergency service providers also were invited to comment.

The objective is to have affected parties help guide the development process, which won't be final until community approval is secured."

• Hawaii Rural Lands Use Workshops/Hawaii Rural Development Council final report to State Land Use Commission: Page 23, (Round Two East Hawaii). The need to empower community voices in the process of moving towards healthy and vibrant rural districts was emphasized in all sessions. East Hawaii participants called for the following to "Empower Local Residents":

1. People-oriented, people-driven local activities
2. Municipalities or community boards; localized government (commissions)
3. Town councils &/or neighborhood boards
4. Preservation support, e.g., oral histories, art grants

• Pahoa Village Zoning Proposal, July 2006. Prepared by Mainstreet Pahoa Association, Inc. This zoning proposal map is the association's effort to suggest an appropriate mix of zoning and access roads suited to the community's needs, goals and vision.

B. Relationship to public input received in CDP process:
Community input indicates overall strong desire for and support of new or improved community-based village centers in conjunction with sensitive development practices.
Community input also clearly favors a means to preserving existing rural village themes and continuing the theme with new town in-scale development. From this, we can derive there is significant public interest in the purpose of design districts and design guidelines.

C. Community resistance or potential obstacles

Infrastructure needs will be an issue for all development projects. For the PCDP John Whalen recommended that the "Public Facilities & Infrastructure Working Group" focus on planning of facilities for basic infrastructure (water, waste disposal, and police and fire facilities) and the "Transportation Working Group" address facilities for travel (ie highways, streets and so on).

D. Who should be primarily responsible for carrying out the recommendations?

Recommendations adopted by ordinance or included in the General Plan will be the responsibility of the county zoning and planning departments and county council.

]]> <![CDATA[Orchidland Design Plan 2007]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4350 Fri, 26 Jan 2007 00:52:39 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4350
Submitted by Kristie Goin 1/26/07

I. Introduction The Orchidland Design Plan 2007 has been prepared to guide the Community Association, developers, Planning Department, Planning Commission, County Council and other governmental agencies in addressing development in Orchidland Estates Subdivision (OLE).

This twenty-year plan is based upon community input gathered from numerous surveys and community planning meetings and may be revised by the Orchidland Community as needed.

A. Vision Statement Orchidland Estates Subdivision’s vision is to maintain Orchidland Estates (OLE) as a peaceful, desirable, rural and agricultural community. We support the development of a single Neighborhood Center located along the lower portion of Orchidland Drive. This Neighborhood Center will be planned to serve the basic needs of our community independent of other urban centers.

B. Purpose Our purpose is to guarantee the residents and lot owners of OLE a strong voice in the future and development of our community and to ensure control over its destiny through ongoing communication with residents and lot owners and dialogue with potential developers and the County of Hawaii. Further, we seek to set guidelines for commercial development in Orchidland Estates which protect and maintain the community’s vision, preventing strip mall-type development while encouraging a Neighborhood Center-style design consistent with providing basic, essential goods and services and mitigating reliance on Highway 130 as a lifeline to necessary services.

C. Boundaries (see map, Appendix 1) The boundaries of Orchidland Estates are: Highway 130 and Pohaku Circle (makai); Ainaloa Blvd. (south); 40th and 42nd Ave. (mauka); and Pohaku Dr. and Pualani (north).

D. Existing Conditions At the present time one multi-tenant commercial development and a light industrial storage facility exist between 34th Ave. and the highway. A second multi-tenant commercial development has been approved between 34 th and 35th. Additionally, a church fronts Highway 130 adjacent to the commercial development, and numerous private residences exist within the designated Neighborhood Center.

E. Areas of Concern
1. Historic Historic and archaeological sites shall be protected.
2. Roads The roads in Orchidland Estates are privately-owned and are maintained at lot owners’ expense. Therefore, the community desires to limit commercial development to providing basic services to community 2 members rather than becoming a commercial center for other subdivisions in the area.

There is no intent to pave side roads in the subdivision, with the possible exception of 37th Ave. Non-agricultural commercial establishments are to be located within the designated Neighborhood Center, with the exception of small in-home businesses with low traffic impact. No high- traffic impact developments, including schools and churches, may be located on unpaved roads.

3. Ecological/environmental Environmental concerns are the single most important issue to OLE lot owners and residents. It is the desire of residents to maintain the subdivision in its natural state as much as possible by limiting bulldozing of entire lots and deforestation, especially the destruction of older-growth forests and habitats for endangered species of indigenous plants and animals. Protection of views and vistas; air, water and soil quality; disposal of wastewater and solid waste; noise levels; and encouragement of alternative energy are other important considerations. Additionally, the numerous caves and lava tubes in the area present environmental as well as safety concerns.

4. Hazards
a. Flooding Diversion of the Kahikopele River in the 1930’s has resulted in severe flooding problems for areas of the subdivision. Some residents are cut off from access to emergency services (as well as access to their homes) during periods of heavy rainfall. To date, all attempts by the Orchidland Community Association (OLCA) to obtain County, State and/or Federal assistance in dealing with this problem have been unsuccessful. All lot owners and developers must allow for water drainage and prevent diversion of run-off onto neighboring lots.
b. Caves and Lava Tubes Numerous caves and lava tubes run under OLE, most notably near Auli`i St. and 40 th Ave. near Orchidland Dr. All owners and developers are encouraged to exercise precaution while developing lots in the area, especially bulldozing.

5. Rezoning There shall be no rezoning of any portion of OLE.

II. Land Use The predominant land use shall be consistent with the A-1a and A-3a zoning for residential and agricultural use.

A. Special Use Permit applicants must submit their proposals to the Orchidland Community Association Board of Directors with a Record of Environmental Consideration for review no later than the next regularly-scheduled Board meeting following filing of the special use permit application with the Planning Department, and at least 30 days preceding any hearing before the Planning Commission.

B. Before receiving approval by the County, developers shall be required to participate in a charrette planning meeting involving community members, OLCA Directors, representatives of the Planning, Health and Fire Departments and other interested parties.

