The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutCOM 0042.044 2004-2006REPORT ON THE COMMUNITY SURVEY ON THE HAWAI "' I COUNTY GENERAL PLAN SPONSORED BY GRANT FROM THE W. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION MANAGING INFORMATION IN RURAL AMERICA INITIATIVE PREPARED BY DWIGHT B. CLARK VAN MALAN ANN C. PETERSON FEBRUARY 2000 Comm. No. 4°Z' `W Ref. To:P'�e�e�tT PE 77 Ref. Date TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUI IVE SUMMARY..................................................................................................................... i INTRODUCTION.......................................................................................................................... ill .. BACKGROUND ................................................................................................................. III PURPOSEOF STUDY.......................................................................................................... IV METHODOLOGY OF THE STUDY........................................................................................... iv LIMITATIONSOF STUDY...................................................................................................... v REPORTSUMMARY....................................................................................................................... vi FAMILIARITY WITH COUNTY GENERAL PLAN......................................................................................1 BESTTRENDS...............................................................................................................................1 WORSTTRENDS...........................................................................................................................1 PUBLIC SERVICES A. POLICE SERVICE............................................................................................................2 B. FIRE SERVICE................................................................................................................2 C. PARK SERVICE..............................................................................................................2 D. BEACH PARKS..............................................................................................................2 E. DRINKING WATER SERVICE.............................................................................................3 F. IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE...........................................................................................3 G. SEWER SERVICE............................................................................................................3 H. TRASH SERVICE............................................................................................................3 I. RECYCLING SERVICE......................................................................................................4 J. CIVIL DEFENSE SERVICE..................................................................................................4 K. HIGHER EDUCATION.....................................................................................................4 L. YOUTH SERVICES..........................................................................................................4 M. ELDER SERVICES............................................................................................................5 N. OTHER SERVICES..........................................................................................................5 TABLE OF CONTENTS _--COMMUNITY SURVEY EMPHASIS FOR DEVELOPMENT A. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................5 B. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................................5 C. ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT..........................................................................................6 D. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................6 E. DEVELOPMENT.............................................................................................................6 F. AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT.......................................................................................6 G. RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT.................................................................................7 H. RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT..............................................................................................7 I. HEALTH & WELLNESS DEVELOPMENT...............................................................................7 J. FISHING INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT...................................................................................7 K. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................7 L. HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT................................................................................8 M. LIGHT INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT.....................................................................................8 TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS A. LOCAL ROADS.............................................................................................................8 B. CONNECTOR ROADS.....................................................................................................8 C. LIMITED ACCESS ROADS.................................................................................................8 D. SCENIC DRIVES.............................................................................................................9 E. BICYCLE LANES.............................................................................................................9 F. PEDESTRIAN PATHS.......................................................................................................9 G. COMMUTER BUSES.......................................................................................................9 H. LOCAL BUSES..............................................................................................................9 I. ROADWAY PLANS.......................................................................................................10 J. HERITAGE CORRIDORS................................................................................................10 TABLE OF CONTENTS_- COMMUNITY SURVEY K. FREEWAYS.................................................................................................................10 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION A. OVERALL PROTECTION................................................................................................10 IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING NATURAL BEAUTY..............................................................................13 B. WATERSHED..............................................................................................................10 C. SHORELINE................................................................................................................11 WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT KONA......................................................................................1 D. OPEN SPACES............................................................................................................11 APPENDIX A E. AGRICULTURE............................................................................................................11 KONA MIRA TEAM ROSTER/SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS........................................................... F. MARINE RESOURCES...................................................................................................11 D G. FLORA & FAUNA........................................................................................................11 H. NATURAL BEAUTY.......................................................................................................12 I. CULTURAL RESOURCES................................................................................................12 J. TRAILS......................................................................................................................12 IMPORTANCE ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT......................................................................................12 IMPORTANCE OF PROTECTING NATURAL BEAUTY..............................................................................13 IMPORTANCE ON PROTECTING HAWAII CULTURE.............................................................................13 WHAT DO You LIKE BEST ABOUT KONA........................................................................................13 WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT KONA......................................................................................1 4 RESPONDENTS ADDITIONAL COMMENTS: .......................................................................... APPENDIX A SURVEY INSTRUMENTS.................................................................................................... APPENDIX B KONA MIRA TEAM ROSTER/SURVEY TEAM MEMBERS........................................................... APPENDIX C ADVERTISING EXAMPLES..................................................................................................APPENDIX D The contents of this County to learn the under review. The sponsored by the W support of the Haw EXECUTIVE SUMMARY report are based on a survey widely distributed in North and South Kona, Hawai' i priorities of this community as they relate to the Hawai' i County General Plan, currently