Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutBIL 333 Draft 01 2006-2008COUNTY OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO. STATE OF HAWAIII BILL NO. 333 AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF HAWAII KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the Kona Community Development Plan (attached hereto as Appendix A) pursuant to the County of Hawai'i General Plan, Section 15.1 (February 2005 as amended). SECTION 2. Adoption. Chapter 16, section 16-2, Hawai'i County Code 1983 (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended to read as follows: "Section 16-2. Adoption of community development plans. The community development plans listed below are adopted and incorporated by reference. A copy of the plans and amendments shall be available for public inspection at the planning department. KONA. The document identified as "Mapping the Future: Kona Community Development Plan Volume 1" is adopted by reference subject to later amendments by ordinance, and may be cited as the "Kona CDP." The planning area for the Kona CDP encompasses the iudicial districts of North and South Kona." SECTION 3. Severence. In the event that any portion of this ordinance is declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance. SECTION 4. Material to be repealed is bracketed and stricken. New material is underscored. In printing this ordinance, the brackets, bracketed and stricken material, and underscoring need not be included. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval. Hilo, Hawai'i Date of Introduction: Date of 1 st Reading: Date of 2nd Reading: Effective Date: REFERENC& Cw=- 1349 INTRODUCED BY: COUNCIL M &BER, COUNTY WAIT 2 County of Hawai `i PLANNING COMMISSION Aupuni Center • 101 Pauahi Street, Suite 3 • Hilo, Hawaii 96720 Phone (808) 961-8288 • Fax (808) 961-8742 C� July 23, 2008 Pete Hoffmann, Chairman and Members of the County Council `X' County of Hawai `i 333 Kilauea Avenue, 2nd Floor Hilo, HI 96720 r Dear Chairman Hoffmann and Council Members: c"' Kona Community Development Plan The Planning Commission conducted public hearings on June 20, 2008, July 10, 2008, and July 18, 2008, to review the draft Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) as submitted by the Kona CDP Steering Committee and its consultant, Wilson Okamoto Corporation. At its meeting of July 18, 2008, the Commission voted to send a favorable recommendation of the Kona CDP, in its entirety, to the County Council. In addition, the Planning Commission asked the County Council to provide additional language to Policy LU -1.5, located on page 4-39, in order to clarify that the intent of the Policy applies only to discretionary land use changes in cases where an applicant currently has no entitlements. Enclosed for your favorable consideration is the draft bill adopting the Kona CDP along with the Planning Department's Background and Recommendation Report. We have also included a copy of the Kona CDP (Volumes I and II), and nine corresponding compact discs. Volume II contains the background information for the Kona CDP. For your information, transcripts of the hearings will be forthcoming shortly. Sincerely, ---------- 1� Rodney a�s War ta a n be , Chairman Planning Commission cc: Planning Department -Kona Lincoln Ashida, Esq. Hawaii County is an Equal Opportunity Provider and Employer COUNTY OF HAWAII PLANNING DEPARTMENT BACKGROUND AND RECOMMENDATION INITIATOR: PLANNING DIRECTOR KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLANS Chapter 15 of the County General Plan provides the regions around the island with the opportunity for the creation of Community Development Plans (CDP). The General Plan requires that the CDP's shall be adopted by the County Council as an ordinance, giving the CDP the force of law. See Exh. 1 (letter by Planning Director to Steering Committee) for a general discussion of what it means to adopt a CDP by ordinance, and what aspects of the CDP's will be binding in a legal sense. The CDP process offers a forum for receiving community input into managing growth, delivery of government services, resources preservation and any other matters relating to the planning area, and integrating this input into Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions as they apply to specific geographical regions around the island. KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN (KONA CDP) The Planning Department advertised a Request for Proposal (RFP) for a Community Development Plan for North and South Kona in the spring of 2005. A committee chose the consultant, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, to serve as the lead consultant working with staff and the community in the drafting of the Plan. The RFP stated that the CDP for Kona, "shall be a pilot CDP to test new planning and community participation methods." The following objectives for the Kona CDP were included in the Scope of Work that was approved by Hawaii County. • Inclusiveness. • Building a partnership of government and community. • Focus the Plan to result in practical and pragmatic implementation. • Identify the significant features that define the uniqueness of the community but also protect private rights and do not stifle individual creativity. ATTACH: Conan. 1349 - l - Bill 333 • Focus on regional interests is considered in the context of the welfare of the island. • Reader -friendly document will result in a plan that is clear, concise, well illustrated. • Community network established that evolves from the plan preparation phase. • "Living" Plan will consider incorporation of indicators to track progress for meeting goals and objectives. • Action Plan with land use requirements, regulatory changes, budgetary items and community implementation actions. THE PROJECT TEAM Wilson Okamoto Corporation, Lead Consultant • Gary T. Okamoto, Principal -in -Charge • Earl Matsukawa AICP, Project Manager Environmental Simulation Center (ESC) • Michael Kwartler, FAIA. Known for his urban design, theory and practice of legislating good city form and development and application of information technology to planning and design. • Paul Patnode, AICP. ESC's expert in decision-making support systems as well as an architect and urban planner. ACP — Visioning & Planning Ltd. Gianni Longo pioneered development of programs designed to involve citizens in decision-making process. Firm was formed to improve the livability of communities through the integration of visioning, strategic and physical planning and related services. David Paul Rosen & Associates A nationally recognized public interest consulting firm, specializing in capital formation strategies for affordable housing and local economic development. Leading- edge analysis, policy guidance and program design. -2- Will Allen, The Conservation Fund The organization emphasizes strategic conservation programs specializing in rapid open space assessments, green infrastructure planning, gateway communities and other services. COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION Over the course of eight months, a range of opportunities were provided to inform the community about the Kona CDP and to gather input from community members. Residents have long recognized the need for a regional plan for North and South Kona. Therefore, it was of little surprise that many people chose to participate in order to provide input during different stages of the Kona CDP community participation process. KICK-OFF MEETINGS Two public meetings, one in North Kona and the other in South Kona, were held in September 2005 to introduce the consultant team to the community and explain the planning process that would be used to gather public input and to draft the Plan. SMALL GROUP MEETINGS In order to gather input from a large diversity of residents, meetings were held at people's homes, churches and community centers. More intimate settings and smaller groups allowed freer interaction for people not inclined to speak before large groups. During these meetings, people were invited to share their ideas for the future of Kona. One hundred and nine small group meetings were held between November 2005 and January 2006 from a balanced demographic and geographic representation of the North and South Kona Districts. Over 800 residents participated in these meetings generating 3,496 ideas. These ideas were sorted into 18 categories to be used in evaluating policy priorities to be included in the Kona CDP. WORKSHOPS Mapping the Future Workshop. On February 18, 2006, 350 people attended this workshop to brainstorm where future growth should occur. Breakout groups also addressed critical questions such as housing choice and affordability, agriculture, -3- transportation and land use, congestion, parks/recreation/open space, protection of the environment, hazard mitigation, and protection of ancestral and historic sites, community character, retail, and tourism. Charrettes. A charrette is a "working" public meeting where technical experts sit with the public and work together on maps and images. It is a brief but intense design workshop in which stakeholders and interested citizens are invited to contribute ideas during the earliest stages of design and planning. There were two charrettes, the first held in March 2006 and the other in June 2006. In the first charrette, the public identified alternative growth scenarios and selected a preferred scenario. In the second charrette, the public articulated desired principles to provide details for preferred scenario. WORKING GROUPS Comprised of citizens and community stakeholders, the Working Groups met monthly, from May 2006 — September 2006. The Kona Community Development Plan Working Groups were formed as a means of providing a more topic -specific community perspective to serve in the drafting of the Plan. Objectives considered by each Kona CDP Working Group were created based on the ideas generated during the community meetings. Kona CDP Steering Committee Member served as a liaison for each Working Group. The Steering Liaison also kept the Steering Committee up to date about the Working Group process during their monthly meetings. These 11 Working Groups provided input for the following topics: Agriculture, Government, Land Use, Transportation, Housing, Natural Resources, Cultural Resources, Recreation, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services, Energy, Flooding. Reports prepared by each Working Group were submitted to assist the Consultants, County staff, and Steering Committee for their review in the drafting of the Kona Community Development Plan. THE KONA CDP STEERING COMMITTEE The Hawaii County Mayor and the Hawaii County Council appointed citizens to serve on the Kona CDP Steering Committee, representing a cross section of the Kona E! community. For over two years, the individuals comprising the Steering Committee played an enormous role in helping guide the process and represent public priorities as the Plan was being drafted. They were: 1. JoAnn Farnsworth 2. Maralyn (Marni) Herkes 3. Thomas Hickcox 4. Kate Jacobson 5. Gretchen Lawson 6. Lydia Mahi 7. Michael Matsukawa 8. Ken Melrose 9. Janice Palma-Glennie 10. Ed Rapoza 11. Curtis J. Tyler III 12. Chrystal Yamasaki The Steering Committee, Consultants and County staff reviewed community, stakeholder and agency input, together with reports prepared and submitted by Consultants, in order to draft the Plan's Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions which are intended to guide future decisions having a tangible impact upon Kona's future. On April 16, 2006, the Steering Community voted unanimously to send the draft Kona CDP to the County Planning Commission with a positive recommendation for approval. KONA CDP VISION STATEMENT Kona's future shall be: "A more sustainable Kona characterized by a deep respect for the culture and the environment and residents that responsively and responsibly accommodate change through an active and collaborative community. " KONA CDP GUIDING PRINCIPLES In order take the Vision to the next steps, the following Guiding Principles, derived from public meetings and Working Groups, provide the framework for the Goals, -5- Objectives, Policies, and Implementation Actions that have been included within the Kona CDP. 1. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. 2. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. 3. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. 4. Provide housing choices. 5. Provide recreation opportunities. 6. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse and historical character. 7. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 8. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 9. Effective governance. KEY STRATEGIES FOR IMPLEMENTATION The Kona CDP is action -oriented. It identifies a combination of Regulatory Actions, Policies, and Programs specific to North and South Kona intended to direct future decisions related to Land Use, Transportation, Environmental and Cultural Resources, Housing, Economy, Energy, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services. In addition, the Kona CDP does not merely look to government to implement actions, but also stresses the development of public-private partnerships and community-based implementation activities that will be needed to accomplish many kinds of goals. The following is a brief outline of Key Policies that have been woven into the completed Kona CDP. LAND USE The community made it clear that it is time to provide some direction to what has been viewed as "sprawl" development. 1. Urban Area. Most of the future growth in Kona will be directed to an Urban Area defined in the Official Kona Land Use Map. Within this Urban Area, growth would be designed as compact villages located along proposed transit routes or to in infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development. In urban area identified to be appropriate locations for future growth, more attention will be given to urban quality of life. 2. Rural Area. The large amount of community input stressed that outside of the Urban Area, the rural character should prevail. This means that limited future growth should be directed to the existing rural towns and villages in a way that revitalizes and enhances the existing rural charm of these places. Outside of these towns and villages, the protection of important agricultural land is a priority objective. Any development outside of the rural towns and villages should be directed to suitable areas that are not important for agriculture, in clustered patterns that will optimize the preservation of rural open space. 3. The Kona CDP establishes a pro -active Design Review Program. The purpose is to foster a spirit of excellence, creativity and collaboration among the applicants, community, and County to meet the Kona CDP goals, objectives and policies. The County Planning Department shall establish a Design Center to accomplish the following objectives: • To be a catalyst for creative excellence and innovation; • To foster public-private partnerships; • To promote coordination and collaboration among the community, government agencies, applicants, landowners, professionals; • To provide education on best design practices to applicants, government staff, community members, educators and students. The land use plan integrates transportation planning and land use by proposing that future development along the Mid -Level Road take place in the form of "Transit -Oriented Development" or "TOD." The Mid -Level Road, also known as the Ane Keohokalole Highway, is a planned arterial road that would run from the current end of Henry Street, where it intersects with Palani Road, northward below the Kealakehe High School, intersect with Kealakehe Parkway near the future County Civic Center, then cross Hina Lani Street, then cross Kaiminani Drive makai of the Kona Palisades subdivision, and end at the "Palamanui project." See Fig. 4-2a, the Transportation Map, and Fig. 4-7, the land use map. Most of this area is currently vacant. Development along this corridor -7- would occur in master -planned TOD's, with denser development, including some commercial uses, located in a central area, around a transit center (which, for the foreseeable future, would rely on buses.) The TOD would be compact enough that most of the residential areas would be in reasonable walking distance (about I/4 mile) of the commercial center and bus stop. A second type of land use proposed in the CDP is "traditional neighborhood design" or "TND." The TND is the preferred form of development for those urban areas that are not within a TOD. The primary distinction between the two is that the TOD is specifically mapped in the CDP, while the TND can be located anywhere in the urban area. Rural town areas can also be developed as TND's. Rezoning can occur, within the overall urban area, not following the TOD or TND guidelines, if it is "infill"—between existing development. The CDP does have standards for infill development, particularly its connection to other development. The designation of TOD's and other urban areas in the CDP does not eliminate the need for these projects to obtain appropriate county zoning, and state land use urban designation, if they are not currently in the urban district, but the CDP says that projects carry a "rebuttable presumption" that they should be rezoned if they are consistent with the CDP. TRANSPORTATION The community stressed the need to improve Kona's transportation system. Rapid increases in grid -locked arterials, and limited options for moving around and through the Kona, were listed among the highest priorities by residents. 1. Mass Transit. A major expansion of the County's public mass transit bus service in the District of Kona would provide significant alternatives to individual automobile use. 2. Multi -Modal Transportation. Taking advantage of Kona's consistently mild climate, a network of interconnected bike lanes and sidewalks within and outside road right-of-ways would provide a healthy and green alternative to automobile use. H 3. Transit -Oriented Design. In Kona's urban areas, the development of compact, mixed-use villages would integrate housing, employment, shopping and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit bus stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and residents would provide financial support for the urban transit system. 4. Connectivity. An increased priority to develop a system of interconnected roads in Kona will provide alternative transportation routes that will disperse automobile trips and reduce their length, while not compromising the through functions of arterials and major collectors with excessive intersections. 5. Concurrency. This process provides additional tools to manage and direct growth so as to reduce overloading the arterial system. ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES The community clearly recognized that the quality of life as well as Kona's economic well-being depends on protecting Kona's valuable Environmental Resources. Major Policies are directed to the following goals: 1. Managing our Impacts. • Recognizing the Multi -Value Importance of the Mauka Lands. • Turning Stormwater Management into an Asset. • Not Exceeding the Limits of the Groundwater Resource. • Managing Coastal Resources, including shoreline and nearshore waters. 2. Managing Access as a Linked Network of Open Spaces. Where public access is permitted, whether unrestricted or managed, the objective is to create a network of "hubs" (e.g., parks) and "links" (e.g., trails, bikeways). 3. Prioritizing Limited Financial Resources. The objective is to set clear priority criteria for land acquisition based on significance, extent of public use or the extent of restrictions on other private use. 4. Ensuring Maintenance. Adequate funding sources will need to be identified for proper maintenance, particularly for resources open to the public. 0 CULTURAL RESOURCES In reviewing the General Plan's Historic Sites Element, it was clear that the Kona CDP needed to embrace a more holistic approach to managing and celebrating Kona's cultural resources. 1. Cultural Landscape. Policies within the Kona CDP stress the strong relationship between cultural resources and the natural environment, and 2. Local Resource Management. There is an urgent need to ensure cultural resource protection very early in the land use planning process. Necessarily, this will involve participation of citizens who have knowledge of these resources and government representatives who have a direct role in the land use planning process itself, including those who are charged with proper implementation and enforcement of laws designed to protect these resources. The following summary are the key components. • Pursue community education initiatives about cultural traditions and resources. • Establish a Kona Cultural Resource advisory committee. • Establish/update inventory of cultural resources, including historic trails. • Increase community interaction with cultural resources. • Encourage the use and protection of mea kanu (native plants). • Promotion of use of traditional place names. • Revise, implement and enforce county policies/laws to protect resources. HOUSING The availability of safe and decent housing for all segments of our community is at the center of what it takes to sustain a healthy community. Access to a range of available housing affords the opportunity for our community to be ethnically, professionally and age diverse. It is the core of a strong, vibrant community. The unusually high cost of housing in Kona makes it critical to employ multiple tools to address the huge need for affordable, employee, farm worker, elderly and other special needs housing. As a framework to focus the efforts to increase a diversity of housing opportunities for Kona's residents, the strategy involves the following: 1. Build Units. -10- • Provide Zoning Incentives for development of Affordable Housing. • Encourage Innovative Redevelopment within Existing Villages. • Identify and Facilitate the Use of Suitable Public Lands. • Promote Accessory Units. • Offer Pre -Approved Affordable Designs. • Offer Density Bonus for Affordable Housing. 2. Maintain the Affordable Inventory. • Keep Some Units Perpetually Affordable. • Renovate Under -Used Existing Rental Housing. 3. Increase Buying and Renting Capacity. 4. Address Special Needs. 5. Create a Funding Source and Housing Advocate. • Establish a Kona Housing Non -Profit Corporation and Trust Fund. PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND SERVICES Acknowledging the limited government resources for which Kona competes with other districts, the policies in this section set forth the expectations and priorities of the Kona community to enable the community and government to optimize the type, timing, location, financing, quality, and maintenance of public infrastructure, facilities, and services. Although sensitive to jurisdiction, the policies and actions attempt to set a framework to integrate the various providers—whether County, State, Federal, quasi - public (e.g., HELCO), or private (e.g., private hospitals or schools). ECONOMY Economic vulnerability increases with excessive dependence on imports and lack of diversity (e.g., susceptible to recessions that reduce visitor travel). Therefore, the overall strategy for Kona's economic development is to support Kona's current strengths in agriculture and tourism, and to diversify with new opportunities that reduce dependence on imports, complement other objectives such as recycling and alternative energy, and provide job opportunities that raise the skill levels of the workforce. -11- ENERGY The Kona CDP recognizes that to be the most effective, most energy policies need to apply equally to the entire county, and should not be limited to a particular community plan. The overall strategies for the energy policies in this section, therefore, are intended to inspire individuals as well as private and public organizations to embrace these broader initiatives. There are also certain policies that are highlighted as unique to the conditions of Kona. IMPLEMENTATION COMMITTEE Empowerment at the community level increases local access to, and interest in, decision making, thereby stimulating civic engagement. Broader civic engagement increases the overall knowledge and skill capacity of the community and this expanded capacity provides the input and energy that will be needed to enable the plan to evolve and adapt to the changing community needs. In order to make the adopted Kona CDP a truly "living" Plan, a structure is established serving to institutionalize a community-based process for ongoing implementation. This means several things: • There is a community-based implementation entity composed of representatives from the KCDP planning area; • This entity provides recommendations and is kept apprised of local land use issues among other duties; and • This entity is the steward of the CDP, the "keeper of the flame," in terms of monitoring the implementation of the plan. The Plan has a "recommended" implementation structure. Currently, the County Council is reviewing a bill which would establish an Action Committee within each CDP area to work on the CDP implementation, so that there is a common framework rather than each CDP having a different type of committee. IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX The Implementation Matrix provides a summary of the actions identified throughout the Plan needed to implement the Kona CDP Policies, organized under Projects, Programs, -12- or Standards and Regulations, for each element and the time for the actions to be initiated. MEASURING EFFECTIVENESS AND MONITORING PROGRESS How are we doing? Are our new policies providing the intended results? An "indicator" is something that helps you understand where you are, which way you are going, and how far you are from where you want to be. Kona CDP Community Indicators will serve as an annual information resource to provide a snapshot of current community conditions and trends, related to primary Kona CDP policies, based on selected quantitative data gathered from a variety of sources. RECOMMENDATION On April 16, 2006, the Kona CDP Steering Community voted unanimously to send the draft Kona CDP to the County Planning Commission with a positive recommendation for approval. The Planning Director recommends that the Planning Commission send a favorable recommendation to the County Council for adoption by ordinance for the Kona Community Development Plan. The accompanying draft bill is provided for your favorable consideration. -13- MAPPING KONA'S FUTURE Kona Community Development Plan Volume 1 1. 2. 3. 4. KONA CDP 8 GUIDING PRINCIPLES Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. Provide housing choices. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. Volume 1: Mapping the Future Kona Community Development Plan The County of Hawaii General Plan section 15.1 (February 2005, as amended) calls for the preparation of community development plans "to translate the broad General Plan statements to specific actions as they apply to specific geographical areas." The General Plan requires CDPs be adopted as an "ordinance", giving the plans force of law. This is a long term plan with a planning horizon to year 2020, consistent with the General Plan. The plan consists of two volumes—Volume 1 is adopted by County Council; Volume II contains more detailed or technical material for informational purposes. An electronic version of the plan is available for download at http:/hvww.hawall-county.com/directoM/dir_plan.htm Adopted: On behalf of present and future generations of Kona Prepared for: County of Hawaii Planning Department Prepared by: Wilson Okamoto Corporation May 2008 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Steering Committee Planning Commission Ken Melrose, Chair Andrew Iwashita Chrystal Yamasaki, Vice Chair Rodney Watanabe Roger P Ddts (resigned) Alvin Rho JoAnn Farnsworth Shelly Ogata Maralyn (Marni) Herkes William Graham Thomas Hickox Christian Alameda Kate Jacobson Rene Siracusa Gretchen Lawson Takashi Domingo Lydia Mahi Rell Woodward Stacie Mandaguit Michael Matsukawa County of Hawaii Staff Janice Palma-Glennie Planning Department Edward J Rapoza Christopher Yuen, Director J Curtis Tyler, III Susan Gagonk, Planner Anne Irene Wilcox (resigned) Nancy Pisicchio, CDP Liaison Louise Winn Working Groups Mayor's office Roy Takemoto, Assistant to the Mayor Agriculture Department of Research & Development Cultural Resources Jane Testa, Director Energy Steven McPeek Environment Flooding and Natural Hazards Consultants Government Wilson Okamoto Corporation (lead) Housing Earl Matsukawa, AICP Land Use Planning Tracy Fukuda Public Facilities and Programs ACP Planning & Visioning (public outreach) Recreation Gianni Longo Transportation Jamie Green Environmental Simulation Center (land use scenarios) County Council Michael Kwartler, FAIA Brenda Ford Paul Patnode Stacy Higa ' The Conservation Fund (green infrastructure) Pete Hoffman William Allen Donald Ikeda David Paul Rosen & Associates (housing) Bob Jacobson David Paul Rosen, Ph D. Emily Naeole Angel Pdago Website: Dominic Yagong htto.//www hawaii-countv.com/directory/dir—plan.htm J. Yoshimoto TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Paae 1 INTRODUCTION...........................................................................................................................1.1 1.1 Planning Area............................................................... . ............................................ 1-1 ' 1.2 Purpose of this Plan ........... . .......................... ... .. .......................... ............................ 1-1 1.3 Planning Process..............................................................................................................1-3 ' 2 KONA TODAY.............................................................................................................................. 2.1 2.1 Unique or Valued Characteristics.................................................................................. 2-1 22 Growth Patterns and Trends......................................................................................... 2-6 3 VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW............................................................................................. 3.1 3.1 Vision Statement........................................................................................................... 3-1 3.2 Guiding Principles ..................... ............................ .. ....................................................... 3-1 3.3 Consistency with Sustainable and Smart Growth Principles ............................................. 3-3 33.1 Smart Growth.............................................................. ............................... 3-3 3.3.2 Sustainability...................................................................................................... 3-4 4. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS....................................................................4-1 4.1 Transportation ....... ............................ ......................... . . . ................................ ........... 4-3 4.1.1 Existing Conditions........................................................................................... 4-3 KONA CDP 4.9.2 Overall Strategy ............ ....................................................................................4-5 ' 4.1.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions .4-6 4.2 Land Use...................................................................................................................... 4-27 4.2.1 Existing Conditions ................. .......................................................................... 4-27 ' 4.2.2 Overall Strategy . ............................................................................................ . 4-31 4.2.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions .. .. ...................... .. .......................... 4-35 4.3 Environmental Resources ..... 4.3.1 .......................................................................................4-51 Existing Conditions. .4-51 4.3.2 Overall Strategy.............................................................. .................................. 4-52 4.3.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions .................. ........................................ 4-54 4.4 Cultural Resources......................................................................................................... 4-71 4.4.1 Existing Conditions..................................................................................... 4-74 4.4.2 Overall Strategy.................................................................................................4-76 ' 4.4.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions .4-77 4.5 Housing ................... ................................................................. .................................... 