C. Guidelines for Developers
1. Commercial retail services must be located within the designated Neighborhood Center.
2. High-traffic impact special uses (including but not limited to schools and churches) may not be located on unpaved side roads. Nearby lot owners’ input on such developments must be considered and, if unfavorable, a reasonable compromise reached before the permit is approved by the County.

3. Developers shall provide (or cause the State or County to provide) a stoplight or roundabout at the intersection of Orchidland Drive and Highway 130 and a lighted crosswalk across Orchidland Drive within the Neighborhood Center.

4. Lot owners’ views and vistas shall be considered and protected.

5. Developers shall be required to pay commercial-scale road maintenance fees as established by OLCA.

III. Neighborhood Center Guidelines
A. The Neighborhood Center shall be located along Orchidland Drive from Highway 130 to halfway between 34th and 35th Avenues.
B. Developments within the Neighborhood Center must be consistent with Big Island-style design and not obstruct neighbor’s views and vistas.
C. Each development must provide 6-foot sidewalks with a 15- to 20-foot curb radius, plus a (minimum) 4-foot Big-Island-style landscape barrier between the development and the Association’s roads and easements. Additionally, sidewalks must be provided within the development to allow for pedestrian safety.
D. All developers must provide for ingress and egress from their developments which support the safe flow of through traffic, including non- motorized vehicles and pedestrians.
E. Parking for the development must be away from the private road and its easements, within the boundaries of the developed lot, and properly lit (with Ballard lighting whenever possible).
F. Developers must provide for bus stops within any multi-tenant development.
G. Rest areas must be provided within the development, including rest room facilities and covered benches/seating.
H. Signs must comply with Big-Island design (no external neon signs or billboards).
I. Developers must provide for mitigation of trash generated by the commercial development, including removal of such rubbish from the roads.
J. No drive-through restaurants or taverns selling alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the premises shall be allowed within the subdivision.

K. Mixed use (single-tenant business plus single-family residence) shall be allowed within the Neighborhood Center as long as developers comply with these guidelines.

IV. Community Center
A. A Community Center and playground shall be located on the Orchidland Community Lot at 36 th and Orchidland Drive.
B. The Community Center parking lot shall serve as a park and ride lot for commuters Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
C. OLCA may seek to partner with the County and other government agencies in development of the Community Center.

V. Residential/Non-Commercial Guidelines
A. The predominant land use within OLE shall be single-family residences and agricultural use.
B. No multi-family dwellings shall be permitted within OLE.
C. Small in-home businesses with low traffic impact shall be permitted.
D. Clear-cutting of lots and pin-to-pin bulldozing is discouraged.
E. No OLE lots shall be subdivided.
F. Cultural diversity shall be respected and encouraged.

VI. Transportation
A. Public transportation is desired within the subdivision, including marked bus stops, feeder line service to main bus routes, and frequent, regular service throughout the day.
B. Alternative, non-motorized modes of transportation such as walking, bicycles, horses and skateboards shall be encouraged and lanes for these activities provided (as space and monies allow).
C. A hike and bike path connecting OLE with Kea`au shall be developed with public monies along the Old Volcano Trail, accessible to the subdivision from the end of 40th Ave. (Kea`au side).
D. Any Orchidland roads used by the County for the purpose of emergency access, as well as any roads within or adjacent to properties which the County has rezoned from rural to urban shall become the sole responsibility of the County of Hawaii.]]>
Submitted by Kristie Goin 1/26/07

I. Introduction The Orchidland Design Plan 2007 has been prepared to guide the Community Association, developers, Planning Department, Planning Commission, County Council and other governmental agencies in addressing development in Orchidland Estates Subdivision (OLE).

This twenty-year plan is based upon community input gathered from numerous surveys and community planning meetings and may be revised by the Orchidland Community as needed.

A. Vision Statement Orchidland Estates Subdivision’s vision is to maintain Orchidland Estates (OLE) as a peaceful, desirable, rural and agricultural community. We support the development of a single Neighborhood Center located along the lower portion of Orchidland Drive. This Neighborhood Center will be planned to serve the basic needs of our community independent of other urban centers.

B. Purpose Our purpose is to guarantee the residents and lot owners of OLE a strong voice in the future and development of our community and to ensure control over its destiny through ongoing communication with residents and lot owners and dialogue with potential developers and the County of Hawaii. Further, we seek to set guidelines for commercial development in Orchidland Estates which protect and maintain the community’s vision, preventing strip mall-type development while encouraging a Neighborhood Center-style design consistent with providing basic, essential goods and services and mitigating reliance on Highway 130 as a lifeline to necessary services.

C. Boundaries (see map, Appendix 1) The boundaries of Orchidland Estates are: Highway 130 and Pohaku Circle (makai); Ainaloa Blvd. (south); 40th and 42nd Ave. (mauka); and Pohaku Dr. and Pualani (north).

D. Existing Conditions At the present time one multi-tenant commercial development and a light industrial storage facility exist between 34th Ave. and the highway. A second multi-tenant commercial development has been approved between 34 th and 35th. Additionally, a church fronts Highway 130 adjacent to the commercial development, and numerous private residences exist within the designated Neighborhood Center.

E. Areas of Concern
1. Historic Historic and archaeological sites shall be protected.
2. Roads The roads in Orchidland Estates are privately-owned and are maintained at lot owners’ expense. Therefore, the community desires to limit commercial development to providing basic services to community 2 members rather than becoming a commercial center for other subdivisions in the area.

There is no intent to pave side roads in the subdivision, with the possible exception of 37th Ave. Non-agricultural commercial establishments are to be located within the designated Neighborhood Center, with the exception of small in-home businesses with low traffic impact. No high- traffic impact developments, including schools and churches, may be located on unpaved roads.

3. Ecological/environmental Environmental concerns are the single most important issue to OLE lot owners and residents. It is the desire of residents to maintain the subdivision in its natural state as much as possible by limiting bulldozing of entire lots and deforestation, especially the destruction of older-growth forests and habitats for endangered species of indigenous plants and animals. Protection of views and vistas; air, water and soil quality; disposal of wastewater and solid waste; noise levels; and encouragement of alternative energy are other important considerations. Additionally, the numerous caves and lava tubes in the area present environmental as well as safety concerns.