survey instrument was developed, distributed and analyzed by a team of volunteers K. Kellogg Foundation's Managing Information in Rural America initiative, with the ai' i County Department of Planning. The survey solicited input in the following areas: ❑ Familiarity with the County General Plan ❑ Best Trends ❑ Worst Trends ❑ Public Services ❑ Emphasis for Development ❑ Transportation Options ❑ Environmental Protection ❑ Importance on Planned Development ❑ Importance on Protecting the Hawaiian Culture ❑ What Do You Like Best About Kona ❑ What Do You Like Least About Kona The survey finding of have resulted in the following top priority recommendations: SERVICES: D The overwhelming majority of the respondents felt the following county services are inadequate and must be improved. These services were addressed in the County General Plan, dated 1989, but little progress appears to have been made. This report recommends that the county increase their attention to the following service areas. T Recycling T Parks T Higher Education (facilities) T Youth T Beach Parks T Elder ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ❑ This report recommends the county focus its emphasis on very specific areas of development. Clearly the respondents do not like development or construction for its own sake which seems so prevalent in Kona today but are not opposed to either of them if the focus is in very specific areas, particular low environmental impact and non-polluting areas. The residents were quite clear on where this emphasis should be placed and where it should not be placed. The results are as follows. T Renewable Energy T Small Business T Aquaculture T Ecotourism T Agriculture T High Technology T Health & Wellness TRANSPORTATION ❑ This report recommends the county take a good look at what the Kona residents really want in transportation options. All of the preferences would help alleviate the worsening traffic situation in Kona and help provide a more healthy approach by lessening dependency on motor vehicles and relying more on human -powered modes of transportations and mass transit. Transportation options which the respondents felt overwhelming under -served are listed below. T Bicycle Lanes T Local Buses T Pedestrian Paths T Commuter Buses T Connector Roads T Scenic Drives ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ❑ The Kona residents overwhelming favor more environmental protections than exists today. This report realizes that a balance must always be struck between development and environmental protection, but full 72 % demand more environmental protection in all areas than is occurring today. Clearly the country most act more sensitively to this issue than they have acted in the past. T Shoreline + Watershed T Marine Resources T Natural Beauty T Overall T Open Spaces T Trails T Cultural Resources T Flora & Fauna T Agriculture INTRODUCTION BACKGROUND: In April of 1998, a "cluster' of ten (10) "teams" from the Island of Hawaii received a Managing Information in Rural America (MIRA) grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The Hawai' i Island cluster was one of 5 selected from across the nation for this innovative grant; including clusters from Nebraska, Colorado, Virginia and Texas. As the Kellogg Foundation described it, "Managing Information with Rural America (MIRA) is a grantmaking initiative of [our] Food Systems/Rural Development program area. It seeks to draw upon the reservoirs of strength, tenacity, and civic commitment in rural communities and to help rural people use technology (electronic communications and information systems) as a tool to meet current and future challenges." The Hawai' i Island MIRA Cluster formed under the fiscal management of the Big Island Resource Conservation and Development Program (BIRC&D), a non-profit organization based in Hilo, Hawai' i, with teams representing the communities of: ❑ Rural South Hilo ❑ Laupahoehoe ❑ Honomu ❑ Ho'okena ❑ North & South Kona ❑ Honaunau ❑ Ocean View ❑ Na'alehu/Pahala ❑ Volcano ❑ Lower Puna The grant functioned in reverse of typical grants in that the Kellogg Foundation required a series of 6 daylong workshops, one -per month, to be completed before they accepted grant proposals from the individual teams. The Kellogg Foundation, with help from the Heartland Institute established a listing of workshop themes and potential presenters for the various themes. Each workshop was to have two presentations, and a demonstration of current technology. Topics for workshops included: (* denotes a required workshop) ❑ Living with Change* ❑ Asset Mapping* ❑ Asset Mapping Applied* ❑ Human and Electronic Networks* ❑ Policy Education* Li Participatory Decision -Making* ❑ Project Planning and Implementation* ❑ Evaluation* ❑ Building Coalitions ❑ Managing Conflict ❑ Funding Community Projects & Organizations ❑ Helping People Work Together ❑ Maintaining momentum ❑ Managing Technology ❑ Technology as a Tool for Development The cluster could determine the workshops and the presenters from the provided listing. The demonstration on current technology and its presenter was determined by the steering committee, which was comprised of one member from each of the teams. This committee also coordinated the workshops. The Kellogg Foundation funded the entire cost of the workshops including, the presenter's stipend, rent for the venue, and a luncheon. Team members time and travel cost were not reimbursed. The teams were required to meet several criteria before becoming eligible to submit a grant for consideration. These criteria included: ❑ Teams of 10 members with 5 alternates ❑ Attendance of at least 10 members to each of the workshops. Eight of the teams met these criteria, applied for and received a grant to fund their project. The Kona MIRA Team focused on the County General Plan, which was up for its mandated 10 -year review without funding allocated to carry -out review process. PURPOSE: The purpose of the Kona MIRA Team's grant was to provide broad community input on the aspects of the General Plan, and other aspects of life on the Island of Hawai' i particularly in Kona. METHODOLOGY: The Team developed a survey instrument after review of similar documents from the municipalities of Paulo Alto, California; Lancaster County, Pennsylvania; and Calvert County, Maryland. With assistance from the County Department of Planning, the instrument was then designed for marketing and distribution using four different media, as follows: MEDIA DISTRIBUTION REACH MESSAGE FORMAT REPLY METHOD Internet www.mira- ❑ Informational Interactive Submit on hawaii.org/general_plan World-wide ❑ Questionnaire Questionnaire line with links from and to related sites Newspaper West Hawai' i Today 14,601 ❑ Motivational Teaser Ads None (West Hawai' i) (Sunday o Got an Issue? 18 x week for 2 (gave date edition) o What's weeks survey Important to would run You? in WHT) o Make Kona Better! ❑ Informational 3/4 Page ads Call with 3 x's questions ❑ Questionnaire Full-page ad Mail -in Westside Weekly 11,000 ❑ Questionnaire Full-page ad Mail -in Kau Landing 7,000 ❑ Informational Call with (Island -wide) Na Leo o Kona 34,000 ❑ Questionnaire -questions Full-page ad Mail -in (West Hawaii) Television Big Island Television 50,000 ❑ Informational 3 minute feature Call with (Channel 8 — island -wide) (aprox.) ❑ Motivational with interviews, questions shown 7 nights 6:30 — 8:30 pm Personal ❑ Door-to-door Undetermined ❑ Questionnaire 11 X1 7 double- Hand/ Contact ❑ Presentations sided mail -in ❑ Face-to-face ❑ Mail ❑ Informational ❑ Motivational Presentations to organizations and Ask questions individuals directly One hundred and fifty-four (154) questionnaires were returned. The data submitted by mail was numbered and then entered into the internet spreadsheet. The quantitative data was configured into histograms and the qualitative data was grouped into common themes and noted per frequency. Iv LIMITATIONS OF THE STUDY: The study could have benefited from a pre-test of the instrument. It was obvious in reading the "comments" section of the questionnaire that some of the items were not clear to everyone, including the questions on Research Development and Limited Access Highways. In addition, the survey spoke to a broad spectrum of issues, not necessarily those under county responsibility. While this survey was conducted to provide input into the General Plan, the authors' took the opportunity to learn what folks thought about services not offered by the county such issues as Higher Education, Trash Service, and so on. The decision was made not to include demographic questions on the survey. This decision was made in an attempt to get as broad-based response as possible, recognizing the potential reluctance of some to answer these types of questions, whether due to cultural, economic, individual, or other reasons or beliefs. MA REPORT SUMMARY GENERAL PLAN AWARENESS While the majority of respondents were aware of the County General Plan (51 percent), only 29 percent had reviewed the Plan prior to completing the survey. A surprising 45 percent were not familiar with the Plan. TRENDS The most popular trends occurring in Kona since the last General Plan review, 10 years ago were: ❑ More park facilities (including pool) ❑ Greater selection for shopping ❑ Road improvements ❑ Increased community participation The least popular trends during that same time were: ❑ Lack of road improvements ❑ Level of unplanned development ❑ Increased noise SERVICES An increase in recycling services earned the strongest consensus with 86 percent of the respondents stressing a need for convenience. Beach Park and Park services were also seen as areas needing improvement with 73 and 70 percent, respectively, requesting additional services. While there were no areas