4-81 4.5.1 Existing Conditions ........................... .... ....................... .................................. 4-82 ' 4.5.2 Overall Strategy........................................................................................... 4-84 4.5.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions.............................................................4-90 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services.............................................................. 4-98 4.6.1 Existing Conditions............................................................... ...... . 4-98 4.6.2 Overall Strategy.................................................................................................4-98 46.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions...........................................................4-99 KONA CDP TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page 4.7 Energy.......................................................................................................................... 4-119 4.7.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-119 4.7.2 Overall Strategy ......................................... ..................................................... 4-120 4.7.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions........................................................... 4-121 4.8 Economic Development................................................................................................4-123 4.8.1 Existing Conditions.......................................................................................... 4-123 4.8.2 Overall Strategy...............................................................................................4-126 4.8.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions ........... ............................................... 4-128 5. ACTION PLAN.............................................................................................................................. 5-1 5.1 Financing Plan..................................................................................................................5-1 5.1.1 Scope of the Financing Plan................................................................................5-1 5.1.2 Funding List.........................................................................................................5-2 5.1.3 Financing Districts Map....................................................................................... 5-5 5.2 Implementation................................................................................................................ 5-5 5.2.1 Organizational Structure and Membership.......................................................... 5-6 5.2.2 Duties.................................................................................................................. 5-6 5.2.3 Annual and Comprehensive Review....................................................................5-7 5.3 Implementation Matrix...................................................................................................... 5-8 6 MONITORING PLAN.....................................................................................................................6.1 7 GLOSSARY.................................................................................................................................. 7-1 8 REFERENCES.............................................................................................................................. 8.1 List of Tables Table2-1 Population Growth............................................................................................................ 2-7 Table 4-1 Concurrency Table......................................................................................................... 4-23 Table 4-2 Total Housing Units, County of Hawai'i, 1990 - 2006 .....................................................4-82 Table 4-3: 2006 Affordable Income Guidelines................................................................................4-86 Table 4-4: Affordable Sales and Rent Guidelines for County of Hawai'i.......................................... 4-87 Table4-5 Housing Credit................................................................................................................4-93 H KONA CDP TABLE OF CONTENTS i' TABLE OF CONTENTS (CONTINUED) Page ? List of Figures j' Figure 1-1 Kona CDP Planning Area.................................................................................................1-2 Figure2-1 Rainfall Map ....... .......................................... .................... .. . ........................... ............ 2-3 i' Figure 4-1 Existing Major Streets – Ownership and Functional Classification ................... ............... 4-4 Figure 4-2a Official Transportation Network Map: Proposed Roads and Transit Facilities .................4-9 Figure 4-2b Official Transportation Network Map: Bike and Pedestrian Paths..................................4-11 f Figure 4-2c Official Transportation Network Map: Kahalu`u Area ..................................................... 4-13 Figure 4-2d Official Transportation Network Map: Nani Kailua Area...............................................4-14 Figure 4-3 Concurrency Map........................................................................................................... 4-25 Figure 4-4 County of Hawaii General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide...............................4-28 Figure 4-5 Generalized LUPAG................................................................................................ 4-29 Figure 4-6 Generalized Zoning........................................................................................................4-30 Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map ........................................... ............................................... 4-37 Figure 4-8a Environmental Resources Map: Kona Mauka Watershed Area......................................4-55 Figure 4-8b Environmental Resources Map: Native Vegetation ........ . ............................................. 4-61 ' Figure 4-8c Environmental Resources Map: Native Plants & Animals . ............................................. 4-63 Figure 4-8d Environmental Resources Map: Other Resources..........................................................4-65 Figure 4-9: Traditional Uses Concept Map....................................................................................... 4-72 Figure 4-10a Official Public Facilities and Services Map – Public Safety ...........................................4-101 Figure 4-10b Official Public Facilities and Services Map – Community Facilities ............................ 4-103 Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map – Waste Management...............................4-105 Attachments A. Official Metadata B. Village Design Guidelines ' C. Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines ' VOLUME 2—Background Information 1. Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results, ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd. and The Environmental Simulation Center, November 23, 2006 ' 2. Working Groups Objectives & Actions, ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd., December 12, 2006 3. Demographic Characteristics of North & South Kona, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, January 2007 4. Kona Regional Profile, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, January 2007 5. Land Use Strategies, The Environmental Simulation Center, July 2007 6. Green Infrastructure Technical Report, The Conservation Fund, February 28, 2007 7. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis, David Paul Rosen & Associates, October 23, 2006 8. Grey Infrastructure Report, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, March 2007 KONA CDP /h TABLE OF CONTENTS This page intentionally left blank. IV KONA CDP COUNTY OF HAWAII ORDINANCE NO STATE OF HAWAII BILL NO. (Draft ) AN ORDINANCE ADOPTING THE COUNTY OF HAWAII KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN. BE IT ORDINANED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE COUNTY OF HAWAII: ' SECTION I . Purpose The purpose of this ordinance is to adopt the Kona Community Development Plan pursuant to the County of Hawaii General Plan, Section '15 1 (February 2005 as amended) SECTION 2. Adoption Chapter I G, section I G-2, Hawaii County Code 1983 ' (2005 Edition, as amended), is amended by adding a new subsection to read as follows "section I G-2 Adoption of community development plans The community development plans listed below are adopted and incorporated by reference A copy of the plans and amendments shall be available for public inspection at the ' planning department Kona The document identified as Mapping the Future Kona Community Development Plan Volume 1, is hereby adopted by reference subject to later ' amendments by ordinance, and may be cited as the "Kona CDP". The planning area for the Kona CDP encompasses the judicial districts of North and South Kona SECTION 7. 5everence In the event that any portion of this ordinance is ' declared invalid, such invalidity shall not affect the other parts of this ordinance 5ECTION 8 Effective Date This ordinance shall take effect upon its approval INTRODUCED BY: , Hawaii Date on Introduction: Date of I" Reading: Date of 2" Reading Effective Date• COUNCILMEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII I COUNCILMEMBER, COUNTY OF HAWAII 2 INTRODUCTION 1.INTRODUCTION 1.1 PLANNING AREA CHAPTER 1 The Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) encompasses the judicial districts of North and South ' Kona, hereafter referred to as Kona (see Figure 1 Planning Area). The 800 square miles of land area, which comprises the North and South Kona districts, accounts for approximately 20% of the total land area of the Island of Hawai'i. Located on the leeward side of the Island of Hawai'i, Kona has an ideal climate. It has attracted an influx of new residents and experienced tremendous growth. The population has more than doubled during the past 25 years, driven by resort development and the second -home residential market. As a result of this rapid growth rate, we must plan better to deal with traffic congestion, affordable housing, and open space. Residents taking part in the planning process repeatedly voiced these needs. Kona's is the first community development plan to commence under the framework of the February 2005 County of Hawai'i General Plan. 1.2 PURPOSE OF THIS PLAN The purposes of the Kona CDP are: • Articulate Kona's residents' vision for the planning area; ■ Guide regional development in accordance with that vision, accommodating future growth while preserving valued assets; • Provide a feasible infrastructure financing plan to improve existing deficiencies and proactively support the needs of future growth; • Direct growth to appropriate areas; • Create a plan of action where government and the people work in partnership to improve the quality of life in Kona for those who live, work, and visit; • Provide a framework for monitoring the progress and effectiveness of the plan and to make changes and update it, if necessary. ' KONA CDP 1-1 Mahukona Keahole Kailua Hawi i Kawaihae t ' Wirmea SOUTH KOHALA Waikoloa Honokaa Paauilo Laupahoehoe Hakalau Pepeekeo Hilo Keaau Keauhou ML View Pahoa Keelakekua _ i Volcano Kalapana J SOUTH KOM{' q. Pahala I'. Milolii Ocean Vlew, ,Naalehu Legend = v— ono Dl—..i— even Kona Community Development Plan Figure 1-1 Kona CDP Planning Area ' INTRODUCTION 1.3 PLANNING PROCESS The Hawai'i County Planning Department recognized that only ' with broad public input can the Kona residents take ownership of this plan, by which they may embrace the vision and commit to a better future. Initiated in September 2005, this plan is the result of an extensive public process discussed below. Steering Committee. The Hawai'i County Mayor and the Hawai'i County Council appointed 15 citizens to serve on the Kona CDP Steering Committee, representing a cross-section of the Kona community. The Committee was given the responsibilities of helping guide the process and representing public priorities. 2. Public Meetings. Several large community meetings were held: a. Kick -Off Meetings. Two public meetings, one in North Kona and the other in South Kona, were held in September 2005 to introduce the consultant team and explain the planning process. b. Small Group Meetings. In recognition that the process needs to go to the people, meetings were held at people's homes, churches, and community centers. More intimate settings and smaller groups allowed freer interaction for people not inclined to speak before large groups. One hundred and nine meetings were held throughout Kona from November 2005 through January 2006. All these meetings received input from a balanced demographic and geographic representation of the North and South Kona Districts. Over 800 residents participated in the individual meetings generating 3,496 ideas. These ideas were sorted into 18 categories, shown at right. c. Mapping the Future Workshop. On February 18, 2006, 350 people attended this workshop to brainstorm where future growth should occur. Breakout groups also addressed critical questions such as housing choice and affordability, agriculture, transportation and land use, CHAPTER 1 Number of Ideas and Percentages Transportation 511 14.6% Alternative 118 3.4% Public 141 4.0% Vehicular 252 7.2% Government and Governance 354 10.1% Planning 332 9.5% Social Issues 327 9.4% Environment & Culture 358 10.2% Infrastructure 242 6.9% Economic Prosperity 191 5.5% Public Facilities 188 5.4% Housing 186 5.3% Land Use 178 5.1% Community Character 178 5.1% Education 152 4.3% Parks, Recreation, and open Space 126 3.6% Agnculture 98 2.8% Energy 69 2.0% KONA CDP 1-3 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION congestion, parks/recreation/open space, protection of the environment, hazard mitigation, protection of ancestral and historic sites, community character, retail, and tourism. d. Charrettes. A charrette is a "working" public meeting where technical experts sit with the public and work together on maps and images. There were two charrettes, the first held in March 2006 and the other in June 2006. In the first charrette, the public identified alternative growth scenarios and selected a preferred scenario. In the second charrette, the public articulated desired principles to provide details for a preferred scenario. e. Working Groups. Eleven working groups made up of citizens and community stakeholders met monthly, from May 2006 — September 2006, to focus in more detail on specific issue areas. The working group developed goals, objectives, and policies for agriculture, cultural resources, energy, environment, flooding and natural hazards, government, housing, land use, public facilities and programs, recreation, and transportation. Each of the working groups focused on one of the above topics. For a more detailed documentation of the planning process, see Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results in Volume II. 1-4 KONA CDP KONA TODAY 2. KONA TODAY 2.1 UNIQUE OR VALUED CHARACTERISTICS CHAPTER 2 When people say "Keep Kona, Kona", they mean many things: Preserving rich cultural features. In ancient Hawai'i, Kona was the most densely populated area in the Hawaiian Islands (about 20,000 inhabitants at its peak). Kona was also a favorite area of residence for HawaiTs chiefs. Ancient Hawaiian life was based around the ahupua'a, a section of the land that extended from the mountain to the sea. Settlement generally occurred in three main zones: the narrow and coastal strip consisting of small fishing villages near the shore, particularly around fishponds and bays; the barren middle zone comprised of lava fields, which supported temporary use, including natural caves used by travelers between the coast and uplands; and the agricultural uplands, which supported scattered settlements where dryland taro and sweet potatoes were extensively cultivated, along with other crops. Today's challenge is to respect and appreciate this past while learning the ancestor's lessons of living sustainably with the land. Preserving Kona coffee, rural villages, and lifestyle. World renowned "Kona Coffee" is the signature product of Kona. Initially introduced to Hawai'i in the early 1800's, coffee thrives in the rich volcanic soils and unique climate of Kona on the sheltered leeward slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai, roughly between the elevations of 700 to 2,000 feet, along a 15 -mile long "coffee belt" extending from Kailua to Honaunau. The history of Kona coffee has been preserved with efforts such as the Kona Heritage Corridor. Historically, rural villages evolved in support of the agricultural lifestyle, and they are valued by the residents of Kona today as a link with their past and path to their future. This lifestyle persists through today's thriving coffee industry and is valued by visitors to the Kona area who help to support the growth of diversified agriculture. KONA CDP 2-1 CHAPTER 2 Kealakekua Bay. KONA TODAY ■ Preserving the diverse coastlines, protected nearshore waters, open space, and vast untouched upland landscapes. Kona includes astonishing contrasts, ranging from near -barren lava fields, to coastal coconut groves, to dense native 'ohi'a forests. The sunny, leeward climate has fostered an outdoor lifestyle epitomized by well-known events held in Kona – such as the International Ironman Triathalon, Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament, and numerous canoe regattas. In order to plan for a sustainable future, the following unique characteristics of Kona's ecosystem need to be considered: Rainfall pattern. The massive domes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai shelter the Kona Coast from the predominant tradewinds. In the absence of tradewinds, light sea -land breezes prevail—the heating of the land during the day causes light winds to blow in from the sea, and the cooling of the land at night causes light winds to flow from the land to the sea. The seabreezes converge with tradewinds that have passed through the Humu'ula Saddle and around the upper slopes of Mauna Loa, producing frequent afternoon showers over the island's interior sections and mountain slopes. This afternoon rainfall contrasts with the weather of the windward side of the island where rain most often falls near midnight. The rainfall pattern in Kona is common during the summer tradewind season, making Kona unique in the State in having its highest annual rainfall during the summer. The rainfall map reflects the sea -land breeze pattern (see Figure 2-1). Rainfall increases from the shoreline going mauka, reaching a peak between about 2,000 feet and 2,500 feet in elevation, where 60 – 80 inches can fall annually in some areas. Above this band, annual rainfall progressively declines to approximately 20 inches near the summits of Hualalai and Mauna Loa. Steep topography with undefined drainageways. Erosion has only slightly altered the lava -formed landscape of Kona. There are no perennial streams. Most rainfall, except in heavy storms, percolates rapidly into porous lava. There are recognized drainageways, but they are shallow and not well defined. Consequently, heavy localized rainfall can easily exceed the capacity of the shallow drainageways resulting in flooding of adjoining areas. Moreover, even relatively slight changes in topography through grading and other land -disturbing activities can affect the capacity of drainage courses or change the direction of flows. Areas that have not previously experienced flooding could flood during even short periods of high rainfall. The predominantly steep topography of Kona causes runoff to flow quickly, resulting in short response times to potentially rapid flooding. 2-2 KONA CDP Hawi Mahukona .., _� Ho1rok@a a0i KawaihaeWaimea------___ _ l4ialkoloa ea Ile / Kailua Keauhou Kealakekua Pahala Milolii Legend Ocean Yew Rainfall L__j 60" to 80" (approx.) L J Up to 10" (approx.) _ 80" + (approx.) Naalehu 10" to 20" (approx.) _ 80" to 120" (approx.) Up to 20" (approx.) _ 120" + (approx.) L � 20- to 30" (approx.) - 120" to 160" (approx.) Up to 30' (approx.) - 160"+ (approx.) 30' to 40' (approx.) - 160" to 200" (approx.) 'L 40" to 60' (approx.) - 200" to 240" (approx.) L __j Up to 60" (approx.) - 240" + (approx.) Source: Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Kona Community Development Plan Figure 2-1 Rainfall Map CHAPTER 2 KONA TODAY • Groundwater. On the Island of Hawaii, groundwater is the primary source of drinking water. In Kona, groundwater occurs as both basal groundwater' and high-level groundwater2. The basal lens in Kona is relatively thin and inconsistent due to the low rainfall input and the lack of a geological "plug" that could slow the leakage of the groundwater at the coastline.3 Consequently, wells drawing from basal groundwater in Kona are susceptible to salinity if they are drilled too deep or if they are over -pumped. In the 1990's, exploratory wells drilled above the 1,600 -foot elevation encountered high-level groundwater 25 to 460 feet above sea level. Better understanding and protection of the high-level groundwater is important, since it has a significant potential for serving Kona. Three possible geologic structures that could impound high-level water. (A) buried dike complex; (B) buried fault system; (C) buried, massive lava flows. Oki, Delywn, 1999. Water level contours in the high-level aquifer. Bauer, Glenn, September 2003. t Basal groundwater is freshwater "Floating" atop deeper seawater. The freshwater forms a "lens" that extends below sea level in a phenomenon described by the Ghyben-Herzberg Principle. For every foot of fresh water above sea level there are 40 feet below sea level. 2 High -Level ground water refers to potable water sources that are impounded by a relatively impermeable geologic structure such as dikes or clay soils. 3 For example, on Oahu, eroded sediment that has accumulated at the coastline is relatively impermeable and holds back the groundwater, enabling a larger lens of water to form. 2-4 KONA CDP ' KONA TODAY CHAPTER 2 ' Native ecosystems. Native forest habitats in Kona still exist as a wet forest band at the mid -slope elevation corresponding to the area of higher rainfall, as well as in pockets of dryland forest. Although all ecosystems have been affected to some degree by human activity and the introduction of alien species, the greatest impact by far has been on the lowland ' areas. Modification of these ecosystems began with the Native Hawaiians, along with the introduction of non-native species such as feral ungulates, and was accelerated by cattle ranching, agriculture, and urbanization. Where remnants of native dryland forest still exist, they are a rare ' and precious legacy. The native wet forest remains today as a band of forest providing essential habitat and watershed functions. Anchialine ponds. Anchialine ponds are landlocked brackish bodies of water near the shoreline which rise and fall with the tides, and are federally protected. In the U.S., this habitat exists only in the Hawaiian Islands. Of the 700 known ponds in the Hawaiian Islands, most are on the Island of Hawai'i, where anchialine ponds on the west side of the island have a higher diversity of native species than those on the east side. These ponds are home to a unique assemblage of invertebrate and algal species, some of which are known to exist only in this habitat. These unique species migrate through the cracks and crevices in the groundwater table. The anchialine ponds are vulnerable to filling, introduction of exotic species (e.g., guppies, mollies and tilapia), siltation from ground grading activity, from imported soils used for landscaping, as well as groundwater pollution from cesspools, septic systems, fertilizers and pesticides. Some of these same activities also threaten the nearshore coastal waters. • Nearshore coastal waters. The leeward coastal waters of Kona, ideal for coral growth and recreational activities, do not have as much flushing action as rougher coastal areas. While some pollutants mixed with the groundwater are filtered by the lava or soil, dissolved nutrients such a nitrates and phosphates from cesspools and septic ' systems as well as infectious microorganisms may be difficult to remove. Moreover, in Kona, due to the complex and poorly understood geology of lava tubes and porous rock formations, there is concern that groundwater can flow unfiltered to the ocean. The coastal waters along the Kona coast are classified as "AX marine waters by State Department of Health (DOH) Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 54 "Water Quality Standards." The DOH objective for Class "AX marine waters is that "these waters remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from human- KoNA CDP 2-5 CHAPTER 2 KONA TODAY caused source or actions. To the extent practicable, the wilderness character of these areas shall be protected". • Rare, Threatened, Endangered Species. The vast majority of native Hawaiian plants and animals are found nowhere else on Earth. Some of these plants and animals are on the brink of extinction. Kona is home to rare, threatened, and/or endangered plant and animal species such as, but not limited to Hawaiian Creeper, Hawaiian Crow ('Alala), Hawai'i Hawk ('lo), anchialine pool shrimp, 'ahakea, kauila, halapepe, lo'ulu, 'aiea, ma'aloa. Some of these species do not live in protected areas. It is important to identify which species inhabit Kona and where they are located. • Open Space and Natural Areas. Kona is blessed with open space and natural areas that have the potential for active and passive recreational opportunities, as well as to preserve and conserve sensitive natural systems (native forests, anchialine ponds, floodways, beaches, etc.). Natural Hazards. The coastal areas along Kona are vulnerable to major storms, with the most significant of these being hurricanes. While hurricanes and storm events present the most likely risks, Kona is also vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, droughts, and wildfires. The County prepared the Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2005), which identified natural hazards, conducted a risk and vulnerability analysis, and addressed mitigation measures. 2.2 GROWTH PATTERNS AND TRENDS Population growth and composition. There are different ways to show the population growth in Kona (see Table 2-1): • Percentage Change. Resident population grew in North Kona by 62% from 1980 to 1990 (31d in percentage increase behind Puna and South Kohala) and tapered to 28% growth from 1990 to 2000 (4th among the nine districts). This percentage growth increase was nearly twice that of South Kona. • Absolute Numerical Change. In terms of absolute numbers, only Puna (19,584) added more residents than North Kona (14,795) in the two decades. • Countywide Proportion. In the year 2000, North Kona (19%) ranked second to South Hilo (37%) in terms of percent of population countywide. However, the trend is that North Kona and Puna are increasing their share of the countywide population, while the South Hilo share is declining. 2-6 KONA CDP KONA TODAY CHAPTER 2 KONA CDP 2.7 Table 2-1 Population Growth Percent change Numerical Change %of Total 1 -Apr -80 1 -Apr -90 1 -Apr -00 District 1980 to 1990 to 1988 1990 Chang 1980 to 1990 to 1990 2000 1990 2000 1 90 2to a State 964,691 1,108,229 1,211,537 14.9 9.3 143,538 103,308 Howatt County 92,053 120,317 148,677 30.7 23.6 28,264 28,360 Puna 11,751 20,781 31,335 76.8 50.8 9,030 10,554 13% 17% 5% South Hilo 42,278 44,639 47,386 5.6 6.2 2,361 2,747 46% 37% -90% North Hilo 1,679 1,541 1,720 -8.2 11.6 -138 179 2% 1% -1% Hamakua 5,128 5,545 6,108 8.1 10.2 417 563 6% 5% -1% 3,249 4,291 6,038 32.1 40.7 1,042 1,747 4% 4% 0% Kohah 4,607 9,140 13,131 98.4 43.7 4,533 3,991 5% 8% 3% Kouth Kona Kau 3,699 4,438 5,827 20 31.3 739 1,389 4% 4°% 0% Source: County of Hawaii General Plan, February 2005 and 2006 County of Hawaii Data Book KONA CDP 2.7 CHAPTER 2 KONA TODAY These census figures, available every ten (10) years do not fully capture the exponential growth Kona experienced from 2000 to today. Based on a 2005 estimated population of 31,900 for North Kona and 10,700 for South Kona (totaling 42,600)4, the average annual growth rate from 2000 has been 6% comparable to 6% in the rapid expansion period of 1980 to 19905. Using the middle forecast (Series B), as suggested by the County General Plan (2005), the projected total population for the Kona districts for the year 2020 is 56,367, or 13,800 more residents than the estimated population in 2005 (see Chart 2-1). The population growth in Kona is closely associated with continuing growth of the visitor and agricultural industries. Housing production. Growth in housing units provides a more realistic picture of growth in Kona. In the period of 1990 and 2000 the number of new housing units increased at a rate more than twice the population increase, from 7,947 housing units in 1990 to 13,330 in 2000 (ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd. and ESC, November 2006) of which only a small portion was affordable housing for residents. This uneven increase creates greater, disproportionate land consumption and infrastructure needs than reflected by population growth statistics. Chart 2-1 District Resident Population Distribution, Year 2020 70,000 60,000 Now c 50,000 1 40,000 -- CS 30,000 ❑Series B a° 20,000 10,000 0 Iwo Jca �p 'o v°a ram raa o°a yam° a° District Source: County or Hawaii General Plan, 2005 The General Plan, Table 2-2, provides population projections at 5 -year intervals by district. The 2005 projections for North and South Kona were adjusted by the Census population estimate dated July 2005. The Census estimate for the island was 186,836 (2005 Hawaii County Data Book, Table 1.2, which was higher than the islandwide GP projections of 159,907, resulting in an adjustment factor of 1.168 (186,8361159,907) 5 Average annual growth rate computed by taking the difference of the end year and the start year, divide by number of years, and divide the quotient by the value of the start year (e.g. for North Kona [(22,284.13,748)110]113,748 = 0.06 = 6%) 2-8 KONA CDP VISUALIzING KONA TOMORROW 3. VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW ' 3.1 VISION STATEMENT CHAPTER 3 ' KONA'S FUTURE SHALL BE: A more sustainable Kona characterized by a deep respect for the culture and the environment and ' residents that responsively and responsibly accommodate change through an active and collaborative community. 3.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES In order to achieve this vision, the following principles, derived from public meetings and working groups, are the foundation for the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions. 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. a. Natural resources. The watershed, including coastline, flood plains, important agricultural land, open space, and areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway shall be protected. Guided by a principle of respect for the land, environment and natural resources shall be preserved and protected to ensure clean air and water, thriving native species, conservation of shorelines and open space, improvements in watershed management and flood control, and reductions in solid waste. "For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State. All public natural resources are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people. The Constitution of the State of Hawaii Article XI ' KONA CDP 3-1 CHAPTER 3 VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW b. Culture. The multi-ethnic culture is preserved, protected, and restored in a manner that perpetuates all aspects of the aloha spirit. 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. Future growth should connect communities with movement alternatives such as sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes. We need an efficient public transportation system for moving people. It should have comfortable and frequent service to key destinations, along prominent commuter routes, and at transfer points that offer connections to alternative modes of transportation. 3. Provide housing choices. Future growth should offer a broad range of mixed housing choices with a variety of types and price ranges that are affordable and available in close proximity to places of work. They should also accommodate populations with special needs, including seniors, disabled persons, and the homeless. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. Future growth should provide a diversity of recreational opportunities that are well-maintained, attractive, and easily accessible to the entire community. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. a. Compact villages. The majority of future growth should be directed north of Kailua, with some future growth in the Kailua to Keauhou area, in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and mixture of homes, shops, and places to work. b. Rural character of Kona. Density in South Kona should be kept low, and its character should remain rural, with most future growth directed around existing villages and towns. C. Community character. Diversity, history, and the host culture are celebrated in neighborhoods and communities that incorporate beautification, architectural continuity, and respect for the natural environment, in order to maintain Kona's character and its Hawai'i Island style. 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. Future growth should occur where infrastructure (roads and utilities) and essential facilities (i.e. police, fire, and schools) are already in place. These facilities should be maintained at a level that will enhance the quality of life for Kona residents. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. a. Agriculture. Agricultural lands should be preserved in a manner that supports family farms, ecotourism, and a self-sufficient agricultural economy that encourages the local use of Hawai'i products. 3-2 KONA CDP VISUAL/Z/NG KONA TOMORROW CHAPTER 3 ' b. Sustainable industries. Diverse and sustainable industries such as ecotourism, agriculture, aquaculture, technology, and health should be enhanced, expanded and marketed to take full advantage of Kona's unique environmental assets and reduce ' dependence on food and fossil fuel imports. Community collaborations supported in order to meet the needs of businesses, residents and visitors. ' 8. Promote effective governance: An effective and accountable regional government structure that improves the quality of life for Kona residents should manage the impacts of growth and meet the needs of the Kona community by encouraging cooperation among public, private, and ' civic partners, ensuring equitable distribution of resources, and instituting policies and regulations in a predictable and consistent manner. "We the people of Hawaii, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawai'i State motto, Va mau ke ea o ka 'aina 1 ka pono." We reserve the right to control our destiny, to nurture the integrity of our people and culture, and to preserve the quality of life that we desire. We reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding and compassionate heart toward all the peoples of the earth, do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawai'1". The Constitution of the State of Hawaii Preamble 3.3 CONSISTENCY WITH SUSTAINABLE AND SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES These foregoing eight Guiding Principles are consistent with the principles of "smart growth" and "sustainability." 3.3.1 Smart Growth ' Smart growth refers to the management of growth to make it possible "for communities to grow in ways that support economic development and jobs; create strong neighborhood with a range of housing, commercial, and transportation options; and achieve healthy communities that provide families with a ' clean environment." 6 The following 10 smart growth principles are incorporated into the Kona CDP's Guiding Principles: ' 1. Protect and preserve open space, natural beauty, agricultural lands, cultural and environmental resources; 2. Utilize compact building design; 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices; 4. Create walkable communities; 6 Smart Growth Network, Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, hftp://smartgroMh.org. KONA CDP 3-3 CHAPTER 3 VISUALIzING KONA TOMORROW 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; 6. Mix land uses; 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices; 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective; and 10. Foster community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. 3.3.2 Sustainability The term "sustainability" has special meaning in an island context, where our resources are limited and the consequences of our actions have a more immediate impact. Sustainability in Hawaii means achieving a quality of life that achieves the following goals: • It emphasizes respect for the culture, character, beauty and history of our state's island communities. • It strikes a balance between economic prosperity, social and community well-being, and environmental stewardship. ■ It meets the needs of the present community without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. r The eight Guiding Principles are consistent with this definition and provide the basis for Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions that set forth a sustainable path for Kona. To become a sustainable community requires commitment on all levels—as individuals, households, businesses, communities, and government. We need to do our part in as many ways as. we can. The following elaborates the eight Guiding Principles specifically in terms of sustainability principles: 7. Sense of Community. The manner in which we meet our human needs determines the quality of our existence and ability to adapt. Pertinent initiatives include the following: a. Cultural emphasis. The vision emphasizes the importance of mutually appreciating our respective cultural traditions. b. Affordable housing. The vision affirms that decent affordable housing is needed in Kona. c. Participatory governance. The vision is to create a structure through which Kona residents may meaningfully engage in decision making. Engagement breeds caring and learning, which, in turn, creates the energy and expertise needed to better the community. d. Innovation. The Design Center proposed in the Section 4.2 Land Use will hopefully stimulate the exposure of and willingness to try new ideas, thus enabling Kona to become a cutting edge sustainable community. 7 Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan, January 2008. See also, The Natural Step for Communities by S. James and T. Lahti which explains the four conditions of a sustainable society. 3-4 KoNA CDP VISUALIzING KDNA TOMORROW 2. Interaction with Nature. Only through opportunities to interact with nature can we develop knowledge and respect for natural environment. The vision is to establish an Open Space Network Program (see Section 4.3 Environmental Resources) to guide the provision of such opportunities through subsistence activities (e.g., fishing, diving, hunting, gathering), recreational activities (e.g., swimming, surfing, hiking, camping, biking), and educational activities (e.g., interpretive signage and printed material). 3. Building Standards. The Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is the nationally recognized standard for green buildings (see Sidebar). The vision supports LEED design of buildings and neighborhoods. LEED embraces all the aforementioned principles—waste reduction, toxics reduction, conservation of resources, and energy efficiency-- by recognizing performance in five key areas of human and environmental health: sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. LEED certification provides independent, third -party verification that a development's location and design meet accepted high standards for environmentally responsible, sustainable, development. LEED certification recognizes and rewards builders for meeting the highest performance standards, and gives users confidence that their building is durable, healthy, and environmentally friendly. 4. Energy. The energy policies aim at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., conservation measures, renewable energy conversion), reducing energy costs to the consumer (e.g., net metering, alternatives to driving), and developing a more resilient system, such as reduced dependence on fossil fuel energy systems. Although most changes require action by the CHAPTER 3 Specific LEED programs include: • Homes • Neighborhood Development • New Commercial Construction and Major Renovation projects • Existing Building Operations and Maintenance • Commercial Interiors projects About LEED for Homes LEED for Homes is a voluntary rating system that promotes the design and construction of high performance "green" homes. A green home uses less energy, water, and natural resources; creates less waste; and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants. About LEED for Neighborhood Development LEED for Neighborhood Development is a collaboration between the U.S. Green Building Council, the Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council. The LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System integrates the principles of smart growth and green building into the first national standard for neighborhood design. LEED for Neighborhood Development recognizes development projects that successfully protect and enhance the overall health, natural environment, and quality of life of our communities. The rating system encourages urban smart growth best practices, promoting the design of neighborhoods that reduce vehicle miles traveled and communities where jobs and services are accessible by foot or public transit. This framework can serve as the means of measuring the sustainability of the Kona CDP's Village Design Master Plans, imports, decentralized distributed State, County, or utility company, the vision expresses Kona community's aspirations to do its part. The largest consumer of electricity on the island is the County Department of Water Supply, to pump and distribute water. Therefore, water conservation and leak detection, besides conserving water resources, is also a significant energy conservation measure. 5. Non -degradation. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, we degrade our resources by clearing, introducing invasive species, introducing sediments or chemicals to our water resources through non -point or point sources and depleting our water, soil, fisheries, and other resource consumption activities. To prevent degradation, the vision is to support biodiversity through protection of native KDNA CDP 3-5 CHAPTER 3 VISUALIZ/NG KONA TOMORROW and endangered habitats, controlling pollution at the source and pathways, and rewarding "best practices" of managed resources. 6. Toxic materials reduction/substitution. Through awareness and innovation, the vision is to encourage reducing (or substituting) toxic substances. 7. Zero waste. The concept of zero waste attempts to emulate nature where the "waste" of one thing becomes the food or shelter of another thing in an efficient flow of materials and energy. This means not just recycling and reusing, but also redesigning products and packaging to reduce toxicity and increase recoverability. The vision is to increase the awareness of businesses and households, thus helping them to modify their modes of operation, encourage innovation, and discourage waste. 8. Climate change (global warming). The emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, prevents heat from escaping and contributes to global warming. The primary source of carbon dioxide is the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. The vision is to reduce energy use and convert to renewable sources, as well as to preserve and restore the mauka forests, which are the most significant actions Kona can take to do its part to stem global warming. 3-6 KONA CDP GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POL/C/ES & ACTIONS CHAPTER 4 4.GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ' ACTIONS Chapter 4 presents the goals, objectives, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development ' Plan (CDP). They are presented as eight elements, including: 1. Transportation ' 2. Land Use 3. Environmental Resources 4. Cultural Resources 5. Housing 6. Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services 7. Energy ' 8. Economic Development These elements generally correspond with the thirteen elements of the County of Hawaii General Plan ' (GP) except that five elements of the GP have been combined in two of the Kona CDP elements. Specifically, the Kona CDP element for Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services combines the GP elements for Public Facilities, Public Utilities and Recreation; and, the Kona CDP element for ' Environmental Resources combines the GP elements for Environmental Quality, Flooding and Other Natural Hazards, Natural Beauty and Natural Resources and Shoreline. The GP element for Historic Sites is referred to in the Kona CDP as Cultural Resources and the GP element for Economic is ' referred to as Economic Development. The concepts of sustainability variously addressed in the GP element for Environmental Quality form a part of the overall vision for the Kona CDP, as presented in Chapter 3 Visualizing Kona Tomorrow. ' Each of the eight Elements in this chapter has seven components, described as follows: I1. Introduction to the Element, discussing its scope, purpose and/or guiding principle(s). A table shows which of the eight guiding principles the Element supports. 2. Existing Conditions, describing the issues, concerns, and/or state of knowledge that are addressed in the Element. I3. Overall Strategy, explaining the major approaches by which the issues and concerns described in Existing Conditions will be addressed. 4. Goal, stating the intended outcome for the Element, as derived from the community outreach phase of the Kona CDP process. ' 5. Objectives, corresponding to each of the major approaches identified in the Overall Strategy. Each of the objectives in an Element is identified by an alphabetical prefix identifying the element and a sequential numeral. For example, "Objective LU -1" is the first objective in the ' Land Use Element. KONA CDP 4-1 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, CHAPTER 4 POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 6. Policies, that prescribe how each objective will be achieved. The policies that use the word "shall' are mandatory directives legally binding on County agencies. Among the most significant legally binding policies are those presented in Section 4.2 Land Use. These policies must be implemented through land use decisions and development permits issued after the Kona CDP is adopted. Such policies, however, would not be retroactive to prior decision-making and existing zoning. Some mandatory policies require balancing with other policies, particularly those that require County funding. Some policies create special provisions that differ from the County Code; these Code -amending policies are summarized and noted as "enacted by plan" in Section 5.3. Other policies that use the word "should" are not legally binding as they recommend desired actions especially those affecting agencies over which the plan does not have authority (e.g. State agencies, utilities, non -profits). Each policy is identified by the alpha -numeric code for its corresponding objective, followed by a decimal and its numeric sequence. For example, "Policy TRAN-3.2" is the second policy of the third objective in the Transportation Element. 7. Actions, that specify how the policy will be implemented. An action may be a precursor to implementing a policy or may specify what is required or recommended to implement it. The list of actions are meant to be refined during the process of implementation in consideration of available resources, more detailed analysis, feasibility, and other factors. Thus, these actions are not legally binding but are meant to be implemented in good faith. The Implementation Committee (IC) shall have the authority to revise the action and report any such revision in the Committee's annual report (See Section 5.2.1). Each action identifies, by acronym (See sidebar), the specific agencies or organizations that Acronyms/Abbreviations App. Applicant BUS. Businesses CD Civil Defense COE US Army Corps of Engineers COMM Community-based Organization DATA County Data Systems DBEDT Stale Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism DEM County Department of Environmental Management DC Design Center DOA State Department of Agriculture DOE State Department of Education DOH Department of Health DOT State Department of Transportation DHHL State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DLNR State Department of Land & Natural Resources DPW County Department of Public Works DWS County Department of Water Supply Fin. County Finance Department HCCRC Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission HELCO Hawaii Electric and Light Company HHFDC Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation KCC Kona Chamber of Commerce KCRC Kona Cultural Resources Committee KVBID Kailua Village Business Improvement District KVDC Kailua Village Design Commission Mayors County Mayor's Office MT County Mass Transit Agency NELHA Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii NPS National Park Service OA County Office of Aging OHCD County Office of Housing and Community Development OSC County Open Space Commission OSP Office of State Planning PATH People's Advocacy for Trails Hawaii PC County Planning Commission PD County Planning Department PR County Department of Parks & Recreation OLT Queen Lili uokalani Trust R&D County Research & Development SHPD State Historic Preservation Division State State agency SWCD Soil Water Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy UH University of Hawaii will implement or participate in implementing the action. County agencies identified have a particular responsibility for implementation. Each action also specifies when the action should be implemented, whether it is enacted by the plan, on-going, within one to two years, within two to three years, within three to five years or within five to ten years. Each Action is identified by the alpha -numeric code for its corresponding 4-2 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLIOIES & ACTIONS TRANSPORTATION policy, followed by an alphabet sequence. For example, "Action ENV -1.4a" is the first action of the fourth policy of the first objective in the Environmental Resources Element. All of the Actions are summarized in Implementation Matrix in Chapter 5 Action Plan. 8. Official Maps, that are meant to be legally binding. All other figures in the plan not designated as Official Maps are for information purposes only. Because the Official Maps are created from GIS files, these maps may be printed at any scale with all or selected data layers. The Official Maps distinguish "Policy Layers" from "Information Layers". The Policy Layers are the official information on that map that require an amendment to the plan to add, delete, or relocate records on the map. Changes that improve the accuracy of the map are not considered amendments. The Information Layers provide background and may be changed in any way or removed without a plan amendment. The metadata for the Official Maps specify, at a minimum, the source of the data and explain the attribute features (See Attachment A). The GIS files and metadata shall be housed and maintained by the County of Hawai'i Planning Department. W 4.1 TRANSPORTATION ' The Transportation section of the Kona CDP serves as a policy guide for County decisions regarding transportation systems. Its objectives, policies, and actions establish a transportation -oriented basis for future development that is integrated with the Land Use section, as well as the Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services section of the Kona CDP. In addition, it provides guidance for concurrency and connectivity of transportation facilities with future ' development to ensure that all communities are adequately served. 4.1.1 Existing Conditions Traffic congestion in Kona is bad and grows worse with time. The congestion is fueled by the rapid ' growth and exacerbated by the road network, land use patterns and dependence on the automobile. Road improvements have not kept pace with economies. development. Poor management of past 18. Promote effective governance. development has eliminated or compromised future roadway corridor options. Major road improvements take a long time to complete and resources have to be prioritized and supplemented by innovative funding sources. Guiding Principles Transportation 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable ✓ limited financial Two major north/south roadways, Queen Ka'ahumanu/Kuakini (Highway 19) and Mfimalahoa Highway (Highway 190), are well beyond capacity and carry the majority of the north/south traffic through and within Kona. Both State and County share jurisdiction over the roads in Kona (See Figure 4-1). KONA CDP 4-3 Keahole Legend State, Arterial Primary -- State, Arterial Secondary County, Arterial Primary — — — County, Collector Major County, Collector Minor moommEzz�Miles 0 1 2 4 1 inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii Kona Community Development Plan , Figure 4-1 ' Existing Major Streets - Ownership and Functional Classification CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, FOLICIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION ' Based on State DOT traffic counts, several locations along regional Levels of Services (LOS) is a quantitative transportation facilities in the planning area currently operate at poor and qualitative assessment of traffic operations. LOS are defined by LOS "A" levels of service (COH Planning Department, August 14, 2006). In through "P; LOS "A" representing ideal or ' general, the following roadway segments operate at Level of Service hee-now traffic operating conditions and LOS "F" unacceptable or potentially (LOS) "D" or worse (COH Planning Department, August 14, 2006): congested traffic operating conditions. ' ■ Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Keahole to Palani Road • Hawai'i Belt Road, Palani Road to Kealakekua • Palani Road, east of Henry Street and west of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway ' Over the years, new development mauka and makai of the primary arterial highways has occurred without local road connectivity. New developments have been built with no or very little connection to each other. Lacking such connectivity, all traffic funnels to the arterials and conditions have deteriorated to the degree that Kona's residents' quality of life, visitors' regional experience, and overall public safety suffered. 4.1.2 Overall Strategy Widening, improving, and extending major arterials, as well as increasing connectivity between and within existing and future development are necessary to enhance mobility in Kona. Priority arterial highway projects include widening Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway between Henry Street and the airport, Kuakini Highway Widening between Henry Street and Kamehameha III Road, and the construction of the Mamalahoa Highway Bypass Road and Kahului-Keauhou Parkway. The proposed Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) will add capacity to the north -south arterial network, and reduce demands on the existing regional facilities. It would also serve as the central multi -modal corridor serving future regional development. A series of east -west (mauka-makai) collector roads linking the regional north -south facilities must also be provided for added circulation and to further m v N 0 0 N s m N Relationship of Functionally Classified Systems Serving Tragic Mobility and Land Access: Arterials for main movement or distribution emphasize the high level of mobility for through movement. Collectors offer approximately balanced service for both functions. reduce the reliance upon the regional facilities. In addition, future urban development must contribute to a well-connected local transportation network that provides for safe, direct, and convenient access for automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Local streets include all streets that are not designated as collectors or arterials. Although local streets are not designed for through or heavy traffic, the connectivity of these streets with each other and with collectors is crucial ensuring that residents can easily reach destinations within the community. KONA CDP 4-5 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, TRANSPORTA T/ON POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS The design of local streets also plays an important role in affecting traffic speed and choice of travel modes. Narrow local streets tend to slow traffic and are more conducive to pedestrian travel. Narrow local streets also cost less to build and maintain, encourage more efficient land use, and improve neighborhood character. Narrow streets are an efficient way of connecting the local street system without encouraging the use of local streets for through or fast moving traffic. Local streets must be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles and provide for on -street parking. Current budget limitations will hinder rapid major investment in public road improvements. But, even if immediate financing and approvals were available to improve roadways, other solutions to Kona's long term traffic woes are necessary. There are several other major strategies that embody the Guiding Principles expressed in Sections 4.3 Land Use, 4.5 Housing, and 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services. They relate to transportation, housing, land use, and infrastructure that need to be integrated and incorporated into Kona's long-term transportation policies as Kona's population continues to grow in the years ahead. These strategies include the following: 1. Mass Transit. A major expansion of the County's public mass transit service in Kona would provide significant alternatives to individual automobile use. 2. Multi -Modal Transportation. Taking advantage of Kona's consistently mild climate, a network of interconnected bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks within and outside road right-of- ways would provide a healthy and green alternative to automobile use. 3. Transit -Oriented Development (TOD). The development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and financially support the expanded transit system. 4. Multi -Purpose Design. Beyond getting us from one place to another, our transportation corridors are major public spaces that must safely accommodate uses other than vehicular travel. 5. Safety and Aesthetic Qualities. Safety and aesthetic qualities need to play a larger role in improving existing and designing future roadways, in order to contribute to Kona's quality of life and tourism appeal. 6. Affordable Housing. Affordable housing located near major employment centers would serve to decrease the number of people who fill the roadways commuting long distances to work every day. These housing policies, which recognize their relationship to transportation, are addressed in the Section 4.5: Housing. 4.1.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Transportation Goal. An efficient, safe, and attractive multi -modal transportation system integrated with land use planning that allows movement around and through Kona with minimal reliance on the automobile. Objective TRAN-1: Transportation and Land Use. To organize growth on a regional level in Kona, growth should be compact and transit -supportive. Compact mixed-use villages along transit routes provide sufficient densities to support transit feasibility and enable people to meet a variety of daily needs within walking distance. 4-6 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES & ACTIONS TRANSPORTATION ' Policy TRAN-1.1: Official Transportation Network Map. The Official Transportation Network Map shall show proposed transit routes, proposed arterials and collectors, and pedestrian/bicycle paths (see Figures 4-2a to 4-2d). This map shall designate the functional ' classification of the roadway. The purpose of this map is to show intended interconnections, plan and preserve these corridors, budget public improvements, and provide notice to affected landowners of potential impacts from these projects. Action TRAN-1.1a: Adopts Official Transportation Network Map (Enacted by plan). Policy TRAN-1.2: Trunk Line. The new Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) shall ' function as the trunk transit route connecting Kailua Village with the airport, along which transit - oriented developments (TODs) will be located. As the trunk transit route, there will be future allowance for a dedicated transit -way within the right-of-way and the headways will be of the ' highest among all transit routes in Kona (See Figure 4-2a). Action TRAN-1.2a: Design and construct Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level ' Road) in functional sections. 1) Phase I - Palani Road to Kealakehe Parkway ' a) Design ready (PD, 1-2) b) Construction Ready (DPW, 2-3) c) Construct (DOT, DPW, 3.5) ' 2) Phase II — Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street a) Design Ready (PD, 1-2) b) Construction Ready (DPW, 2-3) tc) Construct (DPW, 3.5) 3) Phase III — Hina Lani Street to Ka'iminani Drive a) Design Ready (PD, 5.10) b) Construction Ready (DPW, 5-10) c) Construct (DPW, 5-10) 4) Phase IV — Ka'iminani Drive to University Drive ' a) Design Ready (Private, 1-2) b) Construction Ready (Private, 3.5) c) Construct (Private, 3-5) ' Policy TRAN-1.3: Spacing of TODs along Trunk Line. Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Urban Villages shall be located a minimum of one mile apart, between major transit ' stations, along Keohokalole Highway trunk route in order to preserve the transit efficiency of this route. ' Action TRAN-1.3a: General locations of TODs have been determined by the Official Kona Land Use Map. (See Policy LU -2.3 and Figure 4-7) (Enacted by Plan). 1 KONA CDP 4-7 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Policy TRAN-1.4: Secondary Transit Route. A secondary transit route shall connect Kailua Village with Keauhou and also serve the areas mauka of Queen Ka'ahumanu and Kuakini Highways (See Figure 4-2a). As a secondary transit route, transit will share the vehicular travel lane, and its headways will be equal or less than the trunk route. Any new developments along these routes shall pay their proportionate share for the frontage road costs and provide transit stops or stations. Action TRAN-1.4a: Establish bus routes on existing streets along the designated Secondary Transit Route (MT, on-going) Action TRAN-1.4b: Establish bus routes on proposed streets as they are built along the designated Secondary Transit Route (MT, on-going). Action TRAN-1.4c: Provide bus maintenance facility in the Kona UA to support the expanded bus service (See Figure 4.10c) (MT, 5-10) Policy TRAN-1.5: Frontage Road. A frontage road makai of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, or, if permitted by DOT, within the 300 -foot wide Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway right- of-way between the airport and Honokohau Harbor shall serve as a secondary transit route. It will enable the consolidation of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway vehicular access points for the developments makai of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Action TRAN-1.5a: Design and construct Frontage Road. 1) Phase I —Airport to Huliko`a Drive a) Coordinate design and intersections with the DOT's Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway widening (PD, DOT, 1-2) b) Coordinate financing with public and private owners (PD, Fin., 1.2) c) Obtain permit approvals (PD, 2-3) 2) Phase II — National Park Service (NPS) Section a) Determine alignment within 300 foot right-of-way or NPS property (PD, NPS, 3-5) 3) Connect to Kuakini Highway extension a) Coordinate financing and construction with DLNR/DHHL and QLT (PD, DPW, DLNRIDHHL, QLT, 3.5) Policy TRAN-1.6: Kailua or Makaeo Village as a Transit Hub. The redevelopment of Kailua shall include a plan to create an intra -Kona transportation service, with Kailua Village or Makaeo Village as the "hub" or transit center. Buses would operate from Captain Cook to the Kailua or Makaeo Village hub. At the hub, buses would intersect with other routes operating from Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), the frontage road, and other Kona destinations. Transfers for continued travel would be made at this location. Action TRAN-1.6a: Determine the location, design, and function of the major transit hub (MT, PD, 1.2). 4-8 KONA CDP Keahole Makalawena Makaeo Village Kailua Vil Kailua Legend Proposed Roads, Classification` - - - CDP, Local CDP, collector, major CDP, collector, minor - - - GP, arterial GP, collector, major GP, collector, minor Proposed Transit Line' ■ass: Trunk secondary OTransit Hub' OTransit Stations' TOD Type Neighborhood Regional Center OKona Urban Area Rural Town TODs Existing Roadway Policy Layer 0 1 2 4 Miles 1 inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. ct � Kahaluu Makai Keauhou 0 I ualoa J , a Village ®AE Kaawaloa Napoopoo , Honaunau I J I Kealia Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2a Official Transportation Network Map - Proposed Roads and Transit TRA NSPORTAT/ON CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-10 KONA CDP Kaillua Legend Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP)* TYPE Lane Path - Path -s a Ped-sw Ped -trail Shared Shoulder TOD Type Neighborhood Regional Center Kona Urban Area Rural Town TODs — Existing Roadway ` Policy Layer 0 1 2 4 Miles 1 inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. Keauhou CP Kealakekua O LAr. e .. Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2b Official Transportation Network Map - Pedestrian and Bike Paths CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-12 KONA CDP S1 Kahaluu Makai Village �0 Legend Proposed Roads, Classification" Proposed Transit Line` • CDP, Local II) Trunk CDP, collector, major = Secondary a CDP, collector, minor IO Transit Stations* - • GP, arterial GP, collector, major O Transit Hub' a GP, collector, minor TOO Type Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP)" TYPE Neighborhood !Regional Center Lane C3Rural Town TODs Path C3Kona Urban Area - Path -s — Existing Roadway Ped-sw Ped -Vail Shared Shoulder Policy Layer 0 900 1,800 3.600 Feet 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2c Official Transportation Network Map-Kahaluu Area F ■ Kona Community Development Plan , Figure 4-2d ' Official Transportation Network Map -Nani Kailua Area r CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, FOL/CIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION Action TRAN-1.6b: Determine funding and construction schedule (MT, PD, 2-3). Action TRAN-1.6c: Identify Kailua urban transit routes, including phasing and transfer points (MT, 2-3). Policy TRAN-1.7: Transit Route to Rural Town Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs). The existing rural towns between Honalo and Captain Cook are encouraged to be redeveloped as TODs with Mamalahoa Highway (Highway 190) functioning as a secondary transit route connecting these villages to Kailua or Makaeo Village. Action TRAN-1.7a: Establish a route to Kailua or Makaeo Village with enhanced frequency and in coordination with rural paratransit service (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN-1.7b: Master plan transit stations in coordination with Rural Town redevelopment (MT, PD, 3-5). Also refer to Policy LU -3.1 and Figure 4.3b. Objective TRAN-2 Street Network Connectivity. To develop a system of interconnected roads in Kona that will provide alternative transportation routes that will disperse automobile trips and reduce their length, while not compromising the through functions of arterials and major collectors with excessive intersections. A highly connected transportation system within Kona's Urban Area (UA) serves to do the following: (a) provides safe choices for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians; (b) promotes walking and bicycling; (c) connects neighborhoods to each other and to popular destinations, such as schools, parks, shopping, libraries, and post offices, among others; (d) provides opportunities for residents to increase their level of physical activity each day by creating walkable neighborhoods with adequate connections to destinations; (e) reduces vehicle miles traveled and travel time, thus improving air quality and mitigating the effects of auto emissions on the health of residents and the environment; (f) reduces emergency response times; (g) increases effectiveness of municipal service delivery; (h) restores arterial street capacity to better serve regional long-distance travel needs; and (i) provides increased emergency evacuation opportunities. New development that is not well-connected with existing neighborhoods contributes more cars and creates greater traffic congestion on collector roads. When new development is integrated into existing street patterns, providing additional choices for movement in and out of the neighborhood, new developments can actually increase connectivity within the region. KONA CDP 4-15 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES. AND ACTIONS Policy TRAN-2.1: Connectivity Standards. Connectivity refers to the directness of links and the density of connections that make up the transportation network. Within the Kona Urban Area (UA) new development shall contribute to this interconnected transportation network of streets, pedestrian, and bicycle access that work to disperse traffic and connect and integrate new development with the existing fabric of the community. Proposals for new development or redevelopment within Kona's UA shall meet the following connectivity standards: 1. Maximum Block Size. In lieu of Hawai'i County Code (HCC) Section 23-29(c), the maximum length of blocks for predominantly residential subdivisions shall be 800 feet, unless unfeasible due to natural topography, protected resources, or surrounding development patterns. 2. Connection to Adjoining Development. The road system for new development shall contribute to the local transportation network. To supplement HCC Section 23-40, at a minimum, new subdivisions shall incorporate and continue all collector streets, and selected local streets to adjoining property. If a portion of the stub -out is not improved, the current developer shall improve the stub -out portion. Connection to adjoining properties may not be required if seriously constrained by topography or other physical hindrances, or in cases where through travel cannot occur because the property is bounded by development with private streets previously allowed. 3. Gated Entry. In the Kona UA, gates will be prohibited across new roadways identified to service the local transportation network. 4. Cul-de-sacs Discouraged. Cul-de- sacs are discouraged based on Policy TRAN-2.1 (1) Maximum Block Size and Policy TRAN-2.1 (2) Connection to Adjoining Property unless construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. Where cul- de-sacs or dead-end streets are allowed, they shall meet the prevailing standards in the Chapter 23 Subdivision Code. 5. Future Extensions. Roads serving future transportation interconnectivity will be identified for any proposed subdivision located adjacent to a vacant parcel. To supplement HCC Section 23-44, where necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory future subdivision of adjoining land, or to conform with the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d), a street stub -out or pedestrian path improved to the boundary is required unless financially guaranteed to enable the County to coordinate the stub -out construction as a regional project or in coordination with the development of the adjoining property. Applicants submitting preliminary development plans shall provide for extension of selected local streets to adjoining undeveloped properties and eventual connection with 4-16 KONA CDP I 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POL/CIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION the existing street system. Within phased subdivisions, temporary stub -outs shall be required. 6. Connectivity. In the Kona UA, all new roads that will serve as part of the interconnecting roadway system shall be dedicated to the County. Action TRAN-2.1a: Amends Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to incorporate connectivity standards (Enacted by Plan). ' Policy TRAN-2.2: Access Management. To preserve the through functions of arterials and major collectors, driveway access along new arterials and major collectors shall be minimized to the greatest extent consistent with the need to provide access to adjoining property. Access to such adjoining properties shall be planned to occur from local streets, and not from the arterial or collector road, whenever possible. On existing arterials and major collectors, the number of access driveways currently permitted shall not be increased, and when ' development is proposed that would increase the usage of an existing driveway access, every effort should be made to eliminate the driveway access in favor of access at an existing or planned intersection. Four-way intersections with arterials and major collectors shall be ' permitted only as shown on the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d), in order to preserve the through functions of arterials and major collectors. ' Action TRAN-2.2a: Update the Official Transportation Network Maps with intersection locations as they are determined through preliminary engineering ' reports or other plans and/or studies (Figures 4-2a and 4-2b) (PD, on-going). Objective TRAN-3. Multi -Modal System. To develop a multi -modal transportation system to ' encourage walking, biking, transit, and other non -vehicular modes of travel. A multi -modal system needs to be attractive, safe, comfortable, convenient, accessible, environmentally friendly, and affordable. Such a system would reduce congestion, improve air quality, reduce fuel consumption, and increase healthy activity. Not only would the system enhance the mobility of the elderly and youth, who do not drive, it would also make it possible for residents to divert automobile ownership expenses to other daily needs, such as a homeownership mortgage or insurance. The network could connect t pathways within and outside of street rights-of-way. The system should provide convenient transfers between modes of transportation. ' Policy TRAN-3.1: Street Standards. County street standards should be pedestrian -friendly, safely accommodate bicycles, accessible to the disabled, and appropriate for its surrounding land use context. ' Action TRAN-3.1a: Complete on-going effort to revise County of Hawaii Street Standards (PD, 1-2). KONA CDP 4-17 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy TRAN-3.2: Public Right -of -Way Maintenance. Recognizing that the County is not currently staffed or equipped to maintain landscaping within street rights -of -ways, a combination of new and existing tools, both public and private, shall be developed to implement a landscaping maintenance program. Action TRAN-3.2a: Determine staffing and equipment requirements for landscaping maintenance program (DPW, PD, 1-2). Action TRAN-3.2b: Identify financing tools for maintenance programs through public financing plan (DPW, PD, Fin., 2.3). Action TRAN-3.2c: Implement financing plan for maintenance programs (DPW, PD, Fin., 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.3: Right -of -Way Landscaping. Recognizing that the availability of water should dictate the nature of landscaping within public rights-of-way, lusher landscaping shall be provided on streets where reclaimed wastewater will be available for irrigation as noted on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map (see Figure 4-10c), and xeriscape landscaping shall be the preference where reclaimed wastewater is not available. Action TRAN-3.3a: Designates the reclaimed wastewater zone on Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map (Enacted by plan). Action TRAN-3.3b: Establish list of recommended vegetation, in consultation with the Kona Outdoor Circle, as an amendment to the County of Hawaii Street Standards (PD, DPW, 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.4: Retrofit of Existing Streets. To the extent practicable, pedestrian improvements and/or bicycle accommodations shall be added to existing public streets when repaving or doing other repair or maintenance work, especially on those streets identified for such multi -modal purposes in the Official Transportation Network Map (See Figure 4-2b), Action TRAN-3.4a: Identify high priority retrofits and coordinate with DPW (PD, DPW, 2-3). 4-18 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION ' Action TRAN-3.4b: Obtain DPW's repaving and repair project schedule and coordinate retrofits in conjunction with those projects (DPW, PD, 2-3). ' Policy TRAN-3.5: Safe Routes to Schools. Every public elementary school in Kona shall have a Safe Routes to School program. Action TRAN-3.5a: Identify high priority routes in coordination with DOE, DOT ' and DPW (DPW, DOE, DOT, PATH, 3-5). Policy TRAN-3.6: Multi -Modal Network. The Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d) shall designate a system of pedestrian and bicycle paths to use as a guide for street design, public improvements, and subdivision improvements. Recognizing that the t appropriate type of facility may evolve, the Implementation Committee (See Chapter 5) shall have the authority to change the designated type and maintain such changes on a database. ' Action TRAN-3.6a: Designate multi -modal paths (pedestrian and bicycle) (on- going). t Policy TRAN-3.7: Traffic Calming Standards. In order to slow traffic for pedestrian safety or comfort, standards for traffic calming shall be included, as part of the County of Hawai'i Street Standards. ' Action TRAN-3.7a: Develop criteria for selecting and determining appropriate traffic calming tools as part of the on-going revision of the Street Standards I(DPW, PD, 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.8: Inter -Modal Connections. To facilitate the transfer between modes of travel: 1. Automobile/Transit and Bike/Transit Transfer. Park and ride facilities are desirable and must be built to ameliorate the traffic congestion in Kona. A transit station or transit hub will be located within each of the TODs, as shown in the Official ' Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d). Park and ride facilities will be provided in the vicinity of the transit station and transit hub. Park and ride facilities shall include storage for bicycles. 2. Ground/Air Transfer. The transit and bicycle network shown on the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d) shall provide connections from ' major residential areas to the airport. The Kona International Airport's Master Plan should include accommodations for transit and bicycles. 3. Bike/Transit Transfer and Beach Accommodation. To the extent feasible, public transit should have the ability to carry bicycles and surfboards. KONA CDP 4-19 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Action TRAN-3.8a: Master plan, design, and construct park and ride facilities (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN-3.8b: Coordinate inter -modal connection with Kona International Airport Master Plan (MT, PD, DOT, on-going). Action TRAN-3.8c: Investigate beach service options (MT, 1-2). Objective TRAN4 Non -Structural Solutions to Manage Congestion. To manage peak -hour traffic using a diversity of non-structural approaches in order to reduce congestion on Kona roads, while acknowledging that building new roads is only one of many needed solutions. Policy TRAN-4.1: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Solutions. The County government will educate its community on the value of a rideshare program and provide incentives towards its use; the County will encourage flexible hours among its staff and workers and educate by example; or the County will encourage the community to reach and adopt innovative solutions to transportation demand. The community will recognize all employers in Kona who do their part to either, participate in the County's Rideshare Program, subsidize transit costs for their employees, provide flexible work hours or work -at-home options, or use other innovative programs to reduce reliance on the automobile for work-related trips. Action TRAN4.1a: Implement Rideshare program for County employees (MT, Mayor's, 2.3). Action TRAN-4.1b: Identify major employers to initiate TDM programs (MT, 2-3). Policy TRAN-4.2: Commuter Transit Service. Express bus commuter routes and schedules should be provided to major employment centers. Action TRAN4.2a: Evaluate work shifts of major employers in relation to existing bus schedules and routes (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN-4.2b: Request major employers to contribute toward subsidizing commuter transit service (Businesses, 1-2). Policy TRAN4.3: Managed Parking. New construction in Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs) shall provide parking in accordance with the Village Design Guidelines in Attachment B, which were designed to limit parking as a means of discouraging automobile trips to TODs. The public improvements program, as part of the TOD Master Plan, centralized public parking facilities shall be included. Public parking fees should be set low enough to be affordable yet high enough to discourage automobile use. 4-20 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & ACTIONS TRANSPORTATION Action TRAN4.3a: Identify centralized public parking as part of the TOD Village Master Plans (PD, developers, on-going). Action TRAN4.3b: Identify centralized public parking as part of the Kailua Redevelopment Plan (PD, KBID, on-going). ' Action TRAN4.3c: Investigate appropriate parking fees (PD, KVBID, 1-2). Objective TRAN-5 Rural Transit. To provide a paratransit system for Kona — with emphasis on ' mauka areas and South Kona recognizing that a rural population cannot support an urban transit system. Policy TRAN-5.1: Paratransit. An affordable public paratransit system shall serve the general public of South Kona (i.e., it should not be restricted by age or disabilities). Action TRAN-5.1a: Establish fares for seniors, disabled, students, and general public. (MT, 1-2) Action TRAN-5.1b: Commence shuttle service using mini -vans and small buses (i.e. Handi-Van) (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN-5.1c: Modify shared ride taxi program to use coupons for the first nine (9) miles and to allow starting the meter after nine (9) miles (MT, 1-2). Objective TRAN-6 Concurrency. To manage the timing of growth so as to avoid overloading the arterial system. Policy TRAN-6.1: Official Concurrency Map. The Kona UA shall be designated as a "critical road area", as defined in HCC 25-246. Rezonings within the Kona UA shall comply with the Official Concurrency Map (See Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3), which identifies the road segments to be constructed concurrent with occupancy of units as the minimum "area mitigation", as defined in HCC 25-246(Zoning Code). The Official Concurrency Map assumes: 2. "Critical road area" means a geographical area where any of the transportation facilities serving the area have been determined by the Council to be worse than the acceptable level of service. Area mitigation" consists of improvements which increase the capacity of an arterial or other major road, such as additional lanes, in the general region containing the project, or construction of a new arterial or collector road in the general area containing the project, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or park and ride facilities, sufficient to offset the traffic demand generated by the project. The widening of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway to four lanes from the Kona International Airport to Henry Street, and Completion of the Mamalahoa Bypass Road to the Napo'opo'o junction. HCC 25-2-46 Zoning Code ' KONA CDP 4-21 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Any rezoning outside of a designated TOD within the Kona UA approved prior to completion of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway widening to the Airport shall restrict occupancy until this widening project is completed. Any rezoning in South Kona approved prior to the completion of the Mamalahoa Bypass Road shall restrict occupancy until this bypass project is completed. This policy does not apply to projects exempt under concurrency provisions in HCC Section 25-246 (e.g. affordable housing). The Concurrency Map shall distinguish the current planning status of the corridor alignment. Table 4-1 shows the roadway corridors that shall be built concurrently within the concurrency zone and/or TOD Village. Other roadway corridors shown on the Concurrency Map, but not listed in Table 4-1 are part of the proposed roadway network, but are not critical to concurrency determinations. Action TRAN-6.1a: Adopts Concurrency Map (Enacted by plan). Policy TRAN-6.2: Prioritized Road Improvements. In order to rectify existing deficiencies and influence the pattern of future growth and new roads, the following are priorities: • Kahului-Keauhou Parkway ■ Mamalahoa Bypass ■ Keanalehu Street-Manuwale'a Street ■ Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), Phase I Palani to Kealakehe Parkway ■ Kamanu Street Extension ■ La'aloa Street Extension ■ Lako Street Extension • Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), Phase ll, Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street • Nani Kailua Street Extension a. Makai section (Kuakini Highway to Ali'i Drive) b. Mauka section (Hualalai Road to Kuakini Highway) • Kealaka'a Street Extension • Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), Phase III, Hina Lani Street to Ka'iminani Drive ■ Hienaloli Street Extension ■ University Drive Action T— 6.2a: Develop financing plan for streets according to the priorities listed in Policy TRAN-6.2 (PD, DPW, Fin., 1-2). 4-22 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION Table 41 Concurrency Table Concurrency Zone Roadway and ID No. 4A - Queen Ka'ahumanu Frontage Road and provide adequate A access to Queen Ka'ahumanu Frontage Road. (Keahole Road to Huliko'a Drive) 1 - University Drive Extension (Mamalahoa Highway to Keohokalole Highway, aka Mid -Level Road) 2 - University Drive (Ma'alea Drive to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway) B 3A - Main Street (Ka'iminani Drive to University Drive) 6A- Keohokalole Highway, (University Drive to Ka'iminani Drive) 7 - Kealaka'a Street (Kukuna Street to north end) and/or provide adequate interconnectivity to surrounding area University Village 2 - University Drive (Ma'alea Drive to Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway) 3A - Main Street (Ka'iminani Drive to University Drive) Kalaoa Village None (infill) Connection between Kaiminani Drive and Hina Lani Street: 3B or 513/5A or 5B/6B C 3B — Main Street (Ka'iminani Drive to Hina Lani Street) 5A — Keohokalole Arteriall 5B — Keohokalole Highway (Keohokalole Arterial to Hina Lani Street) 6B — Keohokalole Highway (Kapuahi Street to Keohokalole Arterial) D 9A — Kealaka'a Street (Extend Holoholo Street to Hina Lani Street) 5B — Keohokalole Highway (Keohokalole Arterial to Hina Lani Street) (portion Kaloko Makai Village within development project) 5C — Keohokalole Highway (Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway) 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) E None F 3C - Kamanu Street Extension (to Kealakehe Parkway) Honkohau Village 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) continued on next page ' KONA CDP 4-23 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ' TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Table 4.1 (continued) Concurrency Table Concurrency Zone Roadway ID No. and Name 5B — Keohokalole Highway (Keohokalole Arterial to Hina Lani Street) G (portion within development project) 5C — Keohokalole Highway (Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway) 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) Keahuolu Village 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) 18 — Makala Blvd. Extension (any development makai of 5D) H 9B — Kealaka'a Street (Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway) 9C — Kealaka'a Street (Kealakehe Parkway to Hao Kuni Street) 1 48— Kuakini Extension Collector (Kealakehe Parkway to Old Airport) Makaeo Village 413— Kuakini Extension Collector (Kealakehe Parkway to Old Airport) Kailua Village None (infill) Redevelopment Pua'a-Wa'iaha Village 19C — Kakalina Street Extension (Nani Kailua Drive to Puapua'anui Street) Kahului- Puapua'a Village 29 — Puapua'anui Street Extension J 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) 19A-Kakalina Street Extension (to Puapua'anui Street)) 19B-Kakalina Street Extension(E. Kakalina Street to 19A) (any development K . south of Malulani Drive) 20 — Hienaloli Street Extension (Palani Street to Keolani Drive) 21 -Connector 4 (Hienaloli Street Ext. to Kakalina St. Ext.) L 30A — Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Lako Street to Kuakini Highway) 31 — Lako Street Extension 30B — Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Lako Street to Kamehameha III Road) M 31— Lako Street Extension 32 — La'aloa Street Extension 306 — Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Lako Street to Kamehameha III Road) Kahalu'u Makai Village 33 — Connector 9 34 — Connector 10 4-24 KONA CDP ' Via/ •J-r..l.t,_:^. E— - F w '° pU v 4� I _ �o p0 ti or a` o aT i p pw TSH 9� O Legend Concurrency Zone* Proposed Roads* A Status - ---- g — Concept Kailua C — Preliminary D - Final E TOD F Neighborhood G Regional Center H Kona Urban Area ORural Towns TODs Existing Roadway K L M * Policy Layer Miles 0 0.5 1 2 1 inch equals 1 miles Source: County of Hawaii. The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. 1z j Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-3 Official Concurrency Map CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE The Land Use section of the Kona CDP serves as policy guide for County decisions regarding physical development. It establishes a physical framework for future growth by identifying the County's major policies concerning the type and location of future development in order to meet the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions The County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) controls long-term land use pattern in this County. Figure 4-4 shows the LUPAG designations for the Kona area. Figure 4-5 simplifies the LUPAG map to show the areas designated for urban development (High Density Urban, Medium Density Urban, Low Density Urban, Industrial, Resort Node, Resort, and University), urban expansion, rural, and open areas (Important Agricultural, Extensive Agricultural, Orchards, Conservation, and Open). GuidingPrinciples Land Use 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ The zoning designation is a more detailed control of land use. The zoning and LUPAG should be consistent. For example, for the LUPAG High Density Urban designation, consistent zoning designations include commercial (CG -commercial general, CV -commercial village), multi -family residential (RM), or mixed-use (RCX). Figure 4-6 shows the areas zoned for urban development. The areas on the LUPAG that are designated for urban development or urban expansion (as shown in Figure 4-6), but not currently zoned for urban development, are potential areas for rezoning. Comparing the LUPAG and zoning maps, the amount of potential land available for rezoning far exceeds the amount of land needed to accommodate future growth projections. This excess could encourage a low-density sprawling growth pattern. In fact, this has been the past trend. Kona experienced a significant increase in land development from the mid -1990's to the present. The rate of land consumption exceeded the rate of housing production. In the period between 1995 and 2005, the amount of developed land increased by 3,582 acres 8 at a rate of over 350 acres annually. Developed 8 Developed Land: Environmental Simulation Center, (2006) Based on Parcel/TMK maps from the County of Hawaii (2005). Additional data provided by the County of Hawaii tax assessors office. Includes all parcels where the primary use is either "Residential", "Apartment", "Commercial", "Industrial", and "Hotel and Resort" (PITT codes of 100 — 400 and 700). "Conservation" areas (PITT code 600) are excluded unless they have secondary land use with another PITT code, in which case the secondary land use is used. "Agricultural and Rural" areas and "Unimproved Residential" (PITT code 500 and 800) are considered undeveloped, EXCEPT if the lot size is less than 5 acres AND the improvement values on the property exceed $30,000 per acre. KONA CDP 4-27 Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-4 Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-5 Generalized LUPAG LEGEND (road) _ FA -ie - RM -15 - A -10a - FA -2a - RW2 - A -1a - FA3a - RM -2.5 A-2008 _ FA -Se _ R M - A-208 _ M - RM -3 A -255e - MCX-18 - RM -3.5 - A -2a - WX-10 - RM4 - A -35a - WX-20 _ RM -5 - A U - MG -10a - RM -55 - "N _ MG-ia _ RM -8 - A -SO - MG -20 - RM -2 - A -S - MG -3a - RM -8 - A Oa - MGLa - RS10 - A 2a - ML -10 - R&15 A-B000a - ML -1a - 88-20 AADa - ML -20 ML3a_ RS -2.5 - X"a - NP _ V-.75 - APD - OPEN - V-1 - CDH - PD - V tO - CG10 mw - V-1.25 - CG -20 - RA -la - V-1.5 _ CC 7.5 - RA -2a —W1.75 _ CN -10 _ RCX-10 _ V-2 _ CN -20 - RCX-2 - V-2.0 -CN4 -R .75 _V-2.25 - CN 1.5 - RM -]5 - V-25 - CV -10 - RM -1 _ V -2a _ CV -15 RM -0.25 _VA - CV -0a - RM -1.5 - V$0 - CV -20 - RM -10 - V-1 - CV -T5 _ RM -14.5 Q Kone CDP Planning Arae 0 2 4 8 Miles 1 inch equals 6 miles Source: County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-6 Generalized Zoning ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, 'POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE ' land increased at a rate of 9% annually, while population increased at a rate of 2.4% annually, and housing units increased at a rate of 5.5% annually. Land in Kona is being developed at a rate that is nearly 4 times population growth and almost 2 times housing unit growth. ' These land use trends are helping to define Kona's land use policies and strategies: • Competing Values for Coastal Land. As a limited and valuable resource in Kona, policies need to balance competing opportunities for environmental protection, economic development, and public open space. ■ Affordable Housing. The quality of the neighborhoods, and housing stock within them, are key indicators of a high quality of life. The insufficient and aging housing stock, and increasing ' demands for alternative housing types, will continue to be important trends influencing policies. • Mixed -Use Developments. There is a growing demand for development that is mixed-use, ' well-designed, walkable, and higher density. These developments are an important opportunity for redevelopment, infill, and new developments in strategic areas. • Public -Private Partnership. The lack of public infrastructure, coupled with the desire to maintain healthy neighborhoods and business areas, support the need for the County to work with the private sector in the land development process. Growth and change in Kona will be the result of public and private partnerships. • Emphasis on Redevelopment. To preserve open space, existing developments are expected to be infilled and redeveloped. • Emphasis on Rural Character and Agriculture. There is a long-standing need to protect the rural lifestyle of Kona, which includes mauka Villages and surrounding agricultural lands and open space. Related trends can also be found in the Section 4.5 Housing. 