4. Hazards
a. Flooding Diversion of the Kahikopele River in the 1930’s has resulted in severe flooding problems for areas of the subdivision. Some residents are cut off from access to emergency services (as well as access to their homes) during periods of heavy rainfall. To date, all attempts by the Orchidland Community Association (OLCA) to obtain County, State and/or Federal assistance in dealing with this problem have been unsuccessful. All lot owners and developers must allow for water drainage and prevent diversion of run-off onto neighboring lots.
b. Caves and Lava Tubes Numerous caves and lava tubes run under OLE, most notably near Auli`i St. and 40 th Ave. near Orchidland Dr. All owners and developers are encouraged to exercise precaution while developing lots in the area, especially bulldozing.

5. Rezoning There shall be no rezoning of any portion of OLE.

II. Land Use The predominant land use shall be consistent with the A-1a and A-3a zoning for residential and agricultural use.

A. Special Use Permit applicants must submit their proposals to the Orchidland Community Association Board of Directors with a Record of Environmental Consideration for review no later than the next regularly-scheduled Board meeting following filing of the special use permit application with the Planning Department, and at least 30 days preceding any hearing before the Planning Commission.

B. Before receiving approval by the County, developers shall be required to participate in a charrette planning meeting involving community members, OLCA Directors, representatives of the Planning, Health and Fire Departments and other interested parties.

C. Guidelines for Developers
1. Commercial retail services must be located within the designated Neighborhood Center.
2. High-traffic impact special uses (including but not limited to schools and churches) may not be located on unpaved side roads. Nearby lot owners’ input on such developments must be considered and, if unfavorable, a reasonable compromise reached before the permit is approved by the County.

3. Developers shall provide (or cause the State or County to provide) a stoplight or roundabout at the intersection of Orchidland Drive and Highway 130 and a lighted crosswalk across Orchidland Drive within the Neighborhood Center.

4. Lot owners’ views and vistas shall be considered and protected.

5. Developers shall be required to pay commercial-scale road maintenance fees as established by OLCA.

III. Neighborhood Center Guidelines
A. The Neighborhood Center shall be located along Orchidland Drive from Highway 130 to halfway between 34th and 35th Avenues.
B. Developments within the Neighborhood Center must be consistent with Big Island-style design and not obstruct neighbor’s views and vistas.
C. Each development must provide 6-foot sidewalks with a 15- to 20-foot curb radius, plus a (minimum) 4-foot Big-Island-style landscape barrier between the development and the Association’s roads and easements. Additionally, sidewalks must be provided within the development to allow for pedestrian safety.
D. All developers must provide for ingress and egress from their developments which support the safe flow of through traffic, including non- motorized vehicles and pedestrians.
E. Parking for the development must be away from the private road and its easements, within the boundaries of the developed lot, and properly lit (with Ballard lighting whenever possible).
F. Developers must provide for bus stops within any multi-tenant development.
G. Rest areas must be provided within the development, including rest room facilities and covered benches/seating.
H. Signs must comply with Big-Island design (no external neon signs or billboards).
I. Developers must provide for mitigation of trash generated by the commercial development, including removal of such rubbish from the roads.
J. No drive-through restaurants or taverns selling alcoholic beverages to be consumed on the premises shall be allowed within the subdivision.

K. Mixed use (single-tenant business plus single-family residence) shall be allowed within the Neighborhood Center as long as developers comply with these guidelines.

IV. Community Center
A. A Community Center and playground shall be located on the Orchidland Community Lot at 36 th and Orchidland Drive.
B. The Community Center parking lot shall serve as a park and ride lot for commuters Monday through Friday from 6:30 a.m. to 6:30 p.m.
C. OLCA may seek to partner with the County and other government agencies in development of the Community Center.

V. Residential/Non-Commercial Guidelines
A. The predominant land use within OLE shall be single-family residences and agricultural use.
B. No multi-family dwellings shall be permitted within OLE.
C. Small in-home businesses with low traffic impact shall be permitted.
D. Clear-cutting of lots and pin-to-pin bulldozing is discouraged.
E. No OLE lots shall be subdivided.
F. Cultural diversity shall be respected and encouraged.