where respondents wanted to see "less services", data plainly showed satisfied with current Civil Defense services (73 percent), and marginal satisfaction with Fire services (66 percent), Trash services (51 percent), and Police services (48 percent). SERVICE CATEGORY MORE SAMELESS NO RESPONSE Recycling 86 % 6 % 0 % 7 % Higher Education 80% 14% 0% 6% Beach Parks 73 % 21 % 1 % 5 % Parks 70% 25 % 1 % 3 % Youth 69% 22 % 0% 8 Elder 53 % 35% 1 % 10 Drinking Water 46 V. 40% 1 % 12% Police 42 % 48% 2% 8% Sewer 32 % 45% 2% 20% Trash 31 % 51 % 1 % 16% Irrigation Water 29% 45% 3% 23 % Fire 23% 66% 1 % 9% Civil Defense 6% 73 % 3% 16% Vi EMPHASIS FOR ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT A clear mandate for economic development in the areas of Renewable Energy (86 percent), Aquaculture (74 percent), Agriculture (73 percent), and Ecotourism (64 percent). These areas of development were viewed as not only opportunities to expand our economy, but to become more self sustainable with little negative impact on our environment. Development, in and of itself, was not viewed as a viable economic development tool, with 50 percent of the respondents wanting LESS development. Construction Development and Research Development were viewed with marginal interest, with Construction a clear split between folks who wanted this area to stay the same (36 percent)and those who wanted to see less (36 percent). Research received ambiguous results, with about a quarter of the respondents wanting more, less, and the same amount. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CATEGORY MORE SAME LESS NO RESPONSE Renewable Energy 86% 5 % 1 % 6% Aquaculture 74% 14% 4% 8% Agriculture 73 % 16% 2 % 9% Health & Wellness 69% 20% 1 % 10% Small Business 66% 19% 4% 10% Ecotourism 64% 23 % 4% 8% High Technology 61 % 23 % 5% 10% Light Industry 36% 36% 13 % 14% Fishing Industry 29% 42% 17% 12 % Tourism 28% 48% 16% 7% Research 25 % 29% 25 % 20% Construction 14% 36% 36% 13 % Development 14% 25 % 50% 10% Vii TRANSPORTATION OPTIONS Again, a very clear mandate. Respondents want to see more Bicycle Lanes (80 percent), more Pedestrian Paths, 80 percent, and more Connector Roads (75 percent). More Local Buses (59 percent), Commuter Buses (56 percent) and Scenic Drives (52 percent) were also requested by respondents. As clear as the above facilities were supported, Freeways (10 percent) and Limited Access Roads (25 Percent) were not. Indeed, the majority (54 percent) want to see LESS freeways. TRANSPORTATION CATEGORY MORE SAME LESS NO RESPONSE Bicycle Lanes 80% 9% 5 % 6% Pedestrian Paths 80% 13 % 1 % -5?/. Connector Roads 75 % 16% 1 % 7 % Local Buses 59% 30% 1 % 9% Commuter Buses 56% 30% 5 % 9% Scenic Drives 52 % 31 % 3 % 13 % Local Roads 48% 31 % 4 % 16% Roadway Plans 48 % 18% 6% 27% Heritage Corridors 44% 31 % 3 % 21 % Limited Access Highways 25 % 29% 25 % 20% Freeways 10% 20% 54% 16% ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION Not surprisingly, all areas listed in this survey were seen as needing more protection. Respondents placed a slight more importance on protecting the ocean, with Shoreline Protection (86 percent), Watershed (78 percent), and Marine Resources (77 percent) receiving the greatest percentages. Protecting Natural Beauty (75 percent), Overall Environment (72 percent), and Open Spaces (70 percent) were also viewed as essential. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION MORE SAME LESS NO RESPONSE Shoreline 86% 7% 1 % 5 % Watershed 78% 13 % 0 % 8% Marine Resources 77% 16% 1 % 5% Natural Beauty 75 % 16% 1 % -8% Overall 72% 19% 2 % 7% Open Spaces 70% 19% 1 % 8% Trails 69% 20% 3 % 8% Cultural Resources 67 % 23% 3 % 6% Flora & Fauna 64% 27% 1 % 8% Agriculture 60% 28% 3 % 8 Viii PLANNED DEVELOPMENT A great number of respondents (91 percent) agreed that Planned Development was crucial to the future of our Island. Comments reflected frustration in the way the County currently handles development. NATURAL BEAUTY The greatest number of respondents agreed on the importance of protecting our Natural Beauty (95 percent). There was no one who saw this protection as unimportant. HAWAIIAN CULTURE The majority of respondents saw protecting the Hawaiian Culture as important, with 67 percent seeing it as very important and 27 percent seeing it as moderately important. Only 3 percent saw protecting this culture heritage as unimportant. WHAT DO YOU LIKE BEST ABOUT KONA Themes mentioned with a frequency greater than twenty-five percent include: ❑ The people and their Aloha (35 percent) ❑ Small town atmosphere (31 percent) ❑ Weather (30 percent) ❑ Natural beauty (26 percent) WHAT DO YOU LIKE LEAST ABOUT KONA Themes mentioned with a frequency greater than twenty-five percent include: ❑ Unplanned and out -of -control development (28 percent) ❑ The political environment (26 percent) REPORT ON THE ITY SURVEY ON THE HAWAI PREPARED BY THE KONA MIRA TEAM WITH A GRANT FROM THEW. K. KELLOGG FOUNDATION FEBRUARY 2000 1. Are you familiar with the County General Plan? ❑ Yes ❑ No 2. If yes, have you had a chance to review it? ❑ Yes ❑ No Note: the Plan's web site was listed on the survey: Country General Plan 29%22/o 0 45% Greater selection for shopping 20 3� % 14 Increased community participation 15 Aware of Aware of Unaware of N/R Plan, Plan, Not Plan Reviewed Reviewed SUMMARY: The majority (51 percent) of the respondents were aware of the County's General Plan; with 29 percent of those having reviewed the Plan at some date. Seventy percent of those who filled out the survey had not reviewed the General Plan. 3. What are the best trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 years? Topic FREQUENCY (%) More park facilities (including pool) 23 Greater selection for shopping 20 Road improvements 14 Increased community participation 15 SUMMARY: The greatest number of responses voiced appreciation for the improvements and additions to our parks; i.e., Old Airport Park, gym, pool, Kona Coast Beach park, etc. The influx of "discount stores", and the increase in the "availability of products" also received much appreciation. Road improvements and increase in citizen participation were common themes; additional popular trends included improvements at the airport, better representation on the county council, the move of the dump site, and preservation activities such as the restriction on fish collection and recycling efforts. 4. What are the worst trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 years? SUMMARY: Even though the road improvements were appreciated, a third of the respondents felt not enough was being done to keep up with the community needs, particularity mauka/makai connectors. Twenty-five TOPIC FREQUENCY (%) Lack of road improvements 33 Level of unplanned development 25 Increase noise 14 Influx of large discounters 5 percent of the respondents thought there was too much development, and too much unplanned development, chiefly development without the proper infrastructure. Many considered the increase in noise a negative trend. Offsetting the appreciation that many expressed for the new discount stores as shown in the previous question, 5 percent did not appreciate the influx of these new stores. RtPOR7ON INf CQMMUN/fYSURVCI'ON 1/ft HAWAf I C20NIYGfNfR9L PLAN 5. Do we need to increase or decrease the following services/infrastructure? Circle one of the following: 'more', 'same' or "less" and then please add any specific comments you have. A. POLICE SERVICE: The majority of respondents were satisfied with the level of police service,- however, a larger percentage (42 percent) thought we needed an increase in police protection, particularly for more attention to the serious crimes, such as hard drug sales and use, violence, and theft. Many thought the police needed more training, better pay and more visibility. The need for a foot or bicycle patrol in the downtown area was noted. Many thought the police were pleasant and polite. B. FIRE SERVICE: A strong majority of those responding to the survey are satisfied with the level of fire service; however those who gave comments thought there were still some areas under served. C. PARK SERVICE: The majority of respondents (70 percent) want more parks, and more services in parks. Comments included a large number of requests for cleaner bathrooms and better general maintenance of the parks that we currently have. Others commented on the need for longer hours and the creation of more parks. D. BEACH PARKS: The great majority of respondents (73 percent) wanted more beach parks. Comments particularly centered on the need for clean restrooms and general better maintenance. Accessibility and the need for campgrounds and paved access were further concerns. Harsh treatment of any vandals was requested. 2 Police Service 100% 80% 0 60% 42% 48% 40% 20% 0 0% , -I J -'- 2+ �� Nbre Same Less N/R 100% Fire Service 100% 70% 80% 66% 60% 40% 23% 20 /0 0 9% 1% 0 More Same Less N/R More Same Less N/R 100% Parks Service 80% 70% 60% 40% t25% 20% 1% 3% 0% — --0_-i -- More Same Less N/R 100% Beach Parks 80% 73% 60% 40% 21% 20% 1% 5% 0% +�-.-�I-- More same Less N/R RIPOK7 ON 7HE COMMUNOT SURVE Y ON 7H1 HAWAI - / COUN7 Y GINE RAL PLAN E. DRINKING WATER: Almost half of the respondents Drinking Water Service (46 percent) asked for a better quality of water. The 100% other half felt the current water service was 80% adequate. Conservation of water and the need for 60% 46% 400% � service to more rural areas were concerns 40% 12% expressed. 