4.2.2 Overall Strategy The current application of State and County land use regulations is not necessarily an integrated approach. The preference to encourage future urban and rural growth to occur in the form of compact, village -style development was a very strong message from the public meetings. The Kona CDP provides an integration mechanism as a means to avoid the current trend toward sprawling lot -density developments, disconnected subdivisions and business centers, and a general decline in the quality of life that people believe reflects the "Kona Way of Life." The overall land use strategy is to proactively implement public policy through a regional framework for growth. While respecting landowner entitlements, this framework provides additional direction so that individual planning decisions are made as part of a larger, integrated program for achieving an efficient growth pattern, optimizing investment in services and infrastructure, protecting the natural environment and cultural resources, and creating opportunities to enhance the quality of life for Kona's residents. KONA CDP 4-31 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Such a framework provides greater certainty and predictability for the community, government, and private sector, allowing all three to participate in a synchronized move towards a mutually planned future. The legally binding policies in this section, as defined in 4.0 Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions, do not override or invalidate existing zoning. Such legally binding policies, however, shall be implemented with new changes of zone, time extensions on existing zoning requiring County Council action, state land use boundary amendments, and Special Management Area (SMA) permits, when applicable. Where such policies modify subdivision standards and requirements, they would only apply to subdivision applications received after the effective date of the ordinance enacting the Kona CDP. Variances to policies modifying subdivision standards and requirements may be applied for in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in the Subdivision Code. Establishment of priorities for the investment of public resources for new infrastructure and services will be linked to the regional land use framework. The regional land use framework, restated from the Guiding Principles (Section 3.2) is as follows: • Urban Area. Most of the future growth in Kona will be directed to an Urban Area (UA) defined in the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7). Within this Kona Urban Area, growth would be directed to compact villages located along proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development. The general locations of these villages are within the Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) identified during the public meetings that evolved into the Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs). • Rural Area. Outside of the Kona Urban Area, the character of the rural areas should prevail. This means that limited future growth should be directed to the existing rural towns and villages in a way that revitalizes and enhances the existing rural lifestyle and culture of those communities. Outside of these towns and villages, the protection of important !K agricultural land is a priority objective. Protecting Map identifying the Growth Opportunity Areas these lands requires regulations and incentives that (GOAs). will keep these lands available for agricultural use. Any development outside of the rural towns and villages should be directed to suitable areas that are not important for agriculture, in clustered patterns that will optimize the preservation of rural open space. • Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. Within and outside the Kona Urban Area, the LUPAG map designates areas for resort, high density urban, medium density urban, 4-32 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE low density urban, industrial, and university areas. The plan supports these existing designations. Any amendments to the LUPAG map not consistent with the Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map would be contrary to the land use framework envisioned by this plan. ' Green Areas. The areas where growth should not occur also determines the framework and pattern of growth. These areas are identified and discussed in Section 4.3 Environmental ■ Resources. The following "tools" are used to conform growth to the land use framework: To encourage growth towards the Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs): a) Design Flexibility. To collaboratively learn and apply the best available practices, a Design Center (See Policy LU -4.1) will provide an inviting venue to brainstorm ideas among applicants, government officials, and community members. The Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B) provide the minimum standards for TODs/TNDs, but do not rigidly constrain creativity. b) Streamlined Permit Processing. • Flexible approval. The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) approximately locates the TODs, but it does not change the existing zoning until a rezoning with an approved master plan for the TOD defines the metes and bounds of this TOD. In other words, the TODs are "floating" zones that subsequently need to be anchored by rezoning to a specific area. However, as long as the proposed rezoning conforms with the Kona CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative rezoning approval should be expedited. Subsequent refinements in the master plan can then be done by administrative approval. ■ Concurrent environmental review. An Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), usually triggered by use of public lands or public funds, will accompany the master plan and will be reviewed at the same time. By doing the environmental review at the master plan level, subsequent projects within the TOD will be relieved of this requirement. ■ Concurrent State Land Use Boundary Amendment. In cases where a State Land Use Boundary Amendment is necessary, the County will assist with the petition and processing. • Permit coordination. For those applicants who use the services of the Design Center, a County employee will be assigned to assist in identifying the various permit requirements, suggest a work plan to coordinate the permit requirements, and follow through with various agencies to avoid delays. c) Increased Range of Permitted Uses and Densities. As an incentive, the TODs substantially increase the permitted uses and densities over the existing zoning. In partial return for this additional density, the master plan will need to incorporate a minimum level of affordable housing (discussed further in the Section 4.5 Housing), provide a variety of open spaces within the TOD, and preserve open space around the TOD, in perpetuity. KONA CDP 4-33 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS d) Prioritized Essential Infrastructure. Government capital improvements programs will give priority to servicing the TODs, particularly with regard to roads, water, and sewer (discussed further in Section 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services). Where regional drainage systems are appropriate, the County will coordinate such improvements. e) Public Financing of Infrastructure. In recognition of the regional benefits of major roads and transit stations, these types of improvements within TODs shall be funded with general revenue funding sources. f) Concurrency Requirements. The TOD Village Master Plan will control the provision of infrastructure relative to build out. Therefore, the countywide concurrency requirements will be met for projects within TODs. g) Vested Rights. A TOD Village Master Plan, based on the Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B), will be built out over a number of years. Investors require certainty; in return, the community and government expect performance on promises. The reciprocal commitments set forth in the master plan would be secured by a development agreement that will include a Phasing Plan. The agreement will specify the developers commitment to provide certain public facilities. In return, government will provide a commitment to complete certain public infrastructure by a certain date. h) Redevelopment Authority. In order to spur the redevelopment of Kailua Village as a TOD, redevelopment can be stimulated and coordinated by either an expanded business improvement district or the establishment of a redevelopment authority. 2. To encourage village -style development outside of TODs within the Urban Area: a) Already Zoned. For undeveloped areas already zoned residential, commercial, or industrial, the intent is to encourage a more creative mix of uses and density, by clustering to create open spaces and pedestrian -oriented streetscapes. The Kona CDP creates an overlay zone for these areas to allow an administrative review of a master plan consistent with Village Design Guidelines. . b) Need Rezoning. For areas zoned agricultural within the Kona Urban Area (UA), a new type of Project District (as defined in the Chapter 25 Zoning Code) is created called the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND).. Although rezoning through a legislative process is required, the advantages would be similar to a TOD: design flexibility, concurrent environmental reviews and State Land Use Boundary Amendments, Design Center services, increased range of permitted uses and density, concurrency waivers, development agreement options to negotiate public improvements commitments and other terms. 4-34 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE 3. To encourage rural clustered subdivisions: a) Streamlined Processing. By following the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (Attachment C), many issues are pre -settled and therefore a shorter definite permit processing time period is justified. The master plan approval also serves as the tentative subdivision approval. By using the Design Center, the applicant also receives the benefit of a county employee assigned to assist with permit coordination. b) Alternative Standards. The Clustered Rural Subdivision guidelines provide options for alternate road and wastewater standards. 4.2.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Land Use Goal: Public policies set the foundation and framework within which the community and private sector work collaboratively towards a shared vision of concentrating growth within urban villages in North Kona, preserving rural character and agricultural lands, protecting significant natural and cultural resources, providing a range of housing opportunities, and a process to constructively, efficiently, and fairly achieve these ends with the best practices and ' Objective LU -1: Overall Growth Pattern. To identify areas where higher intensity growth areas should occur and areas where the rural character and open space along the shoreline should be ' preserved. Policy LU -1.1: Official Kona Land Use Map. The Official Kona Land Use Map shall define the Kona Urban Area (see Policy LU -1.2) and the general locations, spacing, and type of TOD Villages (see Policies TRAN-1.3 and LU -2.3). Action LU -1.1 a: Adopts Official Kona Land Use Map (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -1.2: Urban Area. The majority of future growth in Kona shall be directed to the ' Kona Urban Area shown on the Official Kona Land Use Map (See Figure 4-7), which spans from the Kona International Airport to Keauhou subject to the policies set forth under Objective LU -2 Urban Area Growth Management. Action LU -1.2a: Defines Kona Urban Area (Enacted by plan). ' Policy LU -1.3: Rural Area. The rural area consists of the lands outside of the Kona Urban Area. Future growth in this area shall be concentrated within and around the existing LUPAG medium and low density areas, which correspond to the existing rural towns. Action LU -1.3a: County shall work with State to identify lands that may be appropriate to reclassify from Agriculture to Rural, consistent with Kona CDP ' Policies (PD, on-going). KONA CDP 4-35 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACTIONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-36 KONA CDP Keahole LEGEND Kona Urban Area' Rural Town TODs' Proposed Transit Line - -- Trunk Secondary TOD Type' Neighborhood Regional Center Existing Roadway Policy Layer 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 1 inch equals 1 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. i Village `i oa Village _ - 7_ �s e ■ L H_onokohau Village �.e s� Keahuolu Village s. �Makaeo aVillage Kailua Village Redev 10\ti Kailua Keauhou Kaawaloa Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE Policy LU -1.4: Consistency with Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG). The current LUPAG accommodates the vision and needs for the Kona CDP area planning horizon and should be amended only for compelling reasons. Any rezoning application shall be consistent with the LUPAG. Policy LU -1.5: Enhanced Shoreline Setback. Beyond the 40 foot shoreline setback regulated by Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 205A Part III, the County shall explore alternatives (e.g., density transfer based on gross density) for the applicant of a Special Management Area (SMA) Major Permit to dedicate to the government or land trust or encumber as open space for the purpose of realizing a shoreline linear park along as much of Kona's coastline as possible. Consistent with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and County of Hawai'i General Plan policy to retain open space and protect natural resources along with public access to and along the shoreline, it shall be a priority of the County to maintain a minimum of 1,000 -foot open space no -build setback for undeveloped lands adjacent to the shoreline, on parcels which currently exceed 1,000 feet in depth, in discretionary land use approvals such as SMA major permits, rezonings, and state land use boundary amendments. Structures makai of this setback should be for public recreation and ocean -dependent facilities such as harbor improvements. Action LU -1.5a: Review rezoning and SMA applications pursuant to Policy LU - 1.4 (PD, on-going). Action LU -1.5 b: Identify priority shorelines for increased setback as part of Policy ENV -2.1 Open Space Network Program (PD, PR, 1-2). Policy LU -1.6: 17 -Mile Protected Coastline: As part of any discretionary land use approvals such as SMA major permits, rezonings, and state land use boundary amendments, implement the vision of a 15 mile long protected stretch of open coastline from Makaeo north to Kikaua Pt. at the Kuki'o development. Most of this area is already publicly owned and much of it has already been set aside for park purposes. This incorporates the Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historical Park, the portion of Kohanaiki that will be deeded to the County under the terms of the existing SMA permit, the makai portion of O'oma 2, NELHA and state lands makai of the airport runway, to the extent that they can be used for public recreation consistent with the requirements of NELHA and the airport, the Kekaha Kai State Park, and Makalawena. (Enacted by plan) Objective LU -2: Urban Area Growth Management. Recognizing that the LUPAG Urban Area is larger than needed in order to accommodate the projected growth within the planning horizon, future growth within the Urban Area shall be encouraged in a pattern of compact villages at densities that support public transit. Policy LU -2.1: Village Types Defined—Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) vs. Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs). Both TODs and TNDs are compact mixed-use villages, characterized by a village center within a higher -density urban core, KoNA CDP 4-39 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS roughly equivalent to a 5 -minute walking radius (1/4 mile), surrounded by a secondary mixed- use, mixed -density area with an outer boundary roughly equivalent to a 10 -minute walking radius from the village center (1/2 mile). The distinction between a TOD and TND is that the approximate location of a TOD is currently designated on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) along the trunk or secondary transit route and contains a transit station, while TND locations have not been designated and may be located off of the trunk or secondary transit route at a location approved by a rezoning action. Action LU -2.1a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to define TODs and TNDs (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.1b: Conduct public workshop to educate community, including landowners, developers, and the public about TODITND Villages (PD, R&D, DC, 1.2). Action LU -2.1c: Work with landowners, through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Village Design Guidelines (PD, on-going). Policy LU -2.2: TODITND Components. The components of a TODITND include Urban Core, Secondary Core, and Greenbelt. A TOD/TND contains a higher density urban core surrounded by a lower density secondary area. A greenbelt will, in turn, surround and define the outer edge of the secondary area. (Enacted by plan) 1. Urban Core: To control the scale and intensity of development within the urban core of a TOD/TND, there shall be two types of urban cores: a. Regional Center. Regional centers are intended for mixed use and higher - density residential, retail, commercial, employment, and/or regional one -of -a - URBAN CORE SECONDARY AREA GREENBELT TOD COMPONENTS kind facilities, such as major civic, medical, education, and entertainment facilities. Regional centers shall be designed around a Commercial Center, which is the focus for the Village and designed to encourage pedestrian activity. b. Neighborhood Village. Neighborhood Village Core Areas are intended for predominately residential, public/civic uses, or small-scale neighborhood -oriented commercial uses. The Core's commercial uses are of a small scale and are intended to serve the needs of the Village residents. Neighborhood Village Core Areas shall be designed around a Neighborhood Center. Land uses include recreational space, small-scale public/civic uses, neighborhood oriented retail uses, and mixed-use. 4-40 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE ' 2. Secondary Area: TODs/TNDs may be surrounded by more auto -oriented, lower -density areas called "Secondary Areas." The Secondary Areas are within a half -mile of the TOD/TND urban core. These Secondary Areas take advantage of the services within the ' Urban Core through an interconnected street system with easy access to transit by foot, bike or car. Secondary Areas will be primarily comprised of standard single-family and multi -family neighborhoods. These areas may also provide more land -extensive uses that ' serve TOD/TND residents, such as schools and community parks. Because of their proximity to the Urban Core, Secondary Areas are ideal for bicycle travel. ' 3. Greenbelt. The Greenbelt is an undeveloped area surrounding the Secondary Area. The Greenbelt is a strategic planning tool to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purpose of the Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl of the TODs/TNDs, prevent neighboring towns from merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and the character of the TODs/TNDs. The Greenbelt may also serve multi-purpose uses, such as for drainage (e.g., flow ways or retention basins), sensitive resource preserves or ' wildfire protection buffers. Policy LU -2.3: TODs Identified. To control the spacing of transit stations in support of Policy ' TRAN-1.2, TOD floating zones, identifying the general location of TOD, shall be limited to the following, as shown on the Official Kona Land Use Map (See Figure 4-7): 1. University Village (Regional Center). The goal is to use the university as a catalyst for complementary commercial opportunities surrounding the campus and to attract ' students, faculty, and staff to live on or near campus. The university would hopefully be a center for cultural and performing arts, life-long learning, innovation, and workforce development that would benefit the broader community. 2. Kalaoa Village (Neighborhood) 3. Kaloko Makai Village (Neighborhood) 4. Honokohau Village (Regional Center). The County Civic Center shall be one part of a centralized government service center with surrounding complementary office and retail. The area would serve as an appropriate location for a regional park that would include active recreation facilities and a multi-purpose auditorium. 5. Keahuolu Village (Neighborhood) 6. Makaeo Village (Regional Center). A major retail center is planned near the Old Airport Park. As a mixed use village, the plan is to introduce residential uses into the mix, design a complementary relationship to the Old Airport Park, and to integrate a transit hub or major park and ride facility for commuters (primarily resort workers). 7. Kailua Village Redevelopment (Regional Center) In recognition of the importance of Kailua Village as the cultural, retail and visitor core of the Kona District, redevelopment KoNA CDP 4-41 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS of the area shall be a high priority. The majority of Kona's urban affordable housing is located close to the Village Center, but much of this housing is in poor condition. The availability of infrastructure in the Village offers the opportunity to provide new, high density affordable housing for the resident workforce. Redevelopment plans shall consider the following: location of a transit hub, enhanced pedestrian -oriented improvements along Ali'i Drive, centralized public parking strategically located in relation to shuttle routes, and village design guidelines. 8. Pua`a — Wai`aha Village (Neighborhood) 9. Kahului — Puapua`a Village (Neighborhood) 10. Kahalu`u Makai Village (Neighborhood) Action LU -2.3a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to define TODs and TNDs (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.3b: Initiate redevelopment plan for Kailua Village. Consider the establishment of redevelopment authority, pursuant to HRS Chapter 53 (Urban Renewal). Partner with the Kailua Village Business Improvement District program in preparing the re -development plan (PD, KVDC, KVBID, 3-5). Policy LU -2.4: Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Floating Zones Established. The TOD's extent and locations on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) are approximate and become fixed pursuant to the Project District rezoning procedures as modified below: 1) Minimum land area. The minimum land area for a new community shall be 80 acres, which corresponds to the urban and secondary core, plus a density transfer area proposed in the master plan to set an urban boundary limit. 2) Project District Rezoning Application. In addition to the requirements specified for a Project District application, the application shall include the following: a. Master Plan. To the extent practicable, the master plan shall conform with the Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B) and at a minimum address: i. Mix of permitted uses and density; ii. Transportation systems including street layout and standards, transit routes and facilities, and bike and pedestrian pathways; iii. Village center public facilities and financing; iv. Infrastructure requirements, financing, and timing; v. Neighborhood park and public space standards; vi. Phasing plan; vii. Calculation and treatment of density transfer area; viii. Planning process, including extent of consultation with the Design Center. 4-42 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE ' b. An environmental report meeting the requirements of HRS Chapter 343. 3) Expedited Review. Within ninety (90) days after a project district application has been ' accepted by the Planning Director, the Director shall forward the application to the Planning Commission. 4) Environmental Review Concurrent Processing. The Planning Director shall enable and allow the applicant to concurrently process the environmental document according to the procedures of HRS Chapter 343. 5) State Land Use Boundary Amendment Concurrent Processing. If a State Land Use District Boundary Amendment is necessary, the Planning Director may accept the application, review the application to determine consistency with the decision criteria below, suspend the processing of the Project District until a decision is made by the State Land Use Commission, and express the County's support of the application before the ' State Land Use Commission as consistent with the Kona CDP and County of Hawai'i General Plan. The Project District process may then immediately resume upon favorable approval by the State Land Use Commission. 6) Development Agreement. A development agreement pursuant to Hawai'i County Code may be used to memorialize reciprocal agreements among the several parties responsible for implementing the plan, including the County, and thereby vest the rights as set forth in the Development Agreement. ' 7) Planning Commission Review. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application from the Planning Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall transmit the proposed project district ordinance together with its recommendation thereon through the Mayor to the County Council. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or rejection of such proposal, based on the following criteria: a. Extent to which the master plan meets the intent and objectives of the Village Design Guidelines; b. Extent, inclusiveness, and mix of affordable housing; c. Feasibility of the infrastructure financing plan; d. Effectiveness of concurrency controls; ' e. Compatible linkages and relationships to surrounding areas; f. Effectiveness in optimizing and protecting open space within the density transfer area. ' 8) Rebuttable Presumption. The Planning Director, Planning Commission, and County Council shall review the TOD application with a rebuttable presumption that the project ' furthers the intent of Chapter 25 Zoning Code and is consistent with the goals, objectives, and policies of the County General Plan and Kona CDP, provided that the proposed location is generally consistent with the Official Kona Land Use Map and the master plan ' consistent with the Village Design Guidelines. This rebuttable presumption does not apply ' KONA CDP 4-43 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS to a TND application since the general location of a TND has not been determined by the Kona CDP 9) Amendments. Amendments to the master plan shall be processed administratively by approval of the Planning Director, unless the changes are significant as determined by the Planning Director. Action LU -2.4a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to establish TOD floating zone project district (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -2.5: Village Design Guidelines. The Village Design Guidelines in Attachment B apply to the development of master plans for TODs and TNDs, as well as subsequent projects implementing the master plans. The intent of the Village Design Guidelines are to do the following: 1. Promote transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented development, to increase transit use, to manage traffic congestion, 2.- Encourage mixed-use, compact development that is pedestrian in scale and sensitive to environmental characteristics of the land, and facilitates the efficient use of public services; 3. Have residences, shopping, employment, and recreational uses located within close proximity with each other and efficiently organized to provide for the daily needs of the residents; 4. Provide for a range of housing types and affordability within pedestrian -oriented, human -scale neighborhoods; 5. Incorporate natural features, open space, and cultural features; 6. Provide efficient circulation systems for pedestrians, non -motorized vehicles, and motorists that serve to functionally and physically integrate the various land use activities; and 7. Promote strong neighborhood identity and focus. The Village Design Guidelines establish: 1. An acceptable mix of uses for regional centers, neighborhood core areas, and secondary areas; 2. Minimum as well as maximum residential densities; 3. Non -permitted uses in the urban core that are primarily automobile -dependent that detract from a walkable town center; 4. Pedestrian -oriented street standards, supplementing County of Hawaii Street Standards; 5. Nomenclature of public facilities and siting criteria that serve as the town focus; 6. Density transfer calculation methodology; and 7. Transportation standards. Action LU -2.5a: Adoption of Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B) (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.5b: Continually improve and refine the Village Design Guidelines (PD, DC, on-going). 4-44 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE ' Policy LU -2.6: TOD/TND Public Infrastructure and Facilities. To encourage the development of TODs and TNDs, public financing sources shall pay 100% for: • Major proposed trunk transit route, ' • A transit station (or transit station component if the transit station is part of a private mixed- use project) within the Urban Core , ' ■ A major park or plaza within the urban core. In the preparation of the master plan, the applicant shall coordinate the input of appropriate ' agencies to identify sites and financing of appropriate public facilities such as schools, libraries, and post offices, with respective financial commitments between public and private sources documented in the master plan. The County water allocation and capital improvement policies in Section 4.6: Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services, Policy PUB4.1 shall further support the development of the TODs. ' Action LU -2.6a: Negotiate the respective cost-sharing of the appropriate public facilities (DC, applicants, on-going). Action LU -2.6b: Program funding of major transit routes, transit stations, and major parks within urban core in coordination with proposed TOD build -out (PD, Fin., on-going). Policy LU -2.7: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Floating Zone Established. Where as the locations of TODs are conceptually determined by the Official Kona Land Use Map, the locations of TNDs are proposed by applicants outside of the TODs within the Kona Urban Area (UA). Because of the need to review the specific suitability at the time of proposal, TND floating ' zones shall not have the rebuttable presumption of a TOD; otherwise, rezoning procedures shall be the same as a TOD Project District. ' Policy LU -2.8: Development Outside Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs), but within the Kona Urban Area. Development outside the TODs, but within the Kona UA; may occur as follows: ' 1. Existing Zoning a. TND Overlay. Any project greater than 20 acres on land zoned Single-family residential (RS), Multiple residential (RM), Residential -Commercial Mixed Use (RCX), General ' Commercial (CG), Village Commercial (CV), or Neighborhood Commercial (CN), shall be permitted to develop as a neighborhood TND following the procedures for a PUD and the Village Design Guidelines. b. Non -TND Projects. Any project may be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, subject to the following requirements: ' i. Parks (See Policy PUB -6.2.) ii. Affordable Housing. Resale restrictions on affordable units built in compliance with ' HCC Chapter 11 (See Policy HSG -5.2). KONA CDP 4-45 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS iii. Street Standards. Connectivity standards (see Policy TRAN-2.1), street standards (see Policy TRAN-3.1), and traffic calming standards (see Policy TRAN-3.7). iv. Wastewater. Priority sewer area (see Policy PUB -4.4). v. Concurrency. The requirements of Hawaii County Code Section 25-2-46 and Policy TRAN-6.1. vi. Sensitive Resources. Survey of potential sensitive resources (see Policy ENV -1.5). 2. Rezoning a. TND. Any project greater than 20 acres within the Kona UA may apply for the TND Floating Zone. b. Conventional Rezoning. Rezoning to other than TND, is subject to the following guidelines: i. Consistency with LUPAG. Refer to Policy LU -1.3. ii. Infill. Rezonings that promote infill are encouraged. The concept of infill is to connect two or more pre-existing developments. Infill is usually associated with small scale developments of 20 acres or less that have been leapfrogged by the surrounding or adjacent developments. Infill rezonings should be conditioned to ensure connectivity to the surrounding developments and, where applicable, to provide mixed-use opportunities to make the area more walkable. iii. "Greenfields" Rezoning. Rezoning anywhere within the Kona UA, whether within or outside a TOD area designated on Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map, that is not a TOD, TND, or infill shall require an amendment to the Kona CDP that triggers HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review Process. c. State Land Use. Where a rezoning application meets the above criteria, the County shall support a State Land Use Urban Boundary amendment for lands within the County Urban Expansion Area. Action LU -2.8a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to create a TND overlay zone for existing zoned lands within the specified residential and commercial zoning districts (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.8b: Review subdivision and plan approval applications pursuant to requirements for parks, housing, street standards, wastewater, and concurrency (PD, on-going). Action LU -2.8c: Review conventional rezoning applications pursuant to Policy LU -2.8 (1)(b) (PD, on-going). Objective LU -3: Rural Area Growth Management. To preserve the rural character of the existing rural towns, the agricultural lifestyle, and the open landscape. 4-46 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy LU -3.1: Redevelopment of Rural Towns as TODs/TNDs. The rural towns along Mamalahoa Highway, consisting of Holualoa, Honalo, Kainaliu, Kealakekua, and Captain Cook, are encouraged to be redeveloped as TODs/TNDs. The master plan for TOD/TND redevelopment shall: a) identify the site and appropriate design character of a transit stop or station, as applicable; b) identify other public facilities that would enhance the civic and economic vitality of these towns; c) encourage innovative opportunities to provide affordable housing and live/work opportunities; and d) improve pedestrian -friendliness of the streetscape. To the extent practicable, the TOD/TND master plan shall follow the Village Design Guidelines in Attachment B. The master plan shall be the basis for any comprehensive rezoning, capital improvement program, and/or business improvement district for facilities or services. ' Action LU -3.1a: Initiate community organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public, on the opportunities of TODs/TNDs for each of the towns (R&D, PD, on-going). Action LU -3.1b: Prepare town master plan(s) (PD, MT, town entity, 5-10). Policy LU -3.2: Revitalization of Other Existing Rural Villages. Rural Villages such as Honaunau, Napo'opo'o, Kealia, and Miloli'i are also encouraged to develop community-based revitalization master plans that would serve as the basis for any comprehensive rezoning, capital improvement program, and/or business improvement district for facilities or services. Action LU -3.2a: Initiate community organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public on the opportunities of TODs/TNDs for each of the rural villages (R&D, PD, 3.5). Action LU -3.2b: Prepare village master plan(s) (PD, village entity, 5-10). LAND USl.