VI. Transportation
A. Public transportation is desired within the subdivision, including marked bus stops, feeder line service to main bus routes, and frequent, regular service throughout the day.
B. Alternative, non-motorized modes of transportation such as walking, bicycles, horses and skateboards shall be encouraged and lanes for these activities provided (as space and monies allow).
C. A hike and bike path connecting OLE with Kea`au shall be developed with public monies along the Old Volcano Trail, accessible to the subdivision from the end of 40th Ave. (Kea`au side).
D. Any Orchidland roads used by the County for the purpose of emergency access, as well as any roads within or adjacent to properties which the County has rezoned from rural to urban shall become the sole responsibility of the County of Hawaii.]]> <![CDATA[Growth Management Draft 1/25/07]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4349 Thu, 25 Jan 2007 05:10:54 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4349
?Require aerobic wastewater treatment or composting toilets for new dwellings within 1000' of drilled wells or SMA areas ?Require aerobic wastewater treatment or composting toilets for new intensive (less than 1 acre) development ?Prepare an Environmental Impact Statement to assess wastewater contamination of the Puna aquifer comparing septic systems versus aerobic systems as a function of expected increased population. DISCUSSION: Increasing population has a clear impact on groundwater quality (in areas less blessed with rainfall than Puna, it also has an impact on groundwater availability). We are concerned that Puna's highly draining subsurface structure very quickly moves minimally treated wastewater into our aquifers. With towns and villages typically drilling wells for high volume water usage water quality will decline as population increases. In addition, while better than cesspools, septic systems offer a relatively low level of treatment. Therefore, for areas of intensive development full aerobic wastewater treatment (or composting toilets) should be required. ___________________ GOAL #3:Maintain high residential infrastructure standards for subdivisions and building permits OBJECTIVES: ?No new substandard parcels less than five acres ?Reduce physical, social and environmental impacts of inadequate residential infrastructure RECOMMENDATIONS: ?All new subdivisions and residential building permits for parcels below five acres must meet all county standards for building with no variances for wastewater, drainage, road, water and other requirements ?Begin a non-punitive assessment of non-permitted dwellings for property taxes. ?Increase county staffing to increase code inspection and enforcement activity DISCUSSION: The County should alleviate the impact of speculative and haphazard building by insuring that smaller parcels are up to county infrastructure requirements. Create consistent expectations for developers by consistently enforcing standards. It must be noted that the continued tolerance of large numbers of unpermitted buildings, of whatever quality, creates disrespect for the construction principles underlying the building code and the County itself as the enforcers of the code. Just as some people feel that they are not getting a fair return on their tax dollar, having some citizens escape valuation of their homes entirely seems even less fair. There are any number of reasonably well built unpermitted dwellings that contribute nothing (via property taxes) to support the roads, parks, police and fire, civil defense, etc. that they depend on. Nonetheless, for the purposes of taxation, assessment should be disassociated from punitive actions such as red-tagging a dwelling. __________________________ GOAL #4: Manage highway usage resulting from increased population pressure. OBJECTIVES: ?Increase safety by focusing on improved intersection controls ?Decrease congestion on Hwy 130 by providing alternative routes RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Add safety improvements such as longer merging lanes and stop lights at subdivision intersections to Hwy 130 ?Add alternate types of transportation routes (bicycle, small motor bikes) parallel to existing and new routes ?Alternative access routes between Puna and Hilo are the best long term solution to manage growth. The Transportation Working Group is considering detailed proposals and we will defer to their recommendations as to how alternative routes should be implemented. DISCUSSION: It is doubtful that any highway widening project in any urban area has ever resulted in long term reduction of traffic congestion unless population growth does not occur. Every projection indicates Puna will have significant population increases. Eventually alternatives to simple highway widening must be sought, as Honolulu is demonstrating at this time with its proposed guided rail system. Until significant job and shopping opportunities exist in Puna, automobile commuting to Hilo will be a fact of life. While buses and bicycle transportation may be addressed by other working groups, it is the firm recommendation of this group that removing traffic from Highway 130 to alternate routes mauka and makai provides the best hope of significant congestion alleviation for a longer term than widening. Alternate corridor routes should be selected for optimum access from the larger subdivisions into Hilo but development should be phased to accommodate funding realities and to work with the subdivisions on routing. The initial stages may not involve taking of subdivision property but should emphasize establishing the best routing over the long term to handle the significant increase in traffic that will occur in Puna. _______________________________ GOAL #5: Maintain integrity of zoning as reflected in property taxation and allowed activities. OBJECTIVE: Parcel usage and property taxation should reflect parcel zoning RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Develop standards defining commercial agricultural activity for purpose of assigning property tax rates ?Adjust tax rates to confer advantage on commercial agricultural and conservation land use. Per http://www.hawaiipropertytax.com, current tax rates per $1000: Improved Residential - $8.10; Agricultural - $8.35; Conservation - $8.55; Homeowner - $5.55, mitigate against agricultural and conservation land use. By contrast, residential property is the most expensive type for the county to support, requiring roads and schools for instance. ?Move parcels in agricultural zones that do not demonstrate commercial agricultural activity into a residential property tax bracket. ?Support taxation at (reduced) conservation zoning rates in exchange for owners agreeing to land banking or conservation easements for significant periods of time such as ten years. Include penalties for early withdrawal. No significant alteration of the conserved property would be allowed other than removal of invasive and other non-native plants and planting of native species. DISCUSSION: Our working group found it very surprising that commercial agriculture and conservation property is taxed at higher rates than residential property. The benefits of commercial agriculture in retaining rural character, creating jobs and maintaining continuity with the history and culture of Puna, should be supported by the property tax rates. On the other hand, the pressure of substantial population growth is placing ever larger demands on the county to provide infrastructure and services. Therefore residential land uses must shoulder much more of the costs that they themselves are creating. However, for the purpose of taxation, commercial agriculture must be distinguished from hobby farming (a small number of trees or grazing animals, trivial investments) and backyard gardening by such criteria as a business license in an agricultural business, significant investment in agricultural assets or actual or projected (such as forestry) ability to produce income, thereby demonstrating long term intent.________________________ GOAL #6: Provide for long term future job opportunities and industrial services availability while minimizing impact on rural and agricultural character by industrial zoning a significant amount of appropriately located land within Puna. OBJECTIVES: ?Prevent spot commercial and industrial development to avoid sprawl and inappropriate mixed uses ?Confine larger-scale commercial and industrial development to planned areas often characterized as "parks" (similar to the Shipman Industrial Park) or in conjunction with existing intensive development. ?Insure that a useful amount of industrially zoned land with good proximity to infrastructure and population resources is allocated in several locations in the Puna district. RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Define industrial/commercial zoned areas that are physically associated with current Urban zoning but have minimal impact on residential use. ?Define industrial/commercial zoned areas in larger acreages for development into planned industrial parks. A possible example is the Hawaiian Homelands property behind the proposed Pahoa fire station. The state and county should encourage partnerships with private investment to achieve this goal. ?Disallow any industrial/commercial zoning or special use permit in any location substantially separated from other intensive uses to reduce sprawl unless such properties are part of a large planned development that will itself concentrate industrial/commercial land uses in one location. ?Investigate such locations as the large geothermal power plant leasehold, Pahoa mauka, Hawaiian Homelands and State of Hawai'i properties for possible industrial parks. ?Insure that no strip development occurs along major roads; eliminate any existing illegal commercial development ?Maintain high standards of safe access and green belt setback for all commercial development adjacent to primary highways to minimize traffic safety risks and visual impact. Shipman Park in Kea'au ?Insure meaningful buffer space between industrial development and residential or agricultural areas. DISCUSSION: Today's reality is that Hilo contains a large amount of commercial and industrially zoned land while Puna contains relatively little. A major aspect of managing growth in Puna is to make available significant amounts of land for commercial and industrial development. However this development must be implemented in ways consistent with good land use planning practices and, even more importantly, the maintenance of the essential rural and agricultural character of Puna. The expected result should be increased availability of goods, services, investments and jobs in Puna. ____________________ GOAL #7: Minimize rezoning by restricted application of Special Use Permits OBJECTIVE: ?Avoid rezoning as much as possible consistent with clear public interests ?Utilize Special Use Permits RECOMMENDATIONS: ?No special use permit shall be issued that substantively contravenes the 2005 General Plan, PCDP recommendations or generally accepted planning practices. ?Insure that any special use permits are issued based on broad county interests rather than the interests of the property owner ?All special use permit applicants must demonstrate substantial public need or public interest relating to issues such as safety, public infrastructure or education to justify issuance of a permit for nonconforming uses. ?Insure that substantial and broad community input be part of any Special Use Permit application DISCUSSION: Rezoning should be severely restricted across the board, both as the the PCDP is in development and once it is in place. Instead we favor an increased use of carefully considered Special Use Permits in order to evaluate the benefit to the community for a specific nonconforming use, as opposed to rezoning which will allow current and subsequent owners to do anything whatsoever that falls within the altered zone's conforming uses. In support of the special use process we strongly recommend a extended and geographically increased notification process in order to get as much community input as possible prior to approval or denial of special use permits. Lacking facts well supported in testimony and principle that indicate a clear and overriding public interest, good planning practices and community input should be the major determinants for issuance of the Special Use Permit. __________________ GOAL #8: Increase knowledge of natural dangers in Puna OBJECTIVE: Property purchasers and builders must be informed of the natural dangers inherent in building in Puna RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Require informational form specifying lava, tsunami and subsidence issues of property location as part of land purchase and building permit processes with signed acknowledgment of understanding. ?Indemnify County from any damages resulting from purchasing land or buildings impacted by lava, tsunami or subsidence. DISCUSSION: Our group strongly recommends that without exception all land acquisitions and building permits require a signed statement stating the specific lava and flood zone or any other known dangerous conditions of the property in question, therefore unequivocally indicating knowledge by the owner of any dangers they may face. _________________________ GOAL #9: Reduce or eliminate property speculation ("flipping" Wink