20% � 0% — ---�— More Same Less N/R F. IRRIGATION WATER SERVICE: A near majority of respondents (45 percent) are satisfied with the current Irrigation Water Service 100% level of service. Comments called for an expanded 80% infrastructure (reservoir) South Kona, and assistance 60% 45% with installation. Others called for eliminating the 40% - 29% 2 runoff of irrigation water into the ocean, and for 20% 0% �,- i_,__ I- 3% � exploring the secondary use of gray water. More Same Less N/R G. SEWER SERVICE Again, the near majority of 100°k Sewer Service respondents are satisfied with the current level of 80% sewer service, but a notable 32 percent would like to 60% 45% see more attention paid toward this service. 40% 32% Comments cited the need to protect the ocean from 20% ° 20% 2/0 sewage runoff and the need to improve the wa g P Y ° o/° - +- JL sewer services are handled in Keauhou. � a � --- - More Same Less N/R H. TRASH SERVICE The majority (51 percent) is satisfied r Trash Service with the current level of service. Those who would 100% like to see more service (31 percent) are concerned 80% 51% because of reliance on private trash service which has 60% 40% 31% become a monopoly; others who would like to see 20% 1% 16% more attention placed on developing recycling o% -M, programs that work. More Same Less N/R 3 REP(>RI_LJN 7_Ht_C0MMUNl1Y_5U-RVE)'ON T -N -L HAWAL 'L COUN7YGfNfRAL PLAN I. RECYCLING SERVICE: There is a clear consensus on the need for more recycling services (86 percent). Ideas to improve the service include providing a centralized area for disposal of all waste and providing curbside recycling programs. Making it convenient to recycle was a common theme to insure the service would be successful. J. CIVIL DEFENSE SERVICE: There is an overwhelming show of support 73 percent) for the work of the Civil Defense team. The majority of comments applauded the work of Harry Kim. K. HIGHER EDUCATION: Eighty percent of the respondents called for access to State-run higher education. Comments pointed to the need for a better employment pool, and providing this opportunity to our youth. Note: the County's responsibility as it pertains to education is limited to the provision of facilities rather than programs. L. YOUTH SERVICES: Almost 70 percent thought that there is a need for more things for kids to do. The majority of comments asked for more recreational opportunities and public transportation. Others mentioned the need for more parental involvement. rd Higher Education Services 100%80% 80% { 60% 4007014% 20% 0% 6% 0% -- +--=--i- -+- More Same Less N/R 100% Youth Services 1 80%tiv_ 60% 40%22% 20% 0% 8% 0%- More Same Less N/R Recycling Service 100% -- 86% 80% 60% - 40% 20% - 6% 0% 7% 80% More Same Less N/R Higher Education Services 100%80% 80% { 60% 4007014% 20% 0% 6% 0% -- +--=--i- -+- More Same Less N/R 100% Youth Services 1 80%tiv_ 60% 40%22% 20% 0% 8% 0%- More Same Less N/R — -- Civil Defense Service 100% - 73% 80% t60% 40% 16% 20/0 3=/0 60% mIL_ _W More Same Less N/R Higher Education Services 100%80% 80% { 60% 4007014% 20% 0% 6% 0% -- +--=--i- -+- More Same Less N/R 100% Youth Services 1 80%tiv_ 60% 40%22% 20% 0% 8% 0%- More Same Less N/R RtpoR7 ON 111E COMMUNITySURVEY_ON 7HE HA.W Il l COUNTYG£N£RAI PLAN M. ELDER SERVICES: Over half (53 percent) see a need for more services for our senior population. Comments focused on the need for more transportation, housing, and recreational opportunities. Elder Services 100% 80%53% 60% 35% 40% 20% 1% 10% More Same Less N/R N. OTHER SERVICES: Respondents were asked to list any other services they thought important, as follows: ( listed by order of frequency, left to night ❑ Road improvements ❑ Rest areas ❑ Homeless shelters ❑ Fines for littering ❑ Handicap access ❑ Roadside beautification ❑ Boat ramps ❑ Parenting classes for youth ❑ Medivac helicopter . 6. Where should the County put its emphasis on economic development? Circle one of the following: "more , 'same', or %ss", and then please add any specific comments you have. A. AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT: Agriculture was one of the top three choices for economic development. Seventy-three percent thought this is where the County should be putting its emphasis for economic development. The majority of comments called for more self-sufficiency and the need to diversify our products. Others mentioned developing more opportunities for ag-tourism. B. TOURISM DEVELOPMENT: One of the lowest areas of interests for development, with only 28 percent requesting more tourism development. Comments included the need to improve parks and bathrooms. Others thought that current hotels should reach full occupancy before more are built, and voiced fear of becoming another Honolulu. 5 Agriculture Development 100% T % 80% 73 60% 0 20% 16% 2% 9% 0% More Same Less N/R 100% Tourism Development 80% 60% 48% 40% - 28% 16% 20% 7% 0% More Same Less NIR RfPOR1 ON 7HE COMMUN1n,5uRVfY ON 1/-/f HAWAI ,l COUNIYGENt" PLAN C. ECOTOURISM DEVELOPMENT: Ecotourism was considered a favorable area for development. Comments called for development of bikeways and improved shoulder areas to encourage low -impact biking tours. Also encouraged were more events like the Ironman Triathlon World Championship, more parks, and promoting the Hawaiian culture. The need to limit liability was mentioned to help promote this economic activity. D. CONSTRUCTION DEVELOPMENT: Very low priority for respondents, with only 14 percent seeing the need for more push in the construction industry. Comments did relate a need for quality construction over quantity, and the need for more infrastructure development such as schools, libraries, and roadways. Under grounding utilities was mentioned. E. DEVELOPMENT: One of the few areas where half of the respondents wanted LESS. Many thought that the vacant buildings should be filled before more construction is allowed. The need for planned development is a common theme, as well as the need to move away from high-end development. On the positive side, some noted that more jobs would be created with more development. F. AQUACULTURE DEVELOPMENT: Selected as one of the top three areas of development, with 74 percent calling for more aquaculture development. As with agriculture, aquaculture was seen as a way to become more self sufficient, and an excellent way to diversify our economy while minimizing the impact on infrastructure. T Ecotourism Development 100% j 100% 80% - 64% 60% t 40% i 23% 20%4% 8% 1 -W-I-.___+_ 0% . - - + -- - More Same Less N/R Construction Development 1 100% 100% 80% t 60% 40% 20% 36% 36% 40% 20% 14% 13% 0% -�-- -1-1— More Same Less N/R Aquaculture Development 100% 74% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 4% 8% 0% - –+–M-+— More Same Less N/R Development 100% 80% {60% t 50% 40% 20% 14% 25% ° 10 /o 0% More Same Less N/R Aquaculture Development 100% 74% 80% 60% 40% 20% 14% 4% 8% 0% - –+–M-+— More Same Less N/R RL_VOR7 ON 7HI COMMUN17Y SUR VIYON7HE HAW,4Q COUN7YGTNfRAL PLAN G. RENEWABLE ENERGY DEVELOPMENT: At 86 percent, the Renewable Energy highest choice for development. Many see the 1 100% 86% Development benefits in turning the sun and wind into energy. 80°i° Some thought that incentive could help encourage 60% this development others encouraged mandatory 40% 20% 5% % 6% regulations. 0% - —_+ L I More Same Less N/R H. RESEARCH DEVELOPMENT: A pretty ambiguous results, -- - 1 with only slightly more (29 percent) thinking that this Research Development field of development should stay the same. An equal 100% number (25 percent) think there should be more and 800/( less. Comments suggested that clean, low impact 600 technology was fine and private enterprise should be 40% 25% 29% 25% 20% 20% encouraged. The comments reflected that some did p% not understand this question. More Same Less N/R I. HEALTH & WELLNEss DEVELOPMENT: One of the more - Health &Wellness popular areas of development with 69 percent 100% ° Development approving more emphasis. Respondents saw this as a 80% 69/0 great way to diversify our economy, creating good jobs, 60% encouraging healthy trends like biking and walking, 40% 20% ° meeting the needs of our aging population, and as a 20% 1% 10% 0% +—L- — link to tourism. More Same Less N/R J J. FISHING INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT: Not a big priority for I Fishing Industry respondents with less than one-third (29 percent) 100% Development seeing a need for more. Comments supported 80% limitations similar to Alaska, other wanted to give our 1 40° 29% 42% 17 ° ocean a break, and especially eliminate reef fishing. 20%' 12/0 0% More Same Less N/R K. SMALL BUSINESS DEVELOPMENT: Another popular area 100% Small Business for development, with 66 percent wanting to see more 80% 66% Development small business development. Comments were very 60% similar calling for an end to deterrents, and the need to 40%19%° provide tax incentives. 20% 4% 10% 0% -_Uw__�_ 7_�_ _ More Same Less NIR 7 RE_POR7 ON 7HI COMMUNITVSUXVFYON IHC HAWA/ �l COUN7YGCNER9L PLAN L. HIGH TECHNOLOGY DEVELOPMENT: Over half of the High Technology respondents (61 percent) saw the field of high technology as a favorable field of development. 100% -I Development Comments encouraged development to help provide 80% 61% jobs; others saw it as a clean business for the 60% 40% 23% environment. Skeptics did not see the labor pool I 1 20°% t 0% 5% J 10% here to sustain this type of business. , --i- --I--� More Same Less— N/R M. LIGHT INDUSTRY DEVELOPMENT: Marginal support for Light Industry Development'! this field, with 36 percent in both the "more" and the o800 _ "same" groupings. Some saw the benefit of more 60% 36% 36% obs while others supported development of non- 1 PP P 40% 20% + 0 13/0 0 14/0 ofluting industries. 0% -- -1--= i =---, More Same Less N/R J 7. Do we need to increase or decrease the following transportation options? Circle one of the following: 'more", "same", or "less', and then please add any specific comments you have. A. LOCAL ROADS: Almost half (48 percent) saw the need 100% Local Roads more local roads. Comments called more repair and 80% P 60% 48% maintenance of existing roads, the development of 40% -31% 0 connector roads (see below), and more mauka/makai 20% 4% 16/0 connectors. 01.]UR —1_W_ More Same Less N/R B. CONNECTOR ROADS: Seventy-five percent saw the need Connector Roads j more connector roads. The comments were 100%0 (repeatedly), "more mauka/makai connectors." 80% 75/0 60% 0 20 % 16% 1% 7% 0% More Less C. LIMITED ACCESS ROADS: An ambiguous survey results for this category with an almost equal split among the replies. Comments were (repeatedly), "no". M Limited Access Roads 100% 80% 60% 40% 25% 29% 25% 20% 20% 0% ■ ■ - More Same Less N/R RL- PORI ON -7 HE COMMUNILYSURVL Y_ON 7Nf HAWAI_L COUN7Y GENERAL PLAN D. SCENIC DRIVES: Over half (52 percent) of the respondents wanted more scenic drives. Comments called for making Alii Drive a one-way road, under grounding utilities, and creating parking areas for viewing the scenic landscapes. E. BICYCLE LANES: Overwhelming support (80 percent) for the development of bicycle facilities. Comments were all in support of more bike lanes, with some citing the currently dangerous conditions. Others pointed to the disparity between facilities and the popularity of bicycling (including events like Ironman). The benefits of these facilities in reducing traffic congestion and pollution were also mentioned. F. PEDESTRIAN PATHS: As with bicycle lanes, overwhelming support for development of pedestrian facilities. Comments citied the current dangerous conditions, and pointed to healthier lifestyles and a more beautiful and friendlier community through creation of these facilities. 100% Scenic Drives 80% I 60% - 52% 40% 31% 20% . L 3% 13% 0%r ------ ;------ More Same Less N/R Bicycle Lanes 100% 80% 80% 60% 40% 20% 9% 5% 6% 0% _A�-- More Same Less N/R 100% 80% Pedestrian Paths 80% 60% 40%13% 20% 1% 5% 0% ---+-- More Same Less N/R G. COMMUTER BUSES: Over half (56 percent) want more commuter buses. Comments requested smaller 100% buses that come more frequently, connecting to ° 60% local routes, and ones that are timed to local 40% routines. 20% 0% H. LOCAL Bugs: Fifty-nine percent would like to see more local buses. Comments noted this service as essential, and called for more frequent service using smaller buses. x Commuter Buses 56% 30% 5% 9% More Same Less N/R 100% 80% 59% 60% 40% 20% 0% Local Buses 30% E 1% 9% More Same Less NIR RtPOR-1 ON-THI COMMUN17YSURVEYON-THt HAWAL'/COUNTY'GFNERAL PLAN ROADWAY PLANS: Forty-eight percent of the respondents called for more roadway plans. This question may have been unclear. Almost one-third (27 percent) of the respondents did not reply, and comments asked for more clarification on the question. Others wanted to stop planning and start building. J. HERITAGE CORRIDORS: Forty-four percent saw the need for more heritage corridors. However, comments showed that many respondents did not know what these facilities are. Other saw them as a great idea and encouraged their development. K. FREEWAYS: The least supported category on this survey with the majority of respondents (54 percent) wanting LESS. The comments were unanimously "no". 1000/( Environmental Roadway Plans 80% 60% 60% -�'i 48% 20% 40% 0%--- 18% 27% 20% , 6%0% ■ More Same Less N/R Heritage Corridors 100% 80% 60% 44% 40% 31% 21% 20% 3% 0—i More Same Less WR 100% Freeways 80% 54% 60% 40% 10% 20% 16% 20% 0% _JNIL More Same Less N/R 8. Do we need more or less protection on the following aspects of our environment? Circle one of the following: "more'l "same- or '%ss ; and then please add any specific comments you have. A. ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION - OVERALL: Clearly a concern with 72 percent wanting more protection of our environment. Comments were quite extensive and are perhaps summed up best by one: " If we don't protect these things, no one will want to visit or live here. These are Kona's golden eggs." B. WATERSHED: Seventy-eight (78) percent saw a pressing need to preserve our watershed. No one (0 percent) wanted to see less. Coordinating the preservation of the watershed, shoreline and open spaces were seen as integral to overall protection. 10 100% Environmental 80% 72% Protection -Overall 60% 40% 19% 20% 2% 7% 0%--- - �--�. --r�— More Same Less WR 100% 78% Watershed 80% 60% 40% 20% 13% 0% 8% 0% --r�— More Same Less N/R RI PORI ON 7HE CommuN/TYSURVEY'ON 7H7 HAWAI '1 COUNTYGENfRA7 PLAN C. SHORELINE: One of the highest areas of concern with 86 percent citing a need for more protection of our shoreline. Comments included a call to build all new structures inland, and a strong call to protect the turtles and reef fish. D. OPEN SPACES: Seventy percent want more protection for open spaces. Respondents voiced the need to reserve these spaces now, before they get developed. Others stated how important open spaces are to keep Kona beautiful and how these provide opportunities for us to rejuvenate. E. AGRICULTURE: Sixty percent want to see more preservation of agriculture land. Comments reflected disapproval for how much agricultural land is being developed for houses. F. MARINE RESOURCES: Seventy-seven (77) percent want to see more preservation of our marine resources. Comments focused around the need to protect our reef fish and eliminate fish collecting for aquariums. G. FLORA & FAUNA: Sixty-four (64) percent would like to see more preservation of our flora and fauna. Comments pointed out how many of our natural species have already become extinct and others such as koa trees are close. 11 100% - 86% Shoreline 80% i 60% 40% 20% 7% 1% 5% More Same Less N/R 100% Open Space 80% . 70% 60% —40% 19% 20% '— 1% 8% 0% --+`— More Same Less N/R 100°X° Agriculture 1 80% 60% 28% 40% 20% 3% 8% 0% �,... More Same Less N/R 100% 770% Marine Resource 80% 60% 40% 16% 20% 1% 5% 0% i -----i - -—� More Same Less N/R Flora & Fauna 100% 80% 64% 60% 40% 27% 20% Z 1% 8% 0% —+— --'-i— MM More Same Less N/R RE PORI ON THT COMA4UN17)'SURVI)ON 7HE HAW,41 'I COUNTYGENfRAL PLAN H. NATURAL BEAUTY: Three-quarters (75 percent) want I 100% Natural Beauty to see our natural beauty preserved. Many see it as80% 75% a draw for tourist, which helps boost the economy. 60% Others are concerned about the loss of our 40%16/0 + o rainforests. 20% 1% 8% 0% 7 ---------__��— More Same Less N/R Cultural Resources I. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Sixty-seven (67) percent see a 100% need to preserve our cultural resources. Comments 80% 67% included a call for all significant sites to be 60% %preserved, other see a lack of cultural arts such as 20% 23%30Y( 6/0 0 theater and fine arts. ° TRAILS: Sixty-nine (69) percent would like to see more trails preserved. Comments related a lack of accessible hiking trails. Others see trail development as a low -impact way toward shoreline protection, and a great means for experiencing the island. More Same Less N/R 100%°Trails 80% 69% 60% 40% 20% 20% 3% 8% 0% �-h- More Same Less N/R 9. How important is it to plan how and where land is developed in North and South Kona? IMPORTANCE ON PLANNED DEVELOPMENT: Overwhelmingly one of the most agreed upon topic on this survey with 91 percent seeing planned development as very important. 12 100% 91% Importance on Planned 80% Development 60% 40% 20% 6% 1% 1% 0% Very Moderately Un- Don't Know Important important RTPOR7 ON THE COMMUNHY_SURHYON-7HL HAW.97_I COUNTYGtNTRAL PLAN 10. How important it is to our economy for us to protect the natural beauty of this island? PROTECTING NATURAL BEAUTY: The highest percentage of agreement (95 percent) is given to the need to protect our natural beauty. There was no one who thought this was not important. 11. How important the need to protect the Hawaiian Culture? PROTECTING HAWAIIAN CULTURE: Sixty-seven (67) Importance to Protect Hawaiian percent see a need to protect the Hawaiian 100% Culture culture, with another 27 percent seeing this g0% 67% preservation as moderately important. 60% 2 40% 7% 20% M 3% 3% 0% — Very Moderately Un- Don't KI Important important 12. What do you like best about Kona? THEMES FREQUENCY (%) Importance of Protecting 35 95% Natural Beauty j 100% so% 30 Natural beauty so% Ocean resources 18 40% 20% 1 10 3% 0% 1% 0% Very Moderately Un- Dong Know Important important 11. How important the need to protect the Hawaiian Culture? PROTECTING HAWAIIAN CULTURE: Sixty-seven (67) Importance to Protect Hawaiian percent see a need to protect the Hawaiian 100% Culture culture, with another 27 percent seeing this g0% 67% preservation as moderately important. 60% 2 40% 7% 20% M 3% 3% 0% — Very Moderately Un- Don't KI Important important 12. What do you like best about Kona? THEMES FREQUENCY (%) The people and their Aloha 35 Small town atmosphere 31 Weather 30 Natural beauty 26 Ocean resources 18 Open spaces 10 Other themes included: ❑ Sunset ❑ Historic area ❑ Hawaiian culture ❑ Outdoor activities ❑ Businesses ❑ Quality of life 13 RtPOR7 ON 7111_ COMMUN7TY5URvt YON THT HAWA7.7 COONTyGfNFRAL PLAN 13. What do you like least about Kona? THEMES FREQUENCY (%) Unplanned and out -of -control development 28 The political environment 26 Traffic congestion and lack of roadway s 18 Noise pollution from motorcycles, blowers, etc. 10 Other themes included: ❑ Vog ❑ Lack of affordable land and housing ❑ Crime 14 ❑ Teen pregnancy ❑ Influx of non -locals ❑ Litter and graffiti APPENDIX A ADDITIONAL COMMENTS FROM RESPONDENTS ❑ Need good restaurants in Kona instead of always going to Kohala or Waimea. Why can't someone get it right? ❑ Do turn the village into a mall! Save the damage from all unnecessary traffic! Have Hawaiian Music. Enforce signage! Get the "bed sheets" off railings, ditto all the flags at the Mexican restaurant. No sandwich boards, piles kayaks, lines and lines of bikes the town just has become so tacky with a capital T! We'll make Lahina look classy if all this illegal, unattractive eyesore type stuff continues. Have intelligent tree trimming and planting in the village. Outdoor cafes are a natural. (Editor's note: this person continues with another page -and -a -half of complaints not related to the General Plan such as why are we stuck with United Airlines. The 757 is a bad plane and the service carts are always blocking the aisles. ❑ Public works projects should be prioritized and well thought out. Downtown Alii Dr. should be closed to cars and made a pedestrian mall during major hours (9am to 9pm) Bury Alii Dr. utility lines. ❑ (1) We have the chance to guide development here -- to protect our marine resources and coastline (2) This community should insist that an alternative to asphalt be used for parking lot surfaces --the black attracts heat --An enzyme is available that congeals particles of native earth (or coral rock) and could be used as parking lot surfaces. ❑ Social services. Need more education/prevention programs for drug abuse which leads to child and spousal abuse ❑ spend more funds on West side of island. split Island into East and West political entities. ❑ Hire local people. Stop importing workers! Listen to Kona Outdoor Circle. ❑ help secondary schools with technology and use solar energy in all buildings ❑ please don't ruin this island like Oahu, Maui and Kauai Also added to question no.9: Are you kidding - we don't have to make the same mistakes as other places. ❑ If possible please send me some information on the county general plan. ❑ This town is too small for traffic needs. We need more shopping centers away from present congestion and with traffic signals in accordance. ❑ West Hawaii County now! ❑ would like to emphasize need for continuous improvement for beaches and parks, this is what tourists come for ❑ I am worried about the long term health risks of our buried landfill and all the schools & houses built around it and our new landfill and all the resorts built around it. Are we killing ourselves??? ❑ special interests aside, we need to work together to preserve the pristine quality of our surroundings that enhance our quality of life ❑ quit changing the zoning, more parks and parkways will help, I've lived her 30 years and I'll die here. I love it. ❑ need more good shops and business in Kamuela town, need mail delivery at homes in Kamuela We need a place to park our local cars at the airport - when we go to the other islands - that doesn't cost us an arm and a leg! $7.00 a day is too much for locals. ❑ need more good shops and business in Kamuela town, need mail delivery at homes in Kamuela We need a place to park our local cars at the airport - when we go to the other islands - that doesn't cost us an arm and a leg! $7.00 a day is too much for locals. ❑ if county council continues its present M.O., we will be forced to form our own county ❑ People! Stop running red lights and put down the phone while driving. thank -you. ❑ separate Kona/ Kohala County APPENDIX A, cowwum ❑ How will the community be allowed to participate in the revision? ❑ If tourism is our main source of income, then improvement of beach facilities and beautification of the island should be our main efforts. Casinos are not a bad idea if properly policed. ❑ Need to collect taxes from large corporations or wealthy people as us ordinary people pay yearly. ❑ Is the Chamber of Commerce stuffing your ballot box? ❑ tourism is our only industry, we must be more visitor friendly in every way ❑ Drivers who overtake even when there is a double line, especially from Sure Save to Honalo. ❑ Alii bypass is a definite necessity, split county into two townships or counties, more left-hand turns on green arrow only ❑ poor enforcement of zoning, poor road planning, feasibility of 2 counties ❑ Keep Hawaii Hawaii, limit incoming developers, rebuild/ repair, reuse - recycle, Thank -you for putting this in the newspaper ❑ underground utilities, clean beaches!! ❑ I would like to see the results of this survey listed in the West Hawaii Today ❑ frightening lack of emergency resources, starting at Medivac and going downhill, Regarding many controversies - Harry Kim most knowledgeable but nobody listens or acts ❑ Close off parts of Alii Dr. Make the pier area friendlier, keep the old town quaint. Get rid of all the cigarette butts in front of every building. The town stinks ... more flowers? ❑ This is not a community survey! How do you know that I pay taxes? ❑ How can we be an active participant in this planning committee????????? ❑ This survey is flawed because there is not data collected on age, or location or who is answering this!! Mauka and makai people have different needs and concerns. People in Palisades and South Kona have very different concerns!! It's important you know that people think in the area they live in !! This will only confuse you as you try to make decisions based on this data. Too broad Too vague No HARD data Try again! Good start Hope people respond. Thank you!!! ❑ More developers, more condos, more homes, more apartments equals more people which in turn mean more traffic on unexpanded roadways which means eventual gridlock, "not good". Also, Alii Drive "center of town" should become a pedestrian mall area. It's a win-win situation, should it materialize. ❑ Need additional housing such as The "Pines", with underground utilities and terraced lots --near town at reasonable cost. ❑ A better hospital capacity of services is badly needed here. ❑ Let's get some creative leadership into an alternative transportation system. ❑ For visitors and residents alike we need more beach parks and neighborhood parks that are well planned and even better maintained. ❑ Would like to see overhaul of pier and sidewalk in front of Ocean View Restaurant. More elder housing and assisted living. ❑ I would like our representatives to listen, work together & actual represent our interests. Quit wasting our money, pay bills on time. We want 24 hr helicopter medical emergency service! We want industrial and medicinal hemp! 1'd like to see more enforcement of existing laws about domestic abuse, white collar crime, traffic offenses, littering & noise ordinance. I'd like to see a little pride and aloha. I'd like to see some integrity and honesty. Work together! I'd like to see our politicians do their job. "No taxation w/out representation" APPENDIXA, CONTINUED ❑ I am a Homeowner in Kamani Trees Subdivision. I work in Kealakekua, I've been working up mauka for the past 20 years. I do plan on reviewing the County General Plan soon. ❑ Alii Drive from King Kamehameha Beach Hotel to Kona Inn should be a pedestrian mall ❑ Please put a stop light at Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway and the little street to the Police Dept and the Dump ❑ That they haven't simply made Alii Dr. only for pedestrians. No cars, or motorcycles should be allowed as far as the Thai Rest. Also: Safeway, KTA, etc should by law be made to have shade trees for their parking guests. We need to make West Hawaii a County so that we do not have so support Hilo forever. ❑ Living in Waikoloa is very pleasant - still very residential and safe place ❑ spot zoning -- too many variances being allowed mauka hiking/bike trails tennis courts up mauka for local play that are open DOE/County/Bishop Estate in cooperation for development for healthy exercise facilities that are open rather than locked. :("people" police to discourage vandalism of public places ❑ Need to require driver's ed in schools need to separate bikes and pedestrians from the motorized maniacs ❑ We have been vac. in Kona for 20 years and decided to retire here last year. I do not have a good answer for questions #3 and 4 due to living only a short time here. #5 trash is a real bad problem on the island. Abandoned vehicles, ref, freezers, etc. name it and you can find it along our roadways. The 3 mile road from Kealakekua Bay to the City of Refuge is a major trash problem. The tourist drive th8s, what must they think? Junk, junk and more junk, just because the county will not give people a local place to dispose of large items. Set aside an area at the transfer station to put things that cannot be put in the container. Then bring probationers to clean up the large pike of junk and truck it to the dump. Make a county ordinance that requires that people keep junk and abandoned vehicles etc out of public view. This is one of the worst problems on the island. I understand that it is a problem to get this metal off the island, but we cannot wait any longer or junk is going to over take this wonderful land. I hate it and so do every person you talk to about the problem #12 and 13 The Kailua village is the greatest site on the island and maybe all the islands, but we need to close Alii Drive to vehicular traffic and protect the beauty. Have Hawaiian cultural things going on under the banyan tree and on the seawall. UK - playing and singing, mat making, hat mating all the things the tourist come for but cannot find. #14 Start a strong move to separate Kona from Hilo, so we can speak for ourselves. Mahalo ❑ Nothing will change here - it will be business as usual, Hawaiian time, no matter how hard you try. That's Hawaii and the 3rd world mindset here. ❑ 1 st class hospital in Kona Promote retirement complexes ❑ As an international destination resort area, planning is very poor at the current trend, you cannot compete - limiting the visitor industry future! ❑ In our government our voices don't get heard. No one seems to be representing the needs of West Hawaii in our political system. The people speak out and are not listened to. People stop caring. I stop participating and get hateful. Everyone is leaving. Our cost of food is way too high. Insurance is too high. You can't do business here. People are rude to tourists