- Aloha Theatre in Kainaliu. I Manago Hotel. Nancy Pisicchio 1 KONA CDP 4-47 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POL/C/ES, AND ACT/ONS Policy LU -3.3: Clustered Rural Subdivision Project Unit Development (PUD). Provided a PUD application for rural- or agriculturally -zoned land substantially meets the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines in Attachment C, the Planning Director shall issue approval, with or without conditions within sixty (60) days after acceptance of the application, and the approval shall be considered a tentative subdivision approval. All other requirements and procedures of a PUD shall be as set forth in Article 6 of the Zoning Code. Action LU -3.3a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code and Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to establish Clustered Rural Subdivision PUD (Enacted by plan) Policy LU -3.4: Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. The Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines in Attachment C apply to proposed subdivisions outside of the Kona Urban Area (UA). The intent of the guidelines is to minimize grading, preserve the natural appearance of the land to the maximum extent possible, ensure agriculture use in the State Land Use Agricultural District, and create a rural setting for residences. Towards this end, the guidelines shall, at a minimum, specify: 1. Minimum lot sizes; 2. Natural and cultural resources meriting protection and associated buffer areas, as applicable; 3. Minimum standards for roads and wastewater disposal; 4. Legal tools for permanent protection, maintenance of open space, and/or agricultural lands; 5. Connections to the open spaces of surrounding areas. Action LU -3.4a: Adopts Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (on-going). Action LU -3.4b: Continually improve and refine the guidelines (PD, DC, on- going). Action LU -3.4c: Work with State to allow individual home sites smaller than one acre on lands classified as Agricultural so as to increase the flexibility of the Clustered Rural Subdivision Program (PD, OSP, on-going). Policy LU -3.5: Encourage Clustered Rural Subdivision for IAL Lands Less Than 5 Acres. Any subdivision of important agricultural land (IAL) lands involving 30 acres or more currently zoned at densities between Ag -1a to Ag -5a and FA are encouraged to follow the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines in order to prevent sprawling, large-scale residential subdivision of these lands. Action LU -3.5a: Review subdivision application for lands with existing zoning Ag -1a to Ag -5a and FA pursuant to Policy LU -3.5 (PD, on-going). 4-48 4 KONA CDP I CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE ' Action LU -3.5b: Work with landowners through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (PD, on- going). ' Policy LU -3.6: Subdivision on Agriculturally -Zoned Land Served by a Private Water System. When granting any subdivision water variance served by a private water system to allow a subdivision involving 30 acres or more, a condition of the variance should be to follow ' the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. (Enacted by Plan) ' Policy LU -3.7: Farmworker Housing. Agricultural employee housing where the employee works a minimum of 20 hours a week on a farm is permitted on agriculturally zoned lands where the housing and the farm are not on the same parcel. Action LU -3.7a: Reviewing Agricultural Employee Housing proposals pursuant to Policy LU -3.7 (PD, on-going). ' Policy LU -3.8: Rezoning Outside of Urban and Rural TODs and Outside of GP LUPAG Urban Area. Rezoning of areas currently zoned agricultural, outside of the Urban and Rural ' TOD areas shown on Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map, and outside of urban designations on the General Plan LUPAG, shall not be allowed, except in the following limited circumstances: (1) the rezoning allows only a small number of additional lots, consistent in ' scale with the transfer of lots to family members, (2) the rezoning does not create a net increase in the potential number of agricultural lots (such as a rezoning that increases potential density in one area but also reduces density in another), or (3) the rezoning is to permit a ' subdivision consistent with the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines, while preserving the majority of the property in non-residential use dedicated to agriculture, open space, or other conservation purposes, and does not have the primary effect of allowing subdivision into lots ' smaller than allowed by existing zoning. This policy is intended to prevent the rezoning of agricultural property to allow agricultural subdivisions where the primary objective of the lot owner will be to have a residential estate. ' Action LU -3.8a: Review rezoning applications with higher burden of justification pursuant to Policy LU -3.8 (PD, on-going). ' Objective LU -4: Pro -active Design Review. To foster a spirit of excellence, creativity and ' collaboration among the applicants, community, and County to meet the Kona CDP goals, objectives and policies. Policy LU -4.1: Design Center Establishment. The County Planning Department shall establish a Design Center to accomplish the following objectives: ' 1. To support and expedite the translation and implementation of the Kona CDP goals, objectives, 'policies, actions, and design guidelines as applied to proposed development projects; ' 2. To be a catalyst for creative excellence and innovation; 1 KoNA CDP 4-49 CHAPTER 4 GOALS; OBJECT/VES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 3. To foster public-private partnerships;, 4. To promote coordination and collaboration among the community, government agencies, applicants, landowners, professionals, and educational institutions; 5. To provide education on best design practices to applicants, government staff, community members, educators and students; and, 6. To award and recognize exemplary projects. Although the Design Center will be administered by the Planning Department and staffed by County employees, the department may organize a technical committee of interdisciplinary volunteers. Action LU4.1a: As an option, consider budgeting and hiring independent contractor(s) to determine the structure of the Design Center and to establish a pilot program. During this interim period, the independent contractor will provide recommendations to the Planning Director for land use applications requiring Design Center review (PD, 1-2). Action LU4.1 b: Create and fund positions to staff the Design Center (PD, 2.3). Policy LU -4.2: Mandatory Review. The Design Center shall review and approve all master plans prepared for floating zones (TODs(TNDs, Affordable Housing, Eco -Industrial) and Clustered Rural Subdivision PUDs. Projects implementing these master plans, as well as any other project within the Kona CDP planning area, are encouraged, but not required, to be reviewed by the Design Center. Action LU -4.2a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to require mandatory Design Center review (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -4.3: Expedited Permit Processing. For projects reviewed by the Design Center, a staff member of the Design Center may be assigned to coordinate and expedite permit approvals for the proposed project. Action LU4.3a: Assign and train staff (PD, 1-2). 4-50 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES The Environmental Resources section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies, and actions to guide the management and protection of Kona's environmentally sensitive areas. It will become important to focus on creative solutions that protect the environment while allowing for growth, redevelopment, and increase densities in strategic areas. 4.3.1 Existing Conditions Mapping of various resources in the Kona region has been on-going for many years. With advancing computer technology, such Geographic Information System (GIS), much of the available information has been incorporated in computer databases. While the geographic detail made possible by such computer mapping gives the sense that such mapped information is comprehensive, accurate and reliable, it is not always the case. The actual level of accuracy ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Guiding Principles Environment 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. ✓ L8P6. Promote effective governance. ✓ and reliability varies widely. It is important to continually improve the state of knowledge and track changes by documenting the source and methodology of the data collection. The mapping data for the environmental resources collected for this plan come from the following sources: 1. Regulatory map with defined procedures to map and amend: • Flood Insurance Rate Map (regulated under the Floodplain Management Code, Hawai'i County Code Chapter 27) 2. Legally mandated inventories yet to be completed: • Trails—Under the Na Ala Hele statewide trail and access program, the Department of Land and Natural Resources is required to "inventory all trails and accesses in the State, whether wholly or partly on public or private lands and whether or not under the jurisdiction of the department" (HRS Section 198D-3). • Historic sites—The State Historic Preservation Division is required to develop an inventory of historic properties (any structure or site over fifty years old) and burial sites (HRS Section 6E-3). 3. Voluntarily compiled databases that lack a comprehensive management system for verification and maintenance: • Critical Habitats: Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follows a formal procedure to designate a critical habitat, there is no formai procedure to provide a map to the County permit agencies; ' KONA CDP 4-51 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 4 GOALS. OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Coastal Resources and Water Quality Monitoring Stations: GIS data on coastal resources compiled by the University of Hawai'i at Hilo for the Planning Department; location of State Department of Health (DOH) water quality monitoring stations (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOH (State GIS Program) Anchialine Ponds: Data digitally representing occurrences of anchialine ponds that were recorded by Hawai'i Natural Heritage Program, between 1970 — 2000 (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division (University of Hilo, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies) Native Habitats: The Hawai'i Natural Heritage Program (HNHP) collects information on the location and condition of HawaiTs rare animals, plants, and natural communities (ecosystems) (Source: Hawai'i Natural Heritage Program (November 2005). Information in the database spans from the 1800's to present day. Data summarizes species current and historical ranges, decline or increase in the number of individuals, recorded habitat and observed threats. The HNHP database includes four categories: Natural Communities, Special Vertebrates, Special Invertebrates, and Special Plants. The HNHP database includes only rare occurrences. A natural community is considered rare and imperiled if it is known from 20 or fewer localities or if it covers less than 2,000 acres in the world. For plants and animals, the HNHP defines taxon as rare if records indicate that its current distribution or abundance is limited, i.e. it is known from 20 or fewer locations or fewer than 3,000 individuals have been observed in the wild.) 4.3.2 Overall Strategy People in Kona have a growing ecological awareness and respect for their diverse resources — one that must be translated into a commitment to protect and manage these resources. This commitment will only be implemented by policies that are based on knowledge about our diverse resources as well as on humility that we do not know the full consequences of all that we do and err on the side of caution (precautionary principle), and on the understanding that all of us must assume some responsibility to do our part. The following strategy emerged from this attitude: Managing our Impacts. The reasons to minimize human impacts on natural resources are many, while many are yet to be known. Ecosystem services upon which our survival depends (e.g., clean drinking water) must be maintained. This concept was honored by Hawaii's earliest inhabitants, most clearly in the "mountain to sea" ahupua'a model of land use. This awareness and the larger reality of the intrinsic value and interconnectedness of all natural systems should be expanded upon and protected through education and intelligent land use policy. The Kona CDP's Land Use Policies are intended to limit both urban and rural sprawl and also serves to provide direct benefits toward managing our resources. a. Recognizing the Multi -Value Importance of the Mauka Lands. Before human contact, a . band of wet native forest thrived, extending from sea level to 6,000 feet in elevation (Atlas of 4-52 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, 'POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ' Hawai'i, 31d Edition). Beside being a habitat for native species, this forest "absorbed" much of the rain. This water that percolated into the ground and recharged the groundwater "reservoirs." As forests were cleared for pasture or other purposes, much of the rainfall that ' would have been absorbed now runs off the land surface. Recognizing the value of these mauka lands for its habitat, groundwater recharge, and stormwater management values, the objectives are to encourage the preservation of the forest that remains, the restoration of forest ' lands, as well as the innovative restoration of some of the innate functions of the cleared lands (e.g., detention basins that mitigate surface flow and promote groundwater recharge). ' b. Turning Stormwater Management Into An Asset. If the mauka lands are able to mitigate some of the surface stormwater runoff, there is still a challenge in managing stormwater runoff because of Kona's steep topography and undefined drainageways. The objective is to identify ' the drainageways where the major stormflows would be directed, provide a buffer to these drainageways to account for our imperfect knowledge, and to design these drainageways to function as recreational or open space amenities (e.g., linear parks). c. Not Exceeding the Limits of the Groundwater Resource. Compared to the wet, windward side of the island, Kona's basal groundwater resource is thin. The primary groundwater source ' is high-level groundwater; the extent of which as a resource is uncertain. The objectives are to conserve water, encourage alternative sources (e.g., reclaimed wastewater) for non -potable uses, and ensure adequate capacity of the County water system to serve the preferred growth ' areas set forth in the Land Use element (see Section 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services for these policies that apply to the County's water system). ' d. Integrating the Coastal Resources. Kona is blessed with unique anchialine ponds, beautiful sandy beaches, abundant coral reefs, and clear nearshore waters. What we do on the land ' impacts these coastal resources. The objectives are to manage the activities that are the major source of pollutants that reach the coastal waters through groundwater seepage or surface runoff, and to monitor the water quality to know when corrective action is in order. e. Protecting Sensitive Resources. Besides the mauka lands, there are other sensitive resources that need to be protected through regulations and/or incentives. The first step is to t classify what resources are "sensitive"—i.e., unique, rare, fragile, providing an essential support service, or other values. The second step is to develop a reliable inventory of these resources. This second step is a considerable challenge given the varying stage of accuracy ' and completeness of the available information for each resource. Nevertheless, a central data gathering system needs to be developed that continually improves the state of knowledge. ' 2. Managing Access as a Linked Network of Open Spaces. Not all open spaces should have unrestricted public access (e.g., forest reserves, sacred sites). Where public access is permitted, whether unrestricted or managed, the objective is to create a network of "hubs" (e.g., parks) and "links" (e.g., trails, bikeways). White reaffirming the Guiding Principle for expanded recreation opportunities, the vision is also for residents and visitors to have the option to walk or bike to a beach or park, as well as drive on a scenic route. t ' KONA CDP 4-53 Y CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 3. Prioritizing limited Financial Resources. a. Establishing Acquisition Priorities. The objective is to set clear priority criteria for land acquisition based on significance, extent of public use, or the extent of restrictions on other private use. 4. Ensuring Maintenance. Adequate funding shall be budgeted for proper maintenance, particularly for resources open to the public. 4.3.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Environmental Resources Goal. The natural and cultural resources enhance Kona's character together with the built environment, developed in harmony with ecological principles, where residents and visitors enjoy and interact with nature through a networked system that promotes a healthy active lifestyle, and where the financial and moral commitment reflects the high level of caring that the Kona people have for the land. Objective ENV -1: Managing Impacts. In order to minimize impacts on the land, make use of best management planning practices for any land-based endeavor by balancing public and private rights, and taking advantage of an ever -improving knowledge of resource sensitivity and natural processes. Policy ENV -1.1: Central Environmental Resources Inventory. The County should be a central repository of environmental resources GIS data (including the metadata documentation), assist in inventory creation where there are data gaps, and assist in maintenance where there are no assigned maintenance responsibilities. Action ENV -1.1a: Compile available GIS environmental data and make it available to the public (PD, DATA, on-going). Policy ENV -1.2: Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program. The Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program shall encompass the public and private lands mauka of Mamalahoa Highway (see Figure 4-8a). The purpose of this program is to synthesize the current knowledge of the mauka lands resources, develop a viable action plan to coordinate the various public agencies and private owners, and serve as the basis for establishing an ecosystem services incentives program. Such a program recognizes the ecosystem service value of our watershed and open space in our community to protect values such as aesthetics and scenic vistas; water catchment and infiltration; carbon sequestration; oxygen production; habitat enhancement and preservation; fire suppression and fuel load management; soil conservation; preservation of cultural values; and, potential for additional public access and recreational opportunities. The action plan shall be prepared by the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership, whose membership shall include at a minimum the affected public agencies and private landowners, a community representative(s), and the County. 4-54 KONA CDP Kaupulehu Makalawena Keahole Kai Keauhou Kaawaloa LEGEND — High -Level Groundwater, 1,500 ft. QKona Mauka Watershed Planning Area Private Nature Preserve Managed Public Lands Institutional Public Lands - Private lands OKona Urban Area ORural Town TODs 0 CDP Planning Area Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source, County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Kiholo Napoopoo Hookena BnM. Manuka Wpikoloa lin Cook unau i� Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-8a Environmental Resources Map - Kona Mauka Watershed Area 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ' The action plan shall be approved by the Kona CDP Implementation Committee (See Chapter 5). The action plan shall at a minimum address: ' • Existing Conditions—physical characteristics, hydrology and water use, biological resources, land ownership, existing land use and zoning; ' ■ Ahupua'a Watershed Values—water resources, native habitat, cultural resources, public access and outdoor recreation; • Threats—invasive species, feral ungulates, human activities, aquatic pollutants, wildfire, ' climate change; • Management Program—cooperative private initiatives, government programs, designation of suitable sending and receiving areas for density transfer, models of ' appropriate development, certification system to determine eligible ecosystem services incentives, grant administration. ' Action ENV -1.2a: Organize the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership (PD, 1-2). Action ENV -1.2b: Budget and hire contractor to coordinate and prepare Kona ' Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, 1-2). Action ENV -1.2c: Implement Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, ' 3.5). Policy ENV -1.3: Publicly -Owned Mauka Lands. All public lands mauka of Mamalahoa ' Highway should be managed with a holistic, multi-purpose approach for habitat preservation, groundwater source protection, and stormwater management, as coordinated by a Kona ' Mauka Watershed Partnership, based on a Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program. The objective is to reevaluate the need to broaden and integrate the management of those lands currently under a more focused management program (referred to as the "Managed ' Public Lands") and to initiate management program for those public lands not currently managed for environmental integrity (referred to as "Institutional Public Lands'). ' Action ENV -1.3a: Identify, inform, and educate affected public agencies to participate in the preparation of the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, 1-2). ' Policy ENV -1.4: Privately -Owned Mauka Lands. All private lands mauka of Mamalahoa Highway are eligible for ecosystem services incentives as set forth in the Kona Mauka ' Watershed Management Program, provided the landowner actively participates in the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership. Ecosystem services incentives include, without limitation: 1. Government funding. Payments from Federal, State, or County sources for a conservation easements; 2. Property tax credits for landowners. A new ecosystem services assessment class would result in minimum tax; KONA CDP 4-57 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 3. Grants. Grants administered by the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership would be available to help fund various ecosystem management activities such as constructing detention basins, controlling invasive species, mitigating wildfire threats, restoring native forests, and other activities consistent with the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program; 4. Government approval assistance. The Design Center staff shall be available to resolve any difficulties with obtaining approvals for ecosystem management activities, such as issues relating to the Conservation District, or in applying for various programs such as U.S. Forest Services' Forest Legacy Program. Action ENV -1.4a: Identify, inform, and educate affected private landowners to participate in the preparation of the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, 1.2). Action ENV -1.4b: Develop and establish ecosystems services incentives and a financing program, through the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, 1-2). Policy ENV -1.5: Sensitive Resources. In the context of Kona's ecology and history, the following natural and cultural resources shall be considered sensitive and therefore shall be inventoried, as part of any permit application to the County Planning Department (see Figures 4-8a to 4-8d): • Critical habitat areas as identified by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife or County General Plan; • Predominantly native ecosystems, which may not be considered endangered but are valued because of their nearly pristine condition; • Anchialine ponds subject to a management Program addressed in Policy ENV -1.10: Non - Degradation of Anchialine Ponds; • High-level groundwater recharge area which shall initially be defined as all lands mauka of the 1,500 foot elevation and which may be refined by the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program; • Historic trails; • Archaeological and historic sites subject to protection under HRS Chapter 6E ; and, • Enhanced Shoreline Setback. See Policy LU -1.5. Any permit application that encompasses any of the above resources shall strive to incorporate these resources as assets. If a proposed project will have significant, unavoidable, adverse impacts to any of the above resources, the presumption shall be denial of the application and the applicant will have the burden of explaining any overriding considerations. The presence of any of these resources shall qualify for density transfers based on potential gross density allowed by the prevailing zoning. The protection or restoration of any of these resources shall qualify for funding from the Kona Treasures Fund (see Policy ENV -3.3). (Enacted by plan) Policy ENV -1.6: Ecotourism and Other Mauka Lands Development. On LUPAG Extensive Agricultural lands, a special permit for an ecotourism-related or other non - 4 -58 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES agricultural use may be considered provided the proposed project is consistent with the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program and reviewed by the Design Center. If the project involves residential lots, then the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (Attachment C) should apply. Density transfers may be permitted between sending and receiving areas identified in the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program, including between non- contiguous parcels, as approved under the special permit or Clustered Rural Subdivision PUD process. Action ENV -1.6a: Enact appropriate mechanisms pursuant to Policy ENV -1.2 Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, 3.5). Policy ENV -1.7: Flood Corridors. The County's Central Environmental Resources Inventory (See Policy ENV-1.1)should include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 100 -year floodplains, as well as planned natural flow ways identified by the Stormwater Management Program (See Policy PUB — 4.7), where excess runoff from existing and future development will be directed. Collectively, the FIRM floodplains and the planned flow ways may serve as open space amenities, such as linear parks and/or greenbelts between urbanized areas. Action ENV -1.7a: Develop priorities and financing strategies to improve accuracy and comprehensiveness of flood mapping (DPW, 2-3). Action ENV -1.7b: Budget and hire contractor to study feasibility of regional stormwater management systems, such as flow ways (DPW, PD, 2.3). Action ENV -1.7c: Identify corridors to be recommended for public open space pursuant to Policy ENV -2.2 Open Space Network Program (PD, DPW, 3.5) Policy ENV -1.8: Multi -Purpose Flood Corridors. If the flood corridor serves regional multiple benefits the County should consider ownership and/or maintenance responsibility for the flood corridor, upon request of the affected landowner. Owners may participate in an adopt -a -flood corridor program to enhance the landscaping of the flood corridor fronting their property, preferably with appropriate native Hawaiian plants. Action ENV -1.8a: Establish guidelines for Adopt -a -Corridor Program (DPW, 1- 2). KONA CDP 4-59 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES - POLICIES, AND ACTIONS t This page intentionally left blank. 4-60 KONA CDP , Kiholo of Makalawena uuwaawaa' �_� 'eahole_ err .fib A 'tom\:��'••p,;"a 1�*• .. .: a 8000 tr4lti y , ., Kallua* .. .� ago Keauh • 3'1' _ ,,. .fes . __ 16 Kaawaloa Napoopoo Hookena LEGEND O KokDh, O Rural Tom TODs ONwkWm's Sphinx Moth O Kona Uduan Area OVarious Plants O CDP Planning Mea Vartabrabe _ Hawaii Creeper O Hawaii'Akepa - Hawaiian Chow. Male Hawaiian Stift. Ae'o -'Alae Kill 'oke 'o, Hawaiian Coot Plains - HAWAII FESCUE -A i - HMAPEPE ® HEAU - HEA E. AT O KAU" _ KAWA'U KO'OKO'OLAU. KOKO'OLAU _ MEH,tMEHAME PUA PILO, MAIAPILO - UHIUHI Mildll 0 'ATEA — 'AKOKO, KOKO, KOKOMALEI • Norllh a Kona Rare Species MEMENIZZzZZIM Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source: County of Hawaii, Hawaii Statewide GIS Manuka Program, and Hawaii Natural Heritage Program W" •M !ne • / • • • 0 �• iyOOOo 0 0 alio p 0, 0 0 o m 0 y00 --a- o 0000 04 0 e • J • �s N Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-8c Environmental Resources Map - Native Plants & Animals Kiholo Kaupulehu Makalawena Keahoie Keauhou Kaawaloa Napoopoo LEGEND Federal Park State Park Q DOH Water Quality Monitoring Station Flood Zones - Unofficial ® A ® X500 - Flood! Zone Unofficial LATEST_LOMR C Flood Zones - LOMC — Public Shoreline Access Marine Life Conservation District Whale Santuary ®Fish Management Area Na Ala Hele — Ala Kahakai Trail Kona Urban Area ORural Town TODs CDP Planning Area Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source: County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Hookena Ill Manuka t 1 Puuwaawaa ti Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-8d Environmental Resources Map - Other Resources CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Policy ENV -1.9: Setback Buffer from Flood Corridor. To account for nature's unpredictability, any structure as defined in Chapter 27 Floodplain Management Code shall be in compliance with Section 27-18(d)(5) (Ordinance 07-169). Action ENV -1.9a: Supports Chapter 27 pursuant to Policy ENV -1.9 (on-going). Kaloko Wall. Nancy Pisicchio. Policy ENV -1.10: Non -Degradation of Anchialine Ponds. Within the United States, these unique habitats are only found in Hawaii. Anchialine shall be eligible for the Kona Treasures Fund for restoration and maintenance, subject to the preparation of a maintenance and water quality monitoring plan. As wetlands, these resources merit heightened community vigilance for any violations of the federal law relating to the disturbance of wetlands. (Enacted by plan) Policy ENV -1.11: Anchialine Ponds Management Program. The County shall adopt the following strategies: 1. Conduct an inventory of anchialine ponds in Kona. 2. Develop management policy: a. Development projects must map anchialine ponds and monitor their physical, chemical, and biological status b. Management of anchialine ponds on development project land should include assessment and removal of invasive species c. No development project should be approved that impacts anchialine ponds 3. Develop education modules for anchialine ponds and signage for sites in Kona to educate the public about ponds and their "protected" status. 