OBJECTIVE: Reduce or eliminate incentives for property speculation and resulting excessive price increases RECOMMENDATIONS: ?Impose significantly higher conveyance fee for short term ownership (we suggest less than a year) unless genuine hardship demonstrated or dwelling meets criteria for affordable housing. ?Require building permit for sale of property that can be reasonably construed as having a dwelling. DISCUSSION: The practice of purchasing, then rapidly turning over a property for profit, leads to distortions in land prices in the direction of unaffordability for most local people. Our state and county policies must support the goal of affordable home ownership for the purpose of residency rather than turning a quick buck. Some, perhaps most, of the growth in Puna will come from locally born children. Maintaining or encouraging a speculative climate through laws and policies regarding land and dwelling sales will only make it more difficult for them to become home owners in the future and impair their ability to remain in Puna. _________________________]]> <![CDATA[from Larry Brown: WG report review evaluation]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4348 Wed, 24 Jan 2007 08:01:10 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4348
Attached and embedded in this email is are the
criteria and the propcess by which PlanPacific and the
Planning Department propose to review and evaluate the
Working Group reports that are due on February 15. As
you can see, the criteria are basically derived from
the WG Guidelines and shouldn't contain any surprises.
The process is designed to provide ample opportunity
for dialogue between the Consultant and the WGs to
ensure the content and purpose of the WG
recommendations are understood by not only the
Consultant, but the Planning Department, and the
Steering Committee. Although the email only
communications requirement may be problematic for a
relatively few individuals, it is the most efficient
method for rapid communications with the capacity to
allow for the most transparency as possible for this
important process. This process is also designed to
facilitate the need to keep the project moving at an
efficient pace for all parties concerned.

That all being said, we are pretty much married to the
criteria and process outlined. However, if significant
deficiencies are noted, we welcome your comments
provided they are made to me not later than February
9, 2007 so any suggested changes may be shared with
the rest of the SC and WGs prior to the Feb. 15 SC
Meeting.

Mahalo for all your hard work,
Larry

Criteria and Process for Review and Evaluation of
Working Group Reports

It is anticipated that reports from Working Groups are
likely to vary in terms of their thoroughness in
addressing the topic; format and expression of goals,
objectives and recommendations; appropriateness and
relevance of the recommendations for a policy-type
public document; and degree to which the
recommendations appear to reflect broad community
participation and support. It is also probable that
there will be some overlap between the recommendations
of the Working Groups.

The purpose of reviewing and evaluating the Working
Group reports is suggest to the Steering Committee and
the Planning Department a “common denominator” for the
Working Group reports, so that all topics are
adequately covered; redundancies and conflicts are
identified; there is consistency in format, expression
and terminology; and the linkage of recommendations to
public involvement is clear.

The criteria for evaluating the reports are based on
the modified guidelines that were distributed to the
Working Groups on December 14, 2006. The failure to
address any of the criteria in the Working Group
reports will not necessarily result in the omission of
the recommendations by a Working Group.

Review Criteria

1. Statement of Goals and Objectives

Are they provided?

Do they cover the topic comprehensively?

Do they provide a clear basis for the
recommendations?

2. Recommendations

Are they listed in order of priority?

Are they clear enough to understand?
If they are location-specific, is a map provided or
otherwise referenced?

Do any of the recommendations overlap or
conflict with those of another Working Group?

Is there any significant issue relevant to
the topic, based on past plans and previous public
participations, that appears to be overlooked in the
recommendations?

3. Relationship to Previous Plans and
Public Involvement (Where the WG report does not
address the following items the Consultant will
provide comments)

How do the recommendations relate to the
2005 General Plan and other previously written plans?

How does they relate to public input
received in the CDP process?

What potential obstacles exist for
implementing the recommendation?

Who should be primarily responsible for
carrying out the recommendation?

4. Meeting Record

How complete were the Working Group’s
meeting records?

How many meetings were held, and how well
attended were they?

What does the number of attendees and
meeting locations suggest about the breadth of
participation in the Working Group throughout the
district?

If Working Group members communicated
largely via e-mail, was a log kept of the
correspondence?

Review and Evaluation Process

The evaluation will be an iterative process primarily
between the Working Groups and the Consultant. The
Working Groups shall submit their reports to the
Consultant, the Steering Committee and the Planning
Department.

The Consultant’s review and evaluation process may
require communications between the Consultant and the
Working Group Coordinator to ensure that the
Consultant has a clear understanding of the Working
Group recommendations, their purpose and intent. The
Consultant will give the Working Group Coordinator the
notes from his review and suggest some possible
revisions and/or additions to the report for the
Working Group to consider. The Working Group will be
asked to respond to the Consultant’s comments and
recommendations within three weeks.

The Steering Committee may review, evaluate, and
receive public input on the Working Group reports.
The Steering Committee may also communicate with the
Working Groups via the Working Group Coordinator to
obtain clarification on the Working Group
recommendations, their purpose and intent. Any
comments, recommendations or additional public input
on the raw Working Group reports that the Steering
Committee wishes to submit to the Consultant shall be
due at the same time as the response for each Working
Group to the Consultant’s comments and
recommendations.

In order to preserve the Working Group review and
evaluation process for the record all communications
between the Consultant, Working Group Coordinators and
Steering Committee shall be by email. All email
correspondence in this process shall be copied to all
Steering Committee Members, Working Group
Coordinators, Consultant and the Planning Department
project coordinator. The Planning Department project
coordinator copy of each email correspondence shall
identify all recipients of the email.

Whether or not the Working Group responds to the
Consultant’s comments and recommendations in the
allotted time, the Consultant will present the
formatted (original or amended) Working Group report
to the Steering Committee with his recommendations
within six weeks of receiving the original Working
Group reports.

The Steering Committee shall review the formatted
Working Group reports and the Consultant’s
recommendations according to the roles and
responsibilities of the Steering Committee as provided
in the Puna Community Development Plan Steering
Committee Roles, Responsibilities, and Procedural
Guidelines previously distributed. Comments and
recommendations by the Steering Committee on the
formatted Working Group reports and the Consultant’s
recommendation shall be made to the Consultant and
copied to the Planning Department project coordinator
in as timely a manner as reasonably practical so as
not to unnecessarily delay the development of the CDP.

]]>
Attached and embedded in this email is are the
criteria and the propcess by which PlanPacific and the
Planning Department propose to review and evaluate the
Working Group reports that are due on February 15. As
you can see, the criteria are basically derived from
the WG Guidelines and shouldn't contain any surprises.
The process is designed to provide ample opportunity
for dialogue between the Consultant and the WGs to
ensure the content and purpose of the WG
recommendations are understood by not only the
Consultant, but the Planning Department, and the
Steering Committee. Although the email only
communications requirement may be problematic for a
relatively few individuals, it is the most efficient
method for rapid communications with the capacity to
allow for the most transparency as possible for this
important process. This process is also designed to
facilitate the need to keep the project moving at an
efficient pace for all parties concerned.

That all being said, we are pretty much married to the
criteria and process outlined. However, if significant
deficiencies are noted, we welcome your comments
provided they are made to me not later than February
9, 2007 so any suggested changes may be shared with
the rest of the SC and WGs prior to the Feb. 15 SC
Meeting.

Mahalo for all your hard work,
Larry

Criteria and Process for Review and Evaluation of
Working Group Reports

It is anticipated that reports from Working Groups are
likely to vary in terms of their thoroughness in
addressing the topic; format and expression of goals,
objectives and recommendations; appropriateness and
relevance of the recommendations for a policy-type
public document; and degree to which the
recommendations appear to reflect broad community
participation and support. It is also probable that
there will be some overlap between the recommendations
of the Working Groups.

The purpose of reviewing and evaluating the Working
Group reports is suggest to the Steering Committee and
the Planning Department a “common denominator” for the
Working Group reports, so that all topics are
adequately covered; redundancies and conflicts are
identified; there is consistency in format, expression
and terminology; and the linkage of recommendations to
public involvement is clear.

The criteria for evaluating the reports are based on
the modified guidelines that were distributed to the
Working Groups on December 14, 2006. The failure to
address any of the criteria in the Working Group
reports will not necessarily result in the omission of
the recommendations by a Working Group.

Review Criteria

1. Statement of Goals and Objectives

Are they provided?

Do they cover the topic comprehensively?

Do they provide a clear basis for the
recommendations?

2. Recommendations

Are they listed in order of priority?

Are they clear enough to understand?
If they are location-specific, is a map provided or
otherwise referenced?

Do any of the recommendations overlap or
conflict with those of another Working Group?

Is there any significant issue relevant to
the topic, based on past plans and previous public
participations, that appears to be overlooked in the
recommendations?

3. Relationship to Previous Plans and
Public Involvement (Where the WG report does not
address the following items the Consultant will
provide comments)

How do the recommendations relate to the
2005 General Plan and other previously written plans?

How does they relate to public input
received in the CDP process?

What potential obstacles exist for
implementing the recommendation?

Who should be primarily responsible for
carrying out the recommendation?

4. Meeting Record

How complete were the Working Group’s
meeting records?

How many meetings were held, and how well
attended were they?

What does the number of attendees and
meeting locations suggest about the breadth of
participation in the Working Group throughout the
district?

If Working Group members communicated
largely via e-mail, was a log kept of the
correspondence?

Review and Evaluation Process

The evaluation will be an iterative process primarily
between the Working Groups and the Consultant. The
Working Groups shall submit their reports to the
Consultant, the Steering Committee and the Planning
Department.

The Consultant’s review and evaluation process may
require communications between the Consultant and the
Working Group Coordinator to ensure that the
Consultant has a clear understanding of the Working
Group recommendations, their purpose and intent. The
Consultant will give the Working Group Coordinator the
notes from his review and suggest some possible
revisions and/or additions to the report for the
Working Group to consider. The Working Group will be
asked to respond to the Consultant’s comments and
recommendations within three weeks.

The Steering Committee may review, evaluate, and
receive public input on the Working Group reports.
The Steering Committee may also communicate with the
Working Groups via the Working Group Coordinator to
obtain clarification on the Working Group
recommendations, their purpose and intent. Any
comments, recommendations or additional public input
on the raw Working Group reports that the Steering
Committee wishes to submit to the Consultant shall be
due at the same time as the response for each Working
Group to the Consultant’s comments and
recommendations.

In order to preserve the Working Group review and
evaluation process for the record all communications
between the Consultant, Working Group Coordinators and
Steering Committee shall be by email. All email
correspondence in this process shall be copied to all
Steering Committee Members, Working Group
Coordinators, Consultant and the Planning Department
project coordinator. The Planning Department project
coordinator copy of each email correspondence shall
identify all recipients of the email.

Whether or not the Working Group responds to the
Consultant’s comments and recommendations in the
allotted time, the Consultant will present the
formatted (original or amended) Working Group report
to the Steering Committee with his recommendations
within six weeks of receiving the original Working
Group reports.

The Steering Committee shall review the formatted
Working Group reports and the Consultant’s
recommendations according to the roles and
responsibilities of the Steering Committee as provided
in the Puna Community Development Plan Steering
Committee Roles, Responsibilities, and Procedural
Guidelines previously distributed. Comments and
recommendations by the Steering Committee on the
formatted Working Group reports and the Consultant’s
recommendation shall be made to the Consultant and
copied to the Planning Department project coordinator
in as timely a manner as reasonably practical so as
not to unnecessarily delay the development of the CDP.

]]> <![CDATA[Puna Parkway Proposal]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4347 Tue, 23 Jan 2007 20:01:18 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4347 in PDF format at:

http://www.hawaiiislandplan.com/punawgdrafts.asp

Feel free to love it, hate it, call your lawyer, critique it, second guess it, improve it or use it to light the pilot light on your water heater.

It is only a proposal. I certainly do not have the power or wherewithal to create such a parkway. But IF it was decided a route was needed - this is how I would suggest it be done.

Aloha]]> in PDF format at:

http://www.hawaiiislandplan.com/punawgdrafts.asp

Feel free to love it, hate it, call your lawyer, critique it, second guess it, improve it or use it to light the pilot light on your water heater.

It is only a proposal. I certainly do not have the power or wherewithal to create such a parkway. But IF it was decided a route was needed - this is how I would suggest it be done.

Aloha]]> <![CDATA[VC&DD sub group meeting Jan 24 Olaa Center, Keaau]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4346 Mon, 22 Jan 2007 21:57:41 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4346 sub group meeting

January 24th at 3pm,

Olaa Community Center
Keaau]]> sub group meeting

January 24th at 3pm,

Olaa Community Center
Keaau]]> <![CDATA[RE: Speaker at Jan. 27th Land Use WG meeting]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4345 Wed, 17 Jan 2007 03:17:42 -0600 Rob Tucker]]> https://punaweb.org/forum/showthread.php?tid=4345
I’ve received a response from Ivan Torigoe regarding your request that he, or other more suitable Corp. Counsel representative, speak to your WG. My initial feeling about this request, as it was with some speaker requests from other WGs, was that the questions being asked or information being sought did not seem to be particularly relevant to the task of the WG. Nevertheless, I did forward your request and questions on to Ivan and copied Lincoln Ashida and Chris Yuen to get their opinions on this. Ivan and Chris have responded similarly that the Corporation Counsel is not only extremely busy, but responsible for providing legal services to the various County agencies rather than rendering legal opinions to citizens. The Planning Department can either answer your specific questions or refer you to existing information on the subject, which I will attempt to do in this response.

You asked for Ivan to advise the WG on some possible land use recommendations, such as broadening 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.

This sounds like a reasonable recommendation that, with perhaps a little more detailed explanation or some examples, ought to be seriously considered. Your recommendation might be more specific by indicating how broad you think the mail-out notification distance ought to be. A legal analysis of such a recommendation is premature at this stage of the CDP process and should be initially conducted by the consultant and County in their review and analysis of all recommendations. I have already heard a number of suggestions from WGs and individuals to address the issues and problems facing the residents of Puna that may be found to be legally challenging at best. However, I would not discourage anyone from making those suggestions anyway. Even if the recommendation poses some legal or constitutional problems, it should emphasize to the consultant and County the importance the community places on the issue or problem and perhaps inspire some more creative or intense problem solving activity to address the issue or problem.

Your list mentions a need or desire to better understand the “taking” issue. The Chris Yuen’s paper on the Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System (prepared in March 2006) contains a very good explanation on the basics of the issue of “takings” in the United States. You may find the entire paper on the County of Hawaii website at http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/planning/Land...System.pdf. The portion on “takings” is reproduced below for your convenience. If you have other more specific questions on this subject, please feel free to forward them to me and we will attempt to answer them.

Limits of Land Use Regulation
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. It is
much too complex to be summarized even in a few pages. Generally, though, 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 also 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.
Caution: this description of the land use regulatory system is just a summary and does not
cover all situations and exceptions.

Regarding your final question on being able to restrict the amount of a lot to be cleared for urban or agricultural uses, Chris has asked me to pass on the following response.

“A new ordinance that limited the amount of land cleared for a home, in order to protect native forest, could be written in a way that was not a taking. It would have to allow some reasonable area to be cleared, and there would have to be a process, such as a variance or use permit, that would allow the possibility of clearing a greater area for bona fide agricultural purposes. My concerns are more with the enforceability of the ordinance, the ability of the county to map the areas that are to be protected, the actual benefit to native forest preservation, and the overall staff commitments that would be required to make a program like this work.”

I hope you will find the above response to your questions helpful. Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions that will assist you in completing the task of your WG.

Mahalo,
Larry
From: Rob Tucker [mailto:castleb@aloha.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:53 AM
To: Larry Brown
Subject: Re: possible land use WG speaker

From my members:

For example, Mr.Torigoe could advise us on a possible Land Use WG recommendations, such as broadening the mail-out notification distance required for a zoning change application, to prevent undue influence by a smaller groups of people who might benefit from making a decision that impacts a larger areas.

to understand the "taking" issue better.

Properties that are zoned agriculture that have never been used for ag, and consist primarily of native forest vegetation, no soil (per se) etc., are quickly
changing from ag to rural or urban zones. Somehow it's not "taking" to change zones, depending on which direction it's changing from and to?

to understand that people have a right to live and/or farm their property, if it's zoned ag, regardless ofwhat's on it now. So what is wrong with limiting the
space of a residence on the lot- if it's primarily native forest, and then requiring the property owner/developer to justify the need to doze more, by
way of a special permit?

Rob

On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Larry Brown wrote:

Hi Rob,

Of course I can check on Ivan’s availability, but before doing so please let me know what questions and topics your WG is seeking answers to. Ivan may not be the appropriate attorney in Corp. Counsel to address your questions.

LB

From:Rob Tucker [mailto:castleb@aloha.net]
Sent:Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:27 PM
To:Larry Brown
Subject:possible land use WG speaker

Hi Larry,

Could you see if Ivan Torigoe, who works with County Corporation Counsel, is available for Q&A
at our Jan/ 27th meeting?

Thanks,

Rob Tucker
965-1555]]>
I’ve received a response from Ivan Torigoe regarding your request that he, or other more suitable Corp. Counsel representative, speak to your WG. My initial feeling about this request, as it was with some speaker requests from other WGs, was that the questions being asked or information being sought did not seem to be particularly relevant to the task of the WG. Nevertheless, I did forward your request and questions on to Ivan and copied Lincoln Ashida and Chris Yuen to get their opinions on this. Ivan and Chris have responded similarly that the Corporation Counsel is not only extremely busy, but responsible for providing legal services to the various County agencies rather than rendering legal opinions to citizens. The Planning Department can either answer your specific questions or refer you to existing information on the subject, which I will attempt to do in this response.

You asked for Ivan to advise the WG on some possible land use recommendations, such as broadening 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.

This sounds like a reasonable recommendation that, with perhaps a little more detailed explanation or some examples, ought to be seriously considered. Your recommendation might be more specific by indicating how broad you think the mail-out notification distance ought to be. A legal analysis of such a recommendation is premature at this stage of the CDP process and should be initially conducted by the consultant and County in their review and analysis of all recommendations. I have already heard a number of suggestions from WGs and individuals to address the issues and problems facing the residents of Puna that may be found to be legally challenging at best. However, I would not discourage anyone from making those suggestions anyway. Even if the recommendation poses some legal or constitutional problems, it should emphasize to the consultant and County the importance the community places on the issue or problem and perhaps inspire some more creative or intense problem solving activity to address the issue or problem.

Your list mentions a need or desire to better understand the “taking” issue. The Chris Yuen’s paper on the Hawaii Land Use Regulatory System (prepared in March 2006) contains a very good explanation on the basics of the issue of “takings” in the United States. You may find the entire paper on the County of Hawaii website at http://www.co.hawaii.hi.us/planning/Land...System.pdf. The portion on “takings” is reproduced below for your convenience. If you have other more specific questions on this subject, please feel free to forward them to me and we will attempt to answer them.

Limits of Land Use Regulation
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. It is
much too complex to be summarized even in a few pages. Generally, though, 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 also 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.
Caution: this description of the land use regulatory system is just a summary and does not
cover all situations and exceptions.

Regarding your final question on being able to restrict the amount of a lot to be cleared for urban or agricultural uses, Chris has asked me to pass on the following response.

“A new ordinance that limited the amount of land cleared for a home, in order to protect native forest, could be written in a way that was not a taking. It would have to allow some reasonable area to be cleared, and there would have to be a process, such as a variance or use permit, that would allow the possibility of clearing a greater area for bona fide agricultural purposes. My concerns are more with the enforceability of the ordinance, the ability of the county to map the areas that are to be protected, the actual benefit to native forest preservation, and the overall staff commitments that would be required to make a program like this work.”

I hope you will find the above response to your questions helpful. Please feel free to let me know if you have any other questions that will assist you in completing the task of your WG.

Mahalo,
Larry
From: Rob Tucker [mailto:castleb@aloha.net]
Sent: Thursday, January 11, 2007 9:53 AM
To: Larry Brown
Subject: Re: possible land use WG speaker

From my members:

For example, Mr.Torigoe could advise us on a possible Land Use WG recommendations, such as broadening the mail-out notification distance required for a zoning change application, to prevent undue influence by a smaller groups of people who might benefit from making a decision that impacts a larger areas.

to understand the "taking" issue better.

Properties that are zoned agriculture that have never been used for ag, and consist primarily of native forest vegetation, no soil (per se) etc., are quickly
changing from ag to rural or urban zones. Somehow it's not "taking" to change zones, depending on which direction it's changing from and to?

to understand that people have a right to live and/or farm their property, if it's zoned ag, regardless ofwhat's on it now. So what is wrong with limiting the
space of a residence on the lot- if it's primarily native forest, and then requiring the property owner/developer to justify the need to doze more, by
way of a special permit?

Rob

On Jan 11, 2007, at 9:47 AM, Larry Brown wrote:

Hi Rob,

Of course I can check on Ivan’s availability, but before doing so please let me know what questions and topics your WG is seeking answers to. Ivan may not be the appropriate attorney in Corp. Counsel to address your questions.

LB

From:Rob Tucker [mailto:castleb@aloha.net]
Sent:Wednesday, January 10, 2007 2:27 PM
To:Larry Brown
Subject:possible land use WG speaker

Hi Larry,

Could you see if Ivan Torigoe, who works with County Corporation Counsel, is available for Q&A
at our Jan/ 27th meeting?

Thanks,

Rob Tucker
965-1555]]>