and aloha is disappearing. ❑ If plan will urbanize areas, needs to be indicated by clear wording, not just list of ahupua'a names as in the past. ❑ New West Hawaii County needed now. (New state later with smiley face) We need many major long term items like a new 2000 ft. pier and ocean promenade, better highways, more connector roads. APPENDIX A, CONTINUED ❑ Ua man ke ea o ka aina i ka pono 27 -year resident of Hawaii, Thanks for doing this survey. I hope people will respond. My summation is that growth must focus on sustainable, non-destructive development. For example, in my opinion, losing a rare sandy beach like Honl's, so an outsider can build condos for more outsiders is too big a loss for the people who live here. That is destructive development even though dollars to build it would be generated. "Sustainable" and "Pono" - good ideas! ❑ walking paths to Kmart / Liberty House cross roads - making it easier for tourists to get to ❑ We need to rely more on bikes and walking, and move away from car dependence. To do this we need safer places like bike lanes and pedestrian walkways. ❑ I would like to see our island develop but not haphazardly or without proper planning especially for us the true citizens ❑ we need a highway below Kealakekua NOW ❑ better management of our shoreline areas. ❑ Bikers in Kona are arrogant, narcissistic jerks who don't deserve public support or funding ❑ Kona should develop a comprehensive Regional Plan with input from all segments of the population ❑ more activities for students ages 5 to 10 and teens II and over ❑ Protect shoreline - open area for beach activities and fishing ❑ Separate the county or get our fair share of resources ❑ We should learn from the mistakes of the other islands (Oahu) and from the successful communities elsewhere. Too bad greed is such a strong human trait! ❑ Why promote cruise ships? They are floating resorts. Passengers don't spend as much money as hotel guests who eat, buy goods, pay for hotel rooms, rent cars, etc. Hotel guests pump money into economy. Cruisers have all their needs tended to on the ship. ❑ I moved here in 1986. At that time the island was enjoying a prosperous economy. I work in the hospitality industry so I experienced a few good years and many bad ones after the recession hit. From that I believe in the importance of diversifying the economy. I feel these new opportunities shouldn't compromise the environment or existing lifestyle we now enjoy, however. Also, from having worked with tourists from all socioeconomic backgrounds - working, middle class to very affluent - I've learned that they all share one thing in common, they all love the Big Island because it is undeveloped and comes close to being what they perceive Hawaii to be. When focusing on the tourist industry I think its important to realize what it is that keeps them coming back. I think the General Plan sounds good. Whether it all happens is another thing. I'm not sure if 1 like the idea of floating bonds. I think it should be relatively hard to develop here. The island is going to change but it needs to well thought out. I don't think we need more resorts right now. I feel the ones existing should be allowed to flourish. Who knows how long the upswing in the economy will continue? Remember all those empty hotel rooms not too long ago? ❑ the electorate must become informed and involved ❑ Some roads are extremely dangerous, we must fix Palani Road Community Survey on the Hawai' i County General Plan The County General Plan serves as our roadmap for the long-range vision of this County. It is designed to assure the coordinated development of the County and promote the general welfare and prosperity of the citizens. The plan provides for a comprehensive review at least once every ten years. THAT REVIEW IS UNDERWAY THIS YEAR! The survey is being circulated through a volunteer effort to obtain your thoughts and ideas about the County, and your vision for its future. 1. Are you familiar with the County General Plan? 0 Yes ❑ No 2. If yes, have you had a chance to review it? ❑ Yes ❑ No (web -site: www.hawaii-county.com) 3. What are the best trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 years? 4. What are the worst trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 years? 5. Do we need to increase or decrease the following services/infrastructure? Circle one of the following. 'more 'same, or 'less, and then please add any.speciTrc comments you have Police more same less Comment: Fire more same less Comment: Parks more same less _ Comment: Beach Parks more same less Comment:__ Drinking Water more same less Comment: Irrigation Water more same less Comment: Sewer Service more same less Comment: Trash Service more same less _ Comment: Recycling more same less Comment:__ Civil Defense more same less _ Comment: Higher Education more same less Comment: Youth Services more same less Comment: Elder Services more same less Comment: other: more same less Comment:_ _... more same less Comment: 6. Where should the County put its emphasis on economic development? Circle one of the following 'more', 'same' or 'less, and then please add any specific comments you have Agriculture more same less Comment: Tourism more same less CommenC Eco Tourism more same less _ Comment: Construction more same less Comment:____ Development more same less Comment: Aquaculture more same less _ Comment: Renewable Energy more same less Comment:_ Research more same less Comment: Health & Wellness more same less Comment: Fishing Industry more same less Comment: Small Business more same less Comment: High Technology more same less Comment: Light Industry more same less Comment: 7. Do we need to increase or decrease the following transportation options? Circle one of the following: more ; 'same, or 'less' and then please add any specific comments you have 12. What do you like best about Kona? 13. What do you like least about Kona? 14. Do you have any additional comments (please use additional sheets if needed)? This Community Survey was developed in collaboration with the County Planning Department by the Kona MIRA (Managing Information in Rural America) team, a volunteer group funded by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The results will be tabulated and submitted to the County Department of Planning for inclusion into the 1999 County Plan revision. This survey can also be completed and submitted on-line: www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan Please Return Completed Survey by August 20, 1999 to: PATH -Survey • PO Box 62 • Kailua-Kona, HI • 96 74 5-006 2 (VPS=r#7{�dtmtr++!17°? d4�rue Yfonnane was reduced 78 percent the original Local Roads more same less Comment: Connector Roads more same less Comment: Limited Access Hwy more same less Comment Scenic Drives more same less Comment: Bike Lanes more same less Comment: Pedestrian Paths more same less Comment: Commuter Buses more same less Comment: Local Buses more same less Comment: Road Way Plans more same less Comment: Heritage Corridors more same less Comment: Freeways more same less Comment: 8. Do we need more or less protection on the following aspects of our environment? Circle one of the following. -more, 'same' or 'less, and then please add any specific comments you have. Watershed more same less Comment: Shoreline more same less Comment: Open Space more same less Comment: Agricultural Land more same less Comment: Marine Resources more same less Comment: Flora & Fauna more same less Comment: Natural Beauty more same less Comment: Cultural Resources more same less Comment: Trails more same less Comment: 9. How important is it to plan how and where land is developed in North and South Kona? ❑ Very Important ❑ Moderately Important ❑ Unimportant ❑ Don't know 10. How important it is to our economy for us to protect the natural beauty of this island? ❑ Very Important ❑ Moderately Important ❑ Unimportant ❑ Don't know 11. How important the need to protect the Hawaiian Culture? ❑ Very Important ❑ Moderately Important ❑ Unimportant ❑ Don't know 12. What do you like best about Kona? 13. What do you like least about Kona? 14. Do you have any additional comments (please use additional sheets if needed)? This Community Survey was developed in collaboration with the County Planning Department by the Kona MIRA (Managing Information in Rural America) team, a volunteer group funded by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The results will be tabulated and submitted to the County Department of Planning for inclusion into the 1999 County Plan revision. This survey can also be completed and submitted on-line: www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan Please Return Completed Survey by August 20, 1999 to: PATH -Survey • PO Box 62 • Kailua-Kona, HI • 96 74 5-006 2 (VPS=r#7{�dtmtr++!17°? d4�rue Yfonnane was reduced 78 percent the original General Plan Survey Page 1 of 5 Community Survey on the Hawai'i County General Plan The County General Plan serves as our roadmap for the long-range vision of this County. It is designed to assure the coordinated development of the County and promote the general welfare and prosperity of the citizens. The plan provides for a comprehensive review at least once every ten years. THAT REVIEW IS UNDERWAY THIS YEAR! Please Complete this form to allow us to gain input for the Review of the Hawaii County General Plan. When finished please click the SUBMIT FORM button at the bottom: 1. Are you familiar with the County General Plan? o Yes o No 2. If yes, have you had a chance to review it (County -Planning Website)? 0 Yes O No 3. What are the best trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 ears? a. b. c. 4. What are the worst trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 ears? a. b. C. 5. Do we need to increase or decrease the following services/ infrastructure? Click one of the following: "More", "Same", or "Less", and then please add any specific comments you have. http://www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan/Survey.htm 02122/2000 General Plan Survey Page 2 of 5 SERVICE Police AMOUNT COMMENTS Agriculture Lire MEN M 71 Click here; Parks Eco Tourism Click keYe, Beach Parks IConstruction Click here Drinking Water Click here iIrrigation Water ITrash Service Recycling [Click here Civil Defense Higher Education IlYouffi Services lElder ServiceslarqFERUR E-- ,1Other: Offier:L- 6. Where should the County put its emphasis on economic development? Click one of the following: "More", "Same", or "Less", and then please add any specific comments you have. F AREA of DEVELOPMENT COMMENTS Agriculture iTourism Click here; Eco Tourism Click keYe, IConstruction Click here Development Click here Aquaculture lRenewable Energy [Click here http://www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan/Survey.htm 02/22/2000 General Plan Survey Page 3 of 5 Research -Development Crick here Local Roads Health & Wellness Glick_trere Click, here Fishing Industry Glick trete. Limited Access Hwy1111Click fierals Small Business C,I'iek here: Click here High Technology Click here Cllck here Light Industry CIigR here Glick here 7. Do we need to increase or decrease the following transportation options? Click one of the following: "More", "Same", or "Less", and then please add any specific comments you have. OPTIONS AMOUNT COMMENTS Local Roads ¢flck, hero Connector Roads Click, here Limited Access Hwy1111Click fierals Scenic Drives Click here Bike Lanes Cllck here Pedestrian Paths Glick here Commuter Buses Click here Local Buses i Click here Road Way Plans i Click here Heritage Corridors Click here Freeways Click here 8. Do we need more or less protection on the following aspects of our environment? Click one of the following: "More", "Same", or "Less", and then please add any specific comments you have. http://www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plaii/Survey.htm 02/22/2000 General Plan Survey Page 4 of 5 ENVIRONMENT AMOUNT COMMENTS COMMENTS iWatershed iShoreline 1Open space [Agricultural Land Marine Resources Flora & Fauna aunaClick' �Natural Beauty lCultural Resources Click hemi 1FT rails Click herdi, 9. How important is it to I!Ian how and where land is developed in North and South Kona? Don't Know 10. How im ortant is it to our economy for us to protect the natural beauty of this island? Don't Know 11. How important the need to protect the Hawaiian culture? I Don't Know 12. What do you like best about Kona? 13. What do you like least about Kona? 1 14. Do you have any additional comments? http://www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan/Survey.htm 02/22/2000 General Plan Survey Page 5 of 5 This Community Survey was developed in collaboration with the County Planning Department by the Kona MIRA (Managing Information in Rural America) team, a volunteer group funded by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The results will be tabulated and submitted to the County Department of Planning for inclusion into the 1999 County Plan revision. Last revised: July 21, 1999 http://www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan/Survey,htm 02/22/2000 4111)- Wer Huwnfi Tud"b SuMur. July 11, 1" Community Survey on the Hawai ' i County General Plan The County General Plan serves as our roadmap for the long-range vision of this County. It is designed to assure the coor- dinated development of the County and promote the general welfare and prosperity of the citizens. The plan provides for a comprehensive review at least once every ten years. THAT REVIEW IS UNDERWAY THIS YEAR! The survey is being cir- culated through a volunteer effort to obtain your thoughts and ideas about the County, and your vision for its future. I. Are you familiar with the Counly General Plan? U Yes U No 2. If yes, have you had a chance to review it? U Yes J No (website: www.hawaii-county.com) 7. What are the best trends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 years? a. I. C. 4. What are the worst (rends or changes that occurred in North or South Kona in the last 10 years? a. b. C. S. Do we need to increase or decrease the following services/infrastructure? Circle one of the following: "more", -same, or 'less", and then please add any specific comments you have. N. ue+dM." J,"b if nadedf comments you have tPuue use,dd'nnMil saeeuurcMrdf Police more same leu Comment: Fire more same less Comment: Parks more same less Comment: Beach Parks more same less Comment: Drinking Water more same less Comment: Irrigation Water more same less Comment: Sewer Service more same less Comment: Trash Service more same less Comment: Recycling more same less Comment: Civil Defense more same less Comment: Higher Education more same less Comment: Youth Services more same less Comment: Elder Services more same less Comment: other: more same less Cornmeal: more same less Comment 7. Do we need to increase or decrease the following transportation options? Circle one of the following: 'more', "same", or "less", and then please add any specific comments you have tPuue use,dd'nnMil saeeuurcMrdf comments you have. (Pk,. uu,ddit"dum it need o. Local Roads more same less Comment: Connector Roads more same less Comment: Limited Access Hwy more same less Comment: Scenic Drives more same less Comment: Bike lanes more same less Comment: Pedestrian Paths more same less Comment: Commuter Buses more same less Comment: Local Buses more same less Comment: Road Way Plans more same less Comment: Heritage Corridors more same less Comment: Freeways more same less Comment: 8. Do we need more or less protection on the following aspects of our environment? Circle one of the following: 'more", °same", or "less", and then please add any specific comments you have. (Pk,. uu,ddit"dum it need o. watershed more same less Comment: Shoreline more same less Comment: Open Space more same less Comment: Agricultural Land more same less Comment: Marine Resources more same less Comment: Flora & fduua more same less Comment: Natural Beauty more same less Comment: Cultural Resources more same less Comment: Trails more same less Comment: 9. How important is it to plan how and where land is developed in North and South Kona? U Very Important U Moderately Important U Unimportant U Don't know 10. How important it is to our economy for us to protect the natural beauty of this island? U Very Important U Moderately Important U Unimportant U Don't know 6. Where should the County put its emphasis on economic development? Circle one of the following: "more', "same", or "less', and then please add any specific 11. How important the need to protect the Hawaiian Culture? comments you have. twe,x vve Adidmn uw"u if needed). UVery Important U Moderately Important U Unimportant Agriculture more same less Comment: U Don't know Tourism more same less Comment: Eco Tourism more same less Comment: 12. What da you like best about Kona? Construction more same less Comment: Development more same less Comment: Aquaculture more same less Comment: IT. What do you like least about Kona? Renewable Energy more same less Comment: Research more same less Comment: Health & Wellness more same less Comment: Fishing Industry more same less Comment: 14. Do you have any additional comments (please use additional sheets if needed)? Small Business more same less Comment: High Technology more same less Comment: Light Industry more same less Comment: This Community Survey was developed in collaboration with the County Planning Department by the Kona MIRA (Managing information in Rural America) team, a volunteer group funded by a grant from the W. K. Kellogg Foundation. The results will be tabulated and submitted to the County Department of Planning for inclusion into the 19109 County Plan revision. This survey can also be submitted on-line: www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan Please Return Completed Survey by August 1, 1999 to: PATH -Survey - PO Boz 62 - Kailua-Kona, HI • 96743-0062 Printed in KAU LANDING for 3 months %k � Your Plon Your future Tell Us Now Here's .How... The County of Hawai' i is seeking your hell) in planning the future of our island. pk-ase review the County General Plan .11 one of the following ttxaliotn: R www.hawaii-(ounty.((mV(ontents.htm ow your kx-.al lihrary «. last- & Wt -,t -side County Planning Office mw Kona County Council Offii(v - 326-5684 written (ornrnents on island -wide issues (.in be Mailed -lo CounlN Departim•n1 tri Planning 2'1 Auponi Street, Rixon 101) 11111x, I Iawati 46720 e -m.61 ( ominents on Norah and South Kona isstx-� (an he rn:Nit- at: www.mira-hawaii.org/general_plan/ 1( NA ttr,114NIS -- please fill out the sum on North and South Kona issues at that site w.0th for dead,(w1 Ixrw it) xklnt N ^wit• iiiorfry ftxturxuxot�. n I hog r owas matk• lx"14P ttrcx�lx 11x• 4xxo.tr.Iwp nt tlw 11tH I,larwl Remmety (;nnF•nrlxux jowl 1)evt•Itglmer0 ( tx)fx-il. 1 tr flung xw 0w K41rWgw* 101ulnlatwM to Ruraf AnK•rxrn tMIRA! indsiftw was lr!wvkYi I)V (iv tY K. Kelk,w I txrxtatwxl ti) fnxn anxrxl I (awai i Mand ftxA parr in IN, MIRA uxxr wnr: fhn A1,11n OF rix- Kuru AMRA !rims'. vOlurvmr r#Orr. 00-0 Fix nwre inhwlnaritxn tall 334 Q41 i"me. APPENDIX C KONA MIRA TEAM ROSTER Gretchen Lawson Ann Peterson Laura Kamoku Ann Kern Van Malan Duane Erway Marge Erway Nancy Pisicchio Sue Aronson Andy Sparks Mason Donald Ed Blackiston Ned Burns David Schlesinger SURVEYTEAM ROSTER Van Malan Ann Peterson Dwight Clark Nancy Pisicchio Gretchen Lawson Greg Bell Jackie Eudaley Josephine Keliipio Brenda Ford Jeff Turner Scanned and pieced together (due to scanner's limited capability) Reduced 78 percent wEs* HAWAII- DAY awarDAY