4. Identify public/private funding mechanisms for the maintenance of Kona's anchialine ponds. Action ENV -1.11a: Budget and hire contractor to verify and update anchialine inventory and prepare the Anchialine Ponds Management Program (PD, COE, 2- 3). Policy ENV -1.12: Water Quality Monitoring Program. In recognition of Kona's exceptional nearshore coastal resource, a comprehensive system to monitor nearshore water quality shall be established for purposes of protecting public health as well as ecosystem health (particularly coral reefs) to supplement the State Department of Health's water quality monitoring program. At a minimum, water quality should be monitored at stations which ' KONA CDP 4-67 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS correspond to the popular water -contact recreational areas and the exceptional coral reef habitats. The Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines shall be referenced when requiring water quality monitoring as a condition of permit approval or in the establishment of a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Program. Action ENV -1.12a: Hire consultant to prepare Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines (PD, DPW, DOH, 2-3). Action ENV -1.12b: Set up water quality monitoring station locations (PD, Community, UH Sea Grant, DOH, 23). Action ENV -1.12c: Organize and train community base water quality team (PD, Community, UH Sea Grant, DOH, 2.3). Policy ENV -1.13: Environmental Resource Management Education. A diversity of tools shall be sought to provide increased education and awareness on the part of our residents and visitors regarding the preservation of Kona's environment. How about Community Volunteer Deputies? A community-based volunteer "deputy" program to work with government authorities expands the number of "eyes' to inhibit violations, provides an opportunity for individuals to become involved while ensuring that these individuals are knowledgeable and trained, and serves as an educational program as these deputies share their knowledge with the broader community. Action ENV -1.13a: Develop appropriate educational tools for residents and visitors and marketing plan to use them (RBD, 2-3). Action ENV -1.13b: Conduct educational workshops (RBD, 2-3). Objective ENV -2: Open Space Network. To develop a networked system of appropriate access to all significant open space resources that enhances opportunities for residents and visitors for recreational, educational, subsistence, or gathering purposes. Policy ENV -2.1: Open Space Network Program. The purpose of the Open Space Network Program is to enhance opportunities for residents and visitors to access Kona's Environmental Resources for recreational, educational, subsistence, or gathering purposes. The Program will identify the following: i. Hubs and Links. Map the existing and planned "hubs" and "links" that comprise the open space network. "Hubs" include, without limitation, parks, cultural sites open to the public, and natural beauty vantage points and views. The "links" include, without limitation, bikeways, trails, scenic/heritage corridors, public accessways, flow ways, and linear parks. i. Public Access Management. Address any special needs to manage access, such as ownership, maintenance, and/or sensitivity of the resource. 4-68 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ill. Public Areas. Identify areas that have high traffic which shall then receive special attention for funding, maintenance, safety and educational signage. ' Action ENV -2.1a: Budget and hire consultant to prepare Open Space Network Program (PD, PR, OSP, DLNR, TNC, NPS, 1-2). Action ENV -2.1b: Coordinate with the National Park Service's (NPS) Ala ' Kahakai Trail Program as follows (PD, DLNR-PR, NPS, on-going): 1. Continue to enforce county and state laws requiring public ' access to and along the shoreline as a condition of land use approvals. These trails may become official components of the Trail. ' 2. Require that applicants conduct metes and bounds surveys of any historic trails and routes that will be required as part of the land use permitting process to' be preserved and that may ' become part of the Trail. 3. Encourage private landowners who have public access ' requirements as conditions of a land use approval to execute an agreement with the NPS to include these areas in the Trail, where appropriate. 4. Work with the NPS to identify public access easements with potential incorporation into the Trail. 5. Work with the NPS to identify trail segments through county ' parks for incorporation into the Trail. 6. Collaborate on the design and specific signage that identifies the route of the Trail, particularly where is traverses County Beach Parks. 7. Include the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) administrative office on the mailing list for the Planning Commission. ' Objective ENV -3: Fiscal Commitments to Open Space. To affirm the commitment that expenditures for open space management are just as important as investment in hard infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, and roads). ' Policy ENV -3.1: Acquisition Priorities. To supplement the activities of the County Open Space Commission, the Open Space Network Program shall identify high priority areas in ' Kona for public acquisition, based on the following criteria: ' a. Significant value; b. Extensive public use; c. Imminent threat by private development; and ' d. Lack of alternative means of protection. KONA CDP ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES. ANO ACT/ONS Action ENV -3.1a: Identify high priority areas for acquisition pursuant to Policy ENV -2.1 Open Space Network Program (PD, PR, OSC, DLNR, 1.2). Policy ENV -3.2: Maintenance Commitment. A variety of funding sources shall be pursued to supplement, as necessary, existing government operational budgets to ensure a high standard of maintenance of all "hubs" and "links' identified in the Open Space Network Program. Action ENV -3.2a: Develop a financing strategy as part of Public Facilities Financing Program (PD, 1-2). Policy ENV -3.3: Public/Private Partnership. To foster a public and private partnership of stewardship, a Kona Treasures Fund shall be established and administered by a non-profit entity to implement the environmental policies set forth in this plan by supplementing any governmental funding. The non-profit entity would enable individuals and/or businesses to contribute time and/or money for environmental causes without sacrificing the resources to commercial use. Action ENV -3.3a: Establish Kona Treasures Fund as tax deductible organization (PD, KCC, 2-3). Action ENV -3.3b: Provide funding and staff support as well as public marketing campaign (PD, KCC, 2-3). Y� r r Puuwa'awa'a. Nancy Pocchio. 4-70 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4 CIJLTU RESOURCES In the Hawaiian language, Kona means yours and ours; it is a traditional Hawaiian moku (district), not just a place, and it is part of our being. In tradition and custom, Kona's great beauty and many resources have been entrusted to the people by Akua (our Creator), and inherent in this trust comes kuleana (responsibility/obligation) to malama (care for) all that gives ke ola (life), so that it may ho'omau (be perpetuated). Today, this means to honor what has gone before, be responsible for the present, and plan for the future. Ahupua`a and Malama `Aina In honoring the past, it is important to recognize the valuable lessons learned. One of these is the ahupua'a land use model of sustainability, whereby the land was divided into pie -shaped wedges -- broad at the shoreline and narrowing in the uplands - - providing a good diversity of natural resources for Guiding Principles Cultural 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ its inhabitants. Another is that of malama 'aina that calls for the responsible and respectful use of the land and sea, including all the natural resources in and on it, in a manner that promotes their conservation and perpetuation, so the present, as well as the future generation, may be able to enjoy them alike. Prior to 1778, Hawaiians lived and practiced these principles in a truly self-sufficient manner. Understanding and practicing these important principles of resource management are vital to understanding the Hawaiian cultural landscape and our place on it, especially when decisions are made which will impact that landscape and the long-term future of Kona. The very essence of this principle is embodied in the Hawai'i State motto "Ua mau ke ea o ka 'aina i ka pono', that the very life of the land is perpetuated in the proper relationship of humans with nature. Historical Perspective The districts of North and South Kona have been very significant in the history of Hawai'i. Because of the mild climate, fertile mauka lands and abundant marine resources, from the time of the great chief, 'Umi a Liloa, Kona has been favored as a place of residence by various ruling chiefs and their extended families. This resulted in a large population of inhabitants who settled in villages mainly along the coast (kulakai), particularly around bays and fishponds. Additional land uses occurred in the middle zone (apa'a), which supported temporary habitation and resource gathering between the makai (coastal) and mauka (upland) areas, and, the upland zones (wao kanaka), which supported larger -scale agriculture and dryland and lowland forests. Figure 4-9 depicts the traditional lands uses and zones extending from offshore areas to the piko or summit regions. KoNA CDP 4-71 CULTURAL RESOURCES Figure 4-9: Traditional Uses Concept Map CHAPTER 4 GOALS. OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 4i a.4 F -z 2a Graphic provided by Hilarie Keehne, Kamehameha Schools, 4-72 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, 'POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS, CULTURAL RESOURCES ' To support these populations and settlements, an elaborate system of na ala hele (foot trails) was established between makai and mauka areas, and these intersected with the more lateral ala loa (long trails) that ran between the moku. Many of these trails still exist and can be found today, although ' some portions may have been altered, damaged or simply remain overgrown. Collectively, the settlements in Kona were probably some of the most densely populated in the t Hawaiian Islands (U.S. National Park Service, September 1993) and, as a result, complex religious, social, and political systems and structures had developed around them. Many cultural practices, such as the Makahiki festival and other rituals for invoking rain and fertility, centered in Kona. Moreover, ' many ancient traditions and mythological personages were associated with Kona, such as the god Lono, who is credited with introducing primary plant foods such as taro, sweet potato, yams, sugarcane, and bananas to the Hawaiians. ' Kona played a very significant role during the Kamehameha dynasty, and several defining moments in HawaiTs history took place here. ' According to Kamakau (1961), when Kamehameha the Great was in his final years at Kamakahonu, the coastal lands were part of a large royal center supporting the moi and his royal court, such that "at ' night the sparkle of lights reflected in the sea like diamonds, from the homes of the chiefs from Kahelo to Lanihau. The number of chiefs and lesser chiefs reached into the thousands." ' Following the death of Kamehameha I at Kamakahonu in 1819, his son Liholiho, succeeded him and, with the urging of the kuhina nui Ka'ahumanu and the Queen mother, Keopulani, he broke the traditional 'ai kapu (eating prohibition) at Kamakahonu. A short while later, Liholiho was challenged by ' Kekuaokalani, the keeper of the war god Kuka'ilimoku, who wanted no part of this change. A fierce battle ensued along the shore at Kuamo'o, and the hundreds that were killed in the battle, the last fiht in Kona, were laid to rest at Lekeleke. Those burial grounds can be seen today at the end of Alii Drive, just south of Keauhou Bay. After the defeat of Kekuaokalani, the ancient kapu system was largely abolished, although some practices continued long after that. ' The following year and just a few months after the kapu system had been broken, the first Christian missionaries arrived at Kamakahonu, and, in 1823, Mokuaikaua, HawaiTs first Christian church was erected in Kailua. Additional churches were then established throughout the district, a number of which ' still remain in active service today. ' After the death of Liholiho in 1825, Kauikeaouli became King Kamehameha III. His reign, Which continued until 1854, was the longest in the history of Hawaiian Monarchy. ' The town of Kailua is one of the most historically significant areas in Hawai'i, since it was the residence of Hawaiian chiefs, including being the primary home of King Kamehameha I. This area has been described by visitors in great detail. In 1823, when the English missionary, William Ellis, visited the area between Kailua and Keauhou, he reported passing through many villages where the houses "are generally built on the sea -shore" and mentioned seeing numerous heiau and burial grounds (Ellis 1963). In 1929-30, when Reinecke surveyed the coastal areas of Kona, he made detailed notes on the large numbers of cultural resources still remaining in those areas (Reinecke 1930). KONA CDP 4-73 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, CULTURAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Today, even 185 years after Ellis' visit, the remains. of these villages and the cultural resources associated with them are known and continue to be uncovered throughout Kona, especially in the lower elevations and coastal areas — a clear testament to the importance of Kona throughout HawaiTs long history. Hawaiian ranching history precedes, and is distinct from, the ranch history of America's mainland West. When Captain George Vancouver gave the gift of a few cattle to King Kamehameha I in 1793, he had little idea how this single act would affect the history of Kona. Ten years later, an American gave a mare and .a stallion to Kamehameha 1. The ranching history of Kona began with these two small introductions. After bringing more cattle in 1794, Vancouver asked Kamehameha I to place a kapu on slaughtering them to allow the herd to grow. Kamehameha I placed a kapu and also constructed a huge stonewall, the "pa nuPto contain and protect them (Kona Historical Society, undated). The mid -1870's mark the beginning of the development of Kona's coffee industry. In the early years, Hawaiians and Chinese were hired to work on large coffee plantations. Later, Portuguese, Fillipino, Japanese, and others, who had either fulfilled or broken their contracts with Hawai'i's sugar plantations, came to Kona to work the lands. Descendants of these workers remained in Kona and wove their lives together with the Hawaiian community, unified by the region's powerful natural environment, thus providing the foundation for Kona's incredible cultural landscape. Their mutual inter -dependence based on self-sufficiency, stewardship, and sustainability provides us with a model for the future. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Kona's Cultural Landscape The cultural landscape of Kona is multi -faceted and pervasive, and, in today's modern society, sometimes not well understood. Nevertheless, it is this landscape that is at the heart and very nature of the Hawaiian culture; it is also that which is so vulnerable to the impacts of Western civilization. In order to understand the concept of cultural landscape, it is important to have some knowledge of the long-standing and valued cultural traditions and practices of the Hawaiian people, their relationship with nature, and the importance of these to the sustainability of the culture for over one thousand years. According to cultural historian, Kepa Maly (2001), "in any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawai'i, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture ends and nature begins. In a traditional Hawaiian context, nature and culture are one and the same. There is no division between the two". So, in the Hawaiian mind, all aspects of the land — all natural and cultural resources — are interrelated and culturally significant. Cultural Resource Identification, Determination, and Action Kona has long been valued and known for its year -around mild climate, magnificent natural beauty, island lifestyle, friendly people and ethnic diversity. Over the last 50 years, the Kanaka Maoli 4-74 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS CULTURAL RESOURCES (Hawaiian) culture has undergone a true renaissance and interest in learning the traditions and customs of the host culture has grown significantly. To take responsibility for the present, the identity, scope and significance of valued cultural, historical and natural resources which remain on and a part of the Kona lands today, and the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights, practices and beliefs are exercised and need to be determined. Such a determination will provide direct information about the Hawaiian culture and convey a tangible and unique sense of place and values, all of which are important to the present and future generations of Kona residents and visitors alike. This, in turn, allows proper recognition and incorporation of the cultural landscape into modern land use planning. By doing so, it values native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights protected by the State constitution and further enables Hawaiian culture to thrive and perpetuate, as envisioned by the Hawai'i 2050 Sustainability Plan (January 2008). Present Conditions: Kona's physical and cultural landscape has undergone tremendous change since Statehood, and with the ever increasing influx of new residents and visitors, the pace of this change has been more rapid, especially with new coastal and upland development taking place. Despite these changes, many areas of Kona still contain undisturbed historical and cultural resources which are significant and valued, not only by the Hawaiian people, but the Kona community, as well. While some sites are well known, most sites are not apparent and are only found during archaeological "When considering this relationship in the context of the present time, the historic preservation and cultural value of archaeological sites is more than just their excavation or information potential, and archaeologists should recognize that Hawaiian sites are cultural resources with spiritual and heritage values." surveys. There is a need to enhance the contribution that these sites can provide to the day to day lives of people in Kona, rather than merely creating database inventories. At the same time, there is the issue of not disclosing the locations of sites for fear of looting or damage by the curious public. The extensive Kona Field System from Hu'ehu'e to Honaunau and beyond, are the lands that were intensively cultivated and yielded significant agricultural production. Portions of this field system have been recorded and can still be seen throughout Kona today. Kona contains approximately 40 sites listed on the National and State Historic Register. Most of these sites are of traditional Hawaiian origin and can yield information vital to reconstructing Hawaii s early history. Equally, and perhaps more significantly, however, are the thousands of recorded historical and cultural sites and resources from the pre - contact Hawaiian period which are not listed on the "Register". Among these are numerous heiau along the Kona coast, particularly between Kailua and Honaunau, including the more well-known structures at Kaloko-Honokohau National Historic Park, Ahu'ena at Kamakahonu, Kauakaiakaola in Puapua'a, the large complexes of Keolonahihi and Keakealaniwahine in Holualoa, those in the royal Buddy E. Netter, 1998 Former SHPD Archaeologist (Ruby McDonald, 2008) L' KONA CDP 4-75 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, CULTURAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS centers at Kahalu'u and Keauhou, Hikiau at Napo'opo'o, and, at Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historic Park, where Hale o Keawe was the ancestral mausoleum for many of HawaiTs ruling chiefs before they were relocated to Oahu. 4.4.2 Overall Strategy For the purposes of this plan, the Historic Sites Element of the County General Plan has been expanded to: "Kona's Cultural Resources." The perspective of cultural resources much more fully captures the breath of Kona's cultural landscape, past, present, and future. The future well-being of Kona's cultural landscape can only be meaningfully addressed by policies in this plan by recognizing: 1. The fundamental relationship between cultural resources and the natural environment, and 2. The urgent need to ensure their protection very early in the land use planning process. Necessarily, this must involve commitments by citizens who have knowledge of these resources and by government representatives who have a direct role in the land use planning process itself, including those who are charged with proper implementation and enforcement of laws designed to protect these resources. Protection of resources will be aided by incorporating the values and philosophy of the ahupua`a resource management system into land use planning and decision-making). In addition, there is a need to recognize the significant cultural and historic resources that are part of our built environment within the District of Kona. The "built environment" includes historic buildings, our villages, and our agriculture lands, such as the Kona Coffee belt. Throughout this plan, there are policies that will provide tools to better celebrate and protect Kona's cultural landscape including: "Preserving Hawaii's historic buildings, landscapes and communities is more than a feel good exercise, more than an economic development strategy and more than a marketing approach for the tourism industry. It is central to who we are as a society and the value that we place on the people, places and events that shaped our present communities." Linda Delaney, 1990 OHA Land and Native Rights Dept. (Ruby McDonald, 2008) • Long-term protection and management of watersheds • Long-term protection and management of coastal resources • Protection and re-establishment of public trails . • Preservation of rural, small town, country character/atmosphere ■ Retention of open space and prevention of urban sprawl The County General Plan's Historic Sites Element, adopted in 2005, includes a number of goals, policies and standards that fall outside of the State Historic Preservation Division's (SHPD) jurisdiction. SHPD also lacks the regional insight needed to build upon the cultural foundation for Kona. While there is a sense of the value of all ethnic groups who have come to Kona, information on the pre - contact and early -contact eras remain largely undocumented and are in danger of being lost due to a lack of comprehensive planning through a common, local knowledge base. Therefore, the time has come for the County of Hawai'i to take a proactive role in the compilation of information on and 4-76 KONA CDP t- CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, 'POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS CULTURAL RESOURCES ' management of our cultural resources, not just in the Kona district, but throughout Hawai'i County. In doing so, the County will be able to supplement State policies in the following areas: ' • Pursue community education initiatives about cultural traditions and resources • Establish/update inventory of cultural resources ■ Increase community interaction with cultural resources ' • Encourage the use and protection of mea kanu (native plants) • Promote the accurate and proper use of the Hawaiian language and traditional Hawaiian place names ' • Revise, implement and enforce county policies/laws to protect resources • Uphold constitutionally protected rights • Establish funding sources directed toward Cultural Resource protection The following Goals, Objectives, Policies, Actions will greatly enhance our ability to implement the goals adopted within the General Plan's Historic Sites Element. 4.4.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Cultural Resources Goal: The multi-ethnic cultures of Kona are preserved, protected, and restored in a manner that perpetuates those cultures and all aspects of the Aloha Spirit. ' Objective CR -1: Community -Based Program. Develop a community-based program to evaluate and to protect Kona's cultural resources. Kona is rich with historic and cultural resources, but organized, proactive processes to provide stewardship for these resources are lacking. Policy CR -1.1: Kona Cultural Resources Committee (KCRC). The County of Hawai'i shall create the Kona Cultural Resource Committee. The KCRC shall assist in the implementation of the Kona CDP's goals, policies, and actions for Kona, along with the General Plan. This Committee will be made up of residents of Kona. Some of the duties of this KCRC shall include the following items: 1. Review and supplement the State's inventory of historic sites, trails, and buildings 2. Recommend that cultural resources, including trails and historic sites appropriate for public access be included as part of the Kona CDP Open Space Network Program. Provide recommendations for the County to purchase appropriate buffers surrounding these sites, and providing appropriate tools for interpretation. 3. Recommend which cultural resources may not be appropriate for public access. 4. Assist in the identification, preservation and restoration of historic buildings. 5. Prepare a report on Kona's cultural landscape that would form the basis for: a. Assisting in the development of a joint program with the State and private property owners to protect and/or restore sites on public or private lands. b. Aiding in the development of a public education program regarding Kona's cultural landscape and resources. c. Identifying funding sources, such as the Kona Treasures Fund and the County Open Space Fund, to undertake actions designated in this plan. KONA CDP 4-77 CULTURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES. AND ACT/ONS d. Promoting the accurate and proper use of the Hawaiian language and traditional Hawaiian place names. e. Assisting in promoting public awareness, education, and the appropriate use of native plants in public and private landscaping. Action CR -1.1.a: Establish the KCRC. The Kona Cultural Resources Committee will include seven members. County Council Members from District 6, 7, and 8 will each nominate two (2) individuals, and the Mayor will nominate one member. All shall be kama`aina, or long-term residents of Kona and knowledgeable in Hawaiian history and/or cultural practice and tradition. Each shall be confirmed by the County Council. (PD, 1-2) Action CR -1.1b: Identify by GPS coordinates all existing historic trail alignments that (a) have been recommended for preservation by SHPD, (b) appear on historic maps and/or are known by oral tradition, and incorporate these into the County GIS database (PD, KCRC, SHPD, NPS, 1.2) Action CR -1.1c: On a continuing basis, identify by GPS coordinates, all cultural resource sites recommended for preservation by SHPD incorporate in County's GIS database (PD, KCRC, SHPD, 1-2) and KCRC, and Action CR -1.1d: Budget sufficient County funding to provide for administrative and technical support for KCRC to complete its duties listed in Policy CR -1.1 (PD, KCRC, 1.2) Action CR -1.1e: Establish a work plan to accomplish the duties in Policy CR — 1.1 (KCRC, PD, 1) Action CR —1.1f: Prepare Cultural Landscape Report. (KCRC, PD, 1-2) Objective CR -2: Funding of Kona Historic Resources Programs. In addition to budgeting general fund revenues, the County of Hawai'i shall seek and participate in programs that can provide resources serving to protect and enhance Kona's historic resources. The federal government offers one source of preservation grant funds to local government agencies that is administered and distributed through the State Division of Historic Preservation. Known as Certified Local Government (CLG) funds, these monies are provided to the state by the federal government with the express purpose that they be distributed to support preservation projects engaged in by local governments. Typically, CLG funds help pay for historic site surveys and other studies and 4-78 KONA CDP 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES. 'POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS CUL TURA L RESOURCES planning projects. If Hawai'i County becomes qualified as a CLG, it will become eligible to apply for funding to complete studies of the historic resources in Kona and throughout the County. Policy CR -2.1: Certified Local Government. The County shall seek the CLG status as Part of the National Historic Preservation Program, by establishing a Hawai'i County Cultural Resources Commission (HCCRC) which shall be comprised of a representative from each CDP. Action CR -2.1a: The County shall apply for certification as a CLG under the National Historic Preservation CLG Program in order to be eligible to apply for and receive preservation funding administered by SHPD (KCRC, PD, 1-2). Policy CR -2.2: Regulatory System. The County shall examine interrelated responsibilities, identify weaknesses in the current programs, and make recommendations for improving programs regulating and protecting cultural resources and historic sites. This may result in recommendations for changes in policy County -wide or specifically to the Kona CDP. Action CR -2.2a: The County shall convene a workshop(s) that would include government agency representatives, cultural representatives and other stakeholders to review and make recommendations on the current programs intended to protect cultural resources and other historic sites (HCCRC, 3-5) Action CR -2.2b: The County shall recommend amendments to appropriate tordinances to incorporate the stewardship and protection of historic sites, buildings and artifacts (Grubbing and Grading, Subdivision Code) (HCCRC, 3-5) ' Action CR -2.2c: The County shall recommend amendments to relevant ordinances to incorporate the appropriate use of native plants in the ' landscaping of public facilities such as schools, government buildings, and parks. (HCCRC, 3-5) Objective CR -3: Preservation of Kanaka Maoli Culture and Island Values. Ensure that our Kanaka Mack and island values and cultures are preserved and perpetuated. ' The following is from the Strategic Actions, Kanaka Maoli and Island Values, Hawai'i 2050 Sustainability Plan. KONA CDP 4-79 CULTURAL RESOURCES Policy CR -3.1: Honor Kanaka Maoli culture and heritage. The Kanaka Maoli culture is the foundation of HawaiTs living culture. We must ensure that the Kanaka Maoli people are supported and that this part of our culture is perpetuated. The success of this endeavor will ensure that the way of the Kanaka Maoli will guide our actions and behaviors in the years ahead. CHAPTER 4 GOALS. OBJECTIVES. POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Action CR -3.1a: Ensure the existence of and support for public and private entities that further the betterment of Kanaka Mach (public and private agencies, on-going). Action CR -3.1b: Increase fluency in Kanaka Maoli language. It is one of the official languages of Hawaii (community, DOE, UH, on-going). Action CR -3.1c: Sponsor cross -sector dialogue on Kanaka Maoli culture and island values (public and private agencies, on-going). Action CR -3.1d: Protect Kanaka Maoli intellectual property and related traditional knowledge (public and private agencies, community, SHPD, on- going). Action CR -3.1e: Provide Kanaka Maoli cultural education for residents, visitors and the general public (public and private agencies, community, on-going) Policy CR -3.2: Preserve and perpetuate our Hawaiian and island cultural values by celebrating our cultural diversity and island way of life. Our diversity likewise defines us. Ensuring that our cultural practices flourish through language, dance, song, and art is crucial to sustaining who we are as a people. We must protect and nurture all aspects of our diverse history, traditions and cultures. Action CR -3.2a: Increase the number of educators who teach cultural and historic education (public and private agencies, community, on-going). Policy CR -3.3: Enable Kanaka Maoli and others to pursue traditional Kanaka Maoli lifestyles and practices. We must provide opportunities to those who want to pursue and perpetuate the way of the Kanaka Maoli. 4-80 KONA CDP I CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HOUSING ' Action CR -3.3a: Provide Kanaka Maoli mentors with opportunities to pass on Hawaiian culture and knowledge to the next generation of Kanaka Maoli and others. The power of wisdom comes from communication (public and private ' agencies, community, on-going). Action CR -3.3b: Perpetuate Kanaka Maoli food production associated with land ' and ocean traditions and practices (public and private agencies, community, on- going). ' Policy CR -3.4: Provide support for subsistence -based businesses and economies. We must create opportunities for the Kanaka Maoli practice of subsistence -based businesses and economies, and remove the hurdles to their start-ups and development. Such traditional ' cultural practices are an economic alternative to Western forms of trade and commerce. Subsistence fishing, gathering, hunting and farming are examples of subsistence -based economies that are viable. Policy CR -3.5: Ahupua`a Resource and Management. Integrate the values and principles of the traditional ahupua'a resource and management systems as a basis for a sustainable Hawai'i. Action CR -3.5a: Apply the ahupua`a concept in action plan for the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (Policy ENV -1.2). 4.5 HOUSING The Housing section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies and actions to guide the development of affordable housing in Kona. Over the past decade, housing availability, including affordable housing, has been a growing issue within the County of Hawai'i. Rapid population growth in Kona has not been accompanied by parallel growth in affordable housing construction. The cost of housing construction; the price of land, and the second home market all contribute to the lack of affordable housing opportunities. The availability of safe and decent housing for all segments of our community is at the center of what it takes to sustain a healthy community. Access to a range of available housing affords the opportunity for our community to be ethnically, professionally and age diverse. It is the core of a strong, vibrant community. A continuum of housing options shall exist, including housing for homeless and disabled, Guiding Principles Housing 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ KoNA CDP 4-81 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS housing for the elderly, affordable rental housing, and affordable home ownership. Housing types should be located to create a mix of housing opportunities for individuals and families. 4.5.1 Existing Conditions In 2006, SMS Research & Marketing Services, in cooperation with the Hawai'i Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) and the various Counties' housing agencies, prepared the Hawai'i Housing Policy Study, 2006 (February 2007) that reviewed various housing issues throughout the State of Hawai'i. This study provides current data but is primarily county -wide and not district -specific. As the population increases, new households are formed and the need for housing increases. If the rate of housing production keeps up with population increase, then housing availability will be sufficient to handle the need generated by new households. Between 2003 and 2006, the County of Hawai'i had an annual increase of 4.3% in total housing units, while having a 2.7% annual population increase during the same period (See Table 4-2) (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., 2006). Although home construction has outpaced population growth, ironically, this County, and particularly Kona, has a housing crisis. The production of new homes has been skewed to the upper income. As the real estate prices on the West Coast have surpassed those in Hawai'i, the out-of-state demand has increased and has pushed home prices to record highs. In this County, nearly 10% of the single-family homes and 16% of the condominium units were owned by persons from outside the State (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Where We Have Been Housing Prices and Rents, 1985-2006 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $,50 $100 Table 4-2 Total Housing Units,Count of Hawaii, 1990-2006 1990 1992 1997 1999 2000 1 2003 1 2004 2005 2006 48,253 49,394 59,098 61,108 62,674 67,878 70,927 71,984 77,577 °/ Change 1990-2000 = 2.5% • Change 2000-2003 = 2.6% °/ Change 2003-2006 = 4.3% $,nl Source: 2006 Housing Policy Study, SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007 Although home construction has outpaced population growth, ironically, this County, and particularly Kona, has a housing crisis. The production of new homes has been skewed to the upper income. As the real estate prices on the West Coast have surpassed those in Hawai'i, the out-of-state demand has increased and has pushed home prices to record highs. In this County, nearly 10% of the single-family homes and 16% of the condominium units were owned by persons from outside the State (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Where We Have Been Housing Prices and Rents, 1985-2006 $400 $350 $300 $250 $200 $,50 $100 41 It" $1,71 ,000 $,,5( ,000 $1,31 ,000 $,nl 000 $900 000 $700 ,000 9500 'go --sales � rent t0 Inc., February 2007). Between 1990 and 2006, the housing stock Statewide occupied by Hawai'i households has dropped from 92% to 86.8%, reflecting the recent trends for increased resort t9 development, increased out -of - 10 state real estate purchases, t0 increased number of second t0 homes, and the conversion of residential units for visitor use (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007). Housing prices and rents in 2006 have been at historic highs. The 4-82 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING chart to the left shows that the Countywide rate of increase in median price for sales prices and rents from 2003 to 2006 has been unprecedented (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007). An enormous impact of rapid price run -ups and lower affordability is an increase in the number of households with inadequate housing. Inadequate housing can be defined as including households affected by pent-up demands, doubling up10, and homelessness". Other impacts of the lack of affordability include an increase in the number of young families moving out of the County, shortage of workers, and workers forced to commute from more affordable areas such, as Hawai'i Ocean View Estates (HOVE) in Ka'0, who commute to their jobs in north Kona and Kohala. Kona not only has a shortage of housing for families below the median income of the area, but also has a shortage of housing for many moderate -income households that affects the ability to recruit and retain essential community personnel, such as police officers, fire fighters, teachers, medical support, and civil servants. The County of Hawai'i defines an affordable unit as a for -sale or rental unit affordable to a household earning up to 140% of the County's median income, where the housing costs (e.g., rent or mortgage and utilities) would not exceed 30% of the household income.12 The qualifying household income depends on household size (see Table 4-3 for the 2006 Affordable Housing Income Guidelines). Based on 30% housing costs at an assumed interest rate, Table 4-4 shows the 2007 affordable sales price and rents. ' The affordability ratio is the ratio of the affordable housing price to the median home price. A ratio of 1.0 means the median market price is at a level ' affordable to the median income household, less than 1.0 means the median market price exceeds the affordable price, and greater than 1.0 means ' the median market price is lower than the Dilemma of Workforce Housing: Case example of a 2 -income household of a staring police officer and an elementary school teacher Even for a two -income family of a starting police officer and an elementary school, to purchase a new home at the median price of $500,000 would require paying 50% of their household income for mortgage, property taxes, property insurance, and utilities. Median sales price 3- bdnn SFD $500,000.00 80% Mortgage $400,000.00 Monthly payment 6.5% interest, 30 yrs $2,528.27 Property tax $333.33 Insurance $416.67 utilities $300.00 Subtotal: Shelter costs $3,578.27 Staring Police salary + starting teacher salary per month $7,166.67 2006 County median $4,250.00 Police + Teacher % median 169% Shelter:lncome % 50% Affordability Hawaii County Affordable Price/Actual Price erronweLm ����;gglli®RiRR RRRR RRRR RRR 9 Pent up demand: Households with the desire to move to a new unit but unable to do so. The number of households who well be moving out of State to find affordable housing, and those who cannot buy because of soaring housing costs. 10 Doubling up: Multi -generational families or families living with unrelated individuals in one unit who would rather split up. ' 11 The number of homeless persons and families has not been measured since 2003. 72 Hawaii County Code chapter 11. ' KONA CDP 4-83 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, HODS/NG POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS affordable price. The chart to the right shows that for Hawai'i County, the affordability ratio dropped from affordable (over 1.10) in 2002 to very unaffordable (about 0.70) in 2006 (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007). The Housing Study projects that the median price has peaked and the affordability ratio should start to improve to about 0.80 by 2010. 4.5.2 Overall Strategy The market forces and cost of infrastructure in Kona has driven the price of homes skyward. Without intervention, the market will deliver affordably priced homes further and further away from employment job centers, resulting in long commutes for the workforce. Affordable housing within the urban core is essential to maintain and enhance an economical and viably diverse community. The market also does not adequately meet special housing needs. Intervention strategies are long overdue and need to be coordinated with existing island -wide initiatives. Existing island -wide initiatives include: • Affordable rental property tax incentives. Property tax incentives are in place to encourage landlords to offer affordable rents (HCC Sections 19-2 and 19-53); • Density bonus. The inclusionary zoning requirements in HCC Chapter 11 provide a density bonus where a developer who is required to meet the 20% affordable housing requirement is entitled to a 10% density bonus and 10% reduction in lot size from what is permitted under the existing zoning (HCC Section 11-8). • Extending the Hawai'i County Code (HCC) Chapter 11 requirements to existing zoned property. A bill, now being drafted, proposes to amend HCC Chapter 11 to apply the affordable housing requirements to subdivision applications for existing zoned property. • Homebuyer education program. The County Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) has contracted with the Hawai'i Home Ownership Center to provide an island -wide homebuyer education program that includes the following: financial literacy (setting financial goals, preparing budget plans, saving for homeownership, understanding credit), shopping for a home (identifying needs, tenancies and tenure, referrals to lenders and realtors), and post -purchase counseling (basic maintenance and repair, predatory lending, mortgage delinquency counseling). Hawai'i Island Housing Trust (HIHT). The County established this 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation to develop housing projects and provide technical or financial assistance to other non -profits. The overall strategy builds on these ongoing initiatives and structures a partnership where all sectors are asked to contribute towards finding solutions to the very complex problem of affordable housing— for landlords to consider affordable rentals, for private developers especially to help meet the needs of our workforce population, for the public sector and non -profits to share the burden of providing housing for the lower income, and for the community to support these efforts with donations, time, and awareness. 4-84 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POUC/ES, AND ACT/ONS ' Hous/NG The primary target groups for housing assistance includes three sectors: Low-income households (<80■/■ median income): Since this group will find it very difficult to support a market rate mortgage to buy a home, the focus is to expand self-help housing program opportunities, build more new rental units (primary responsibility of government and non -profits), encourage affordable rentals of existing units through property tax incentives, and provide supplemental assistance for the Section 8 rental subsidy; 2. Moderate -income households (80 to 180% median income): To enhance homeownership opportunities, the focus is to provide incentives for non-profit housing entities and private developers, to optimize the use of suitable government land for affordable housing projects, to enhance the first-time buyer's capacity through homebuyer education and counseling programs, and to keep these affordable units affordable upon subsequent sales through deed restrictions; and Elderly and disabled: To encourage private developers to build more units appropriate for the elderly or disabled, bonus incentives are provided; to assist the elderly and disabled evaluate housing choices in relation to their special needs, a one-stop information and counseling center is proposed. As a framework to focus the efforts, the strategy involves the following plans: 1. Build Units. • Provide Zoning Incentives for Kona. As an incentive to the private sector, an affordable housing floating zone would expedite rezoning for property less than 15 acres within the Kona Urban Area. ■ Encourage Innovative Redevelopment within Existing Villages. Existing building codes may pose obstacles to rehabilitation of existing buildings or innovative new construction. A central point in government (the Design Center) would assist in identifying and resolving case -specific problems and opportunities. • Identify and Facilitate the Use of Suitable Public Lands. The use of public lands for affordable housing significantly reduces the land cost of developing such housing. • Promote Accessory Units. Accessory units (also known as 'ohana units) increase the affordable rentals inventory, and also could enhance a buyer's marginal capacity to buy a home by factoring the supplemental rent income. Together with the County's new tax break for affordable rentals, this would be an incentive for more homeowners to consider creating affordable accessory units. Offer Pre -Approved Affordable Designs. Small landowners or contractors could be encouraged to build affordable units if pre -approved plans for starter homes, accessory units, or other housing types were available at nominal or no cost. KONA CDP 4$5 o «a V' d <) m O m D y V d E a E m c « , j p m C C o'c tiEE O > w n S m W Tm C d N L .E m ro m u C 15 J d N d e o a O y H E J v` O4 yp� O m 0 > 0 E d p d F m E � a8,ooM$ C T d M O S m E c d p 3 C A O a d = 3 N D 0 3 a v m o O J O U `O L O d c m E L L O p d E 0 C O m J Y] d C m « m o v U m rn� d �wr o�9 a E o y a � ` E m m S d a c 0 d C m m d o W t00 � L Q y y C d EEd sQ� o N « N � � ci m T pp m m d O N ^ L L m y ° L a F y o 0 N 6 "syr mom CD a . m D E $ � m — m E E y N m T y F n n V z 00 00 00 00 00 00 mo vIQ o LQli uAiN m uMi n m ao`O poJ (O vind Mw ww iaw 41w ww ww m N m ww ww ww ww ww ww g oo cq o b o 0 0 _ m O M^ mm M p m '0 Y� O m ww ww ww evw ww ww cg o0 00 00 00 0p0 ^ N O m m W n N (O Qm q 1� N Ol ID pO l0 N p l0 N N A N clpy inw vjw enw ow pqw, cc Ow pw m 101 m X09 O m tG O fV cM of tD N V h lV uiw viw eppyw ww !Aw ww N w N Opp N O T Vp I O O W tmON ymy V n NOmi NN �O.N NN fpnw bi wp (/iw nw ww oow O Om Ci w m M m �M r°'in � n vm uMio v�iry ui w di w w w a> w en w w w R8 30 00 �o 0o ao - mm mN N m mw �Oh »w ww ww uiw ww raw pM O m Qm S [OO 1� m t0p0 (O m NOO MM 0 t+J q CJ tp t{op.. N � NO mm M d M w w w w w w w w w w gm N4l NOmi N O l7N MM MO rnw ww 49w ww ww ww N M V w tp N N? N N N, s N LL C -Oro In LL '� LL 0 w LL N LL N J C 0 C V z 0 W d x Q � o W C W M 1(1 C) z w wU H w 0 W Q p Y W w (�ao �g Q co W z W �a3 LU }wa Mzx Q < co 0 N m Q (n Q — F- Q Wwz 20 g NLL(~no } w LL m Z (n JAW LLJ 0w } 0 j z —x U) WzCOCO— J LU ::i w �wg¢0 WWgWz =aQQa (irz�o NZLU�i W 2 � � 001 Z po 0 C LL 50 N Zi>- xx — F- M F- F- Z a) OOlm w O to W �a J Z (O Ol O) WW ( :Fa fN co O O O O o 0 0 0 o O O O O O _ NO tO On0mO0001m c) W t` N V MN OMt000 n w M "m K N M M O n N r N MM V 0 O 1-1, o. r O O O O O o 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 M(O MN U) OD � O r- t- MO) V O V 00 N I-- r t0 0 W U7 V N r O n V N W n et N c) (p 00 to N W w •-NNM V Lf) LO (O 07 ti OD 00 M 0 0 0 0 Op p 0 0 0 0 0 0 0)0) 000 OO to Il- i. -(D NIO IO N t0 tO W M O0 0)MO T� (D M O NNM t - V .- OoO t to N CD V (D O �n00 (O M 0) r VV OD OO000088RO000O n V O W MNN0 t- V V pa W MNNN NI- Ih(O CQ (Q (ON W toN W �.- OD- 0)to r- Cl) .-r NMM V NNtO t0 f� h aD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O OHbtO V MO�O M10 W N CAO0/O)01 W Of W O)M ODM OD V', h� r MIT N rA V; L6 0- W- a- t�. Pew NN M V V wto'o to t, n 0 0000000000000 O) W N (O In CO) O ti (O N O 00 M 1�--IQM I, r' i0 t�f,f-1�(D to r 0 Nn MOO mM .-NNMM V V V to (O (D OOOOOppo O) 00 tO CO U) 'V' M O OO(OC)OO IT 0) t,- rIQ N (O 0 to W V O) V W(o co M(0M 00 Mn r r N N M M V 4 V t0 IO 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 co tOOtOVMIO r r OD (ON O) rMIO f`O MIO tit`O V M � V W C'i 6 6 Ld OiM hOD N(0O VV , N N N M M M V V t O t O 0 0 0 0 o 0 e 0 v 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 a 0 o 0 0 0 o 0 e 0 0 O O O O O O O O O O O O p 0 m >. 0 N N 7 L N o c� E t_ w dw o _ o m o m c' 12 t C —'pEE O N C N C� c � a a c 00 (a ro s 3r(Go3 � m w E N m oQ�O1a�a pate+ O v �a�5y U d o w dxETa m H 0, E d E (c,(�a« N w 'rn W O � 0 O 0 O C O)= O 00 E m E Q N U T C a .� 2 =' E Q 3 - c o E IS Q L C OL) N N o 3°No'` c 2. N v) o 4 � O E OL U y to as a�i.oa -a m o u`Oi,o=moo ES cu2 E o E E o 4 ° > o Lh E N m c m « .. �a U. c) C 0 N m 0 O 'ro o O pO L ` E E .� 0 d O V N p F C O U m (0 x.Em3� CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLIC/ES, AND ACTIONS 2. Maintain the Affordable Inventory. • Keep Some Units Perpetually Affordable. In a down market, the homes with restrictions are hardest to sell. But unless restrictions are imposed, as soon as the market turns, the prices will quickly escalate beyond the affordable range. Even in an up market, restricted homes that offer better quality for the price as a result of subsidies and/or the reduction of the land cost through a lease arrangement may be able to compete with unrestricted market homes. Government or non -profits should take the lead to develop and administer the perpetually -affordable inventory. Replace the Displaced. For redevelopment projects, if there are any existing affordable units within the project area, the redevelopment project shall provide units comparable in number and affordability. Renovate Under -Used Existing Rental Housing. Encourage repair, renovate, or redevelop existing public housing or multi -family private units. 3. Increase Buying and Renting Capacity. • Address Workforce Gap Group Needs. A segment of the population earns too much to qualify for affordable housing programs, yet too little to buy or rent decent housing close to their place of employment. These are your teachers, police officers, fire fighters, mechanics, and other moderate income households. In an area such as Kona, where ordinary homes are significantly more expensive than other parts of the island, the County's definition of "affordable" needs to be expanded to include this group to qualify for appropriate assistance. Enhance Buying Capacity. There are various means to help a prospective buyer to qualify for a mortgage, such as no -down -payment loan or low-interest loan for the down payment; location -efficient mortgages that give credit for reduced transportation costs when locating closer to work; and energy-efficient mortgages that give credit for energy- saving designs that reduce monthly utility costs. Enhance Renting Capacity. Kona's rents often are too high to qualify for Section 8 assistance. A supplemental subsidy source could reduce the number of returned Section 8 vouchers. Provide Education and Counseling. To become a homeowner requires financial knowledge and good credit. An effective education and credit counseling program is essential in qualifying buyers and assuring that they are responsible homeowners. Raise the Workforce Earning Power. Community involvement is necessary in order to create and sustain a quality educational system. Only by increasing the learning capabilities and practical skills through our educational system can we shift upward the percentage of Kona residents who earn enough to buy a home. For this reason, the policies and actions related to workforce development (See Policy ECON-1.4) are pertinent to housing. 4-88 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HOUSING 4. Address Special Needs. • Elderly and Disabled. Even for those who are able to afford long-term care, choices are t lacking. To stimulate the supply, developers would be allowed to receive additional credit for assisted living and other types of special housing which apply to the specific needs of the elderly and disabled, respectively. A one-stop center to provide information on housing ' choices is direly needed (See Section 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services). • Single -resident Occupancy Units (SRO's). Single -resident occupancy units, which are ' dormitory -like structures, are particularly suitable to single farm workers and commuting resort workers who need a place to stay during the work week. Because of the predominance of these types of workers in Kona, developers are expected to meet their ' needs. ■ Farm workers. To encourage more farm worker housing, a policy interpretation of the zoning code will allow farm workers to live on a different farm than where they work. ■ Homeless. The Kona Housing Trust Fund, discussed in Policy HSG -1.2, will provide an ' additional source of funding to meet emergency needs to abate homelessness and to increase the supply of homeless shelters. ' 5. Create a Funding Source and Housing Advocate. ■ Turn the Second -Home Market into an Ally. Recognize the rippling effects of Kona's booming second -home market on the construction costs and sales prices of homes, ' ensure that resort residential development either build affordable units (onsite or offsite) or pay in -lieu fees. ' Establish a Non -Profit Corporation and Trust Fund. Establish a Kona Housing Trust Fund to be administered by a Kona -based board of directors. This fund could be a ' repository for HCC Chapter 11 in -lieu fees, shared appreciation proceeds, and other designated sources. The fund would be used to finance or provide a match to subsidize land acquisition, water commitment fees, predevelopment activities, infrastructure ' improvements, and other related activities. The Trust could also facilitate matching developers who hold affordable housing credits with those who need credits to satisfy their HCC Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements. ' 6. Monitor Market Conditions and Need. Kona's housing needs, which are unique to the rest of the County, justify the need for regional -specific data to nimbly respond to changing needs and market conditions. The Kona Housing Trust Fund is the funding source for data collection spearheaded by the Kona Housing Non -Profit. ' KoNA CDP 4-89 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, HODS/NG POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 4.5.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Housing Goal. Diversity of housing choices for all segments of the population close to places of employment and/or daily needs. Objective HSG -1: Create Local Funding Source. To establish anon -profit entity and funding source to address Kona's affordable housing needs, which are particularly acute relative to the other areas of the County. Policy HSG -1.1: Kona Housing Non -Profit. The Kona CDP Implementation Committee (See Section 5.2.1 Organizational Structure and Membership) shall designate an existing non- profit corporation, or create a new non-profit corporation, to carry out the Housing policies. The board of directors for this Kona Housing Non -Profit shall be Kona -based. Besides administering the Kona Housing Trust Fund, this non-profit shall carry out other responsibilities specified in this plan. Policy HSG -1.2: Kona Housing Trust Fund. The Kona Housing Non -Profit shall establish a Kona Housing Trust Fund. The potential funding sources to be coordinated with the County include linkage fees, which are funds contributed by companies requiring large numbers of employees, in -lieu fees, shared appreciation proceeds, charitable contributions, and others. The fund would be used as authorized by the Kona Housing Non -Profit, including without limitation, down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers, supplemental Section 8 subsidy, supplemental homebuyer education and counseling, homeless shelters, emergency rent, and data gathering. Objective HSG -2: Monitoring Housing Conditions. To gather Kona -specific data in order to adjust to changing needs and market conditions. Policy HSG -2.1: Data Gathering. The Kona Housing Trust Fund may be used to finance annual gathering of relevant data, as determined by the Kona Housing Non -Profit, including, without limitation, the following: 1. To evaluate whether adjustments of target groups are necessary: a. Median income for North and South Kona residents; b. Median home sales price for North and South Kona; c. Median rental for North and South Kona; d. % own vs. % rent. 2. To evaluate current need for affordable units: a. Number of affordable rental units and vacancy rates (Section 8 rent units or receiving property tax break); b. Number of returned Section 8 vouchers; c. Number of perpetually affordable (controlled appreciation or leased) units and vacancy rates;, 4-90 KONA CDP I CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HODS/NG d. Number of affordable units sold at market price (due to lack of demand for restricted affordable unit); e. Number on waiting list for government housing. ' Objective HSG -3: Increase Buying and Renting Capacity of Target Groups. To assist the lower income groups in obtaining decent housing and to enhance the opportunities of first-time homebuyers. ' Policy HSG -3.1: Homebuyer Education and Counseling. The Kona Housing Non -Profit will have the authority to supplement the County's homebuyer education and counseling program, ' ensuring appropriate and meaningful outreach to educate prospective first-time Kona homebuyers on strategies to save money, finance mortgages (including the potential rental income of an accessory unit), rehabilitate credit, and other pertinent subjects. Policy HSG -3.2: First -Time Homebuyers. The Kona Housing Non -Profit (see Policy HSG - 3.4 below) will have the authority to finance programs to assist first-time Kona homebuyers, ' thus supplementing available county, state, or federal programs. Policy HSG -3.3: Low -Income Renters. The Kona Housing Non -Profit will have the authority ' to finance a program to supplement the Section 8 subsidy to pay security deposits, or provide other assistance, in order to minimize the number of returned vouchers. Policy HSG -3.4: Employer -Assisted Rental. The Kona Housing Non -Profit will have the authority to assist employers who provide rental assistance to their employees for onsite housing or housing within five (5) miles of the place of work by locating rental units and expanding recruitment advertisements. Objective HSG -4: Build More Units. To build more units that offer a variety of housing types, tenures, and affordability. Policy HSG -4.1: Public Sector and Non -profits Primarily Responsible to Meet Needs of Lower -Income and Middle -Income Renters. Because affordable rents cannot usually fully pay for the actual costs to develop a rental project 13, the private market cannot be relied upon to deliver these types of projects. Therefore, public housing projects and projects using public lands or financing shall devote a significant percentage of the residential units to meeting the needs of middle-income renters (50 to 100% of median income) and lower-income households (less than 50% of median). Policy HSG -4.2: Workforce Housing. Because of the higher market sales prices in Kona, relative to the other parts of the island, even the workforce group (up to 180% of median income) has difficulty finding housing close to work. Therefore, a developer of a housing project in Kona may earn an affordable housing credit of 0.25 for every completed for -sale dwelling unit affordable for qualified households earning 120-180% of median, provided that "See David Paul Rosen & Associates, Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis, p. ES -2,-6,-8. KONA CDP 4-91 HOUSING CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS this provision shall be superseded by any subsequent amendment to Chapter 11 relating to Countywide standards for workforce housing. Policy HSG 4.3: Affordable Housing Floating Zone. In recognition of the critical affordable housing needs in Kona, a project that meets the following criteria shall qualify as an affordable housing floating zone: • The project is located in the Kona Urban Area; • The project area requiring rezoning totals less than 15 acres; • The project is served, will provide, or has commitments to provide all necessary infrastructure in a timely manner; • The project consists predominantly of residential uses and at least 80% of the residential units will be priced to be affordable; • The application includes a form of a declaration of covenants that requires 80% of all residential units built on the subject property to be affordable under the definition of HCC Chapter 11 Housing (including workforce), in which the declaration shall incorporate by reference the Affordable Housing Agreement referenced below and recorded upon rezoning approval; • The application includes a draft Affordable Housing Agreement setting forth the terms of sale or rent, resale restrictions, and other terms, which Agreement shall be finalized and executed between the applicant and the County Office of Housing and Community Development prior to enactment of the rezoning ordinance. A project meeting the above criteria entitles the applicant to the following: ■ The application shall be reviewed with a rebuttable presumption that the project furthers the intent of the zoning code and is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and action of the General Plan and the Kona CDP; • The application for State Land Use reclassification, as appropriate, shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning application; • The time period for the Director's review and the Planning Commission's review shall be 60 days, respectively; • The project shall be exempt from fair share (or impact fees) conditions; • If 100% affordable, the project in concurrence with the Design Center may preempt planning standards pursuant to HRS Section 46-15; ■ The project may qualify for any available subsidies from the County, Kona Housing Trust Fund, or other sources to pay, in whole, or in part the water commitment fees. Policy HSG -4.4: Housing Variety. The housing in TODs and TNDs shall be designed to mix the types, tenures, and affordability at the block level, to the extent practicable. An additional credit of 0.5 (beyond the credits specified in HCC Section 11-5) shall be recognized for senior or disability housing units (e.g., assisted living) and affordable live -work units (see Table 4-5). 4-92 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HODS/NG Policy HSG 4.5: Innovation Encouraged for Redevelopment Projects. In Kailua Village, or the Rural Towns and Villages, landowners or developers who wish to develop affordable housing by rehabilitating or adapting an existing building, building a new infill building, or ' providing such housing above a commercial establishment may bring their proposal to the Design Center. The Design Center shall assist with any building code, zoning code, or other permitting issues to facilitate and enable the construction of such units. The level of ' assistance, such as permit coordination or subsidy financing, may increase proportionate to the number of committed affordable units. Policy HSG -4.6: Accessory Units. Accessory ('ohana dwelling) units are encouraged in order to increase the supply of rentals. For TODs and TNDs, any provisions in the Project District rezoning ordinance relating to accessory units may preempt the zoning code ohana ' dwelling provisions (HCC Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 3). For existing residences in conventional zoning districts that want to add an accessory unit, the 'ohana dwelling requirements of the zoning code apply. 1 Policy HSG -4.7: Pre -Approved Affordable Housing Designs. The Kona Housing Non - Profit (See Policy HSG -1.2) shall pay for the design of standard accessory units, starter homes, and other appropriate housing types. The County will consider expeditiously issue building permits for pre -approved designs. These designs shall be available to interested individuals or professional builders at nominal or no cost. ' Policy HSG -4.8: Density Bonus for Affordable Housing. The developer shall be granted a 1:1 density bonus over and beyond the 10% density bonus in HCC Section 11-8 for each t affordable housing unit that exceeds the affordable housing requirements, up to a maximum 30% density bonus. ' Objective HSG -5: Maintain Affordable Housing Stock. To maintain an inventory of affordable units to meet present and future needs, while providing some opportunity for homeowners to upgrade their housing condition through equity appreciation. 1 ' KONA CDP 4-93 Table 45 Housing Credit Percentage of median Affordable housing Elderly, Disabled, or household income credit per HCC Section 1. WWork Unit Credits 11-5 120-180% (proposed) 0.25 Dwelling 120-140% 0.5 1!0' Unit 100-120% 1.0 7!5' 80-100% 1.5 2?0� 80% 2.0 2?5' Rental 80-100 1.0 X1!5' Unit 60.80% 1.5 60% 2.0 2?5' HODS/NG Policy HSG 4.5: Innovation Encouraged for Redevelopment Projects. In Kailua Village, or the Rural Towns and Villages, landowners or developers who wish to develop affordable housing by rehabilitating or adapting an existing building, building a new infill building, or ' providing such housing above a commercial establishment may bring their proposal to the Design Center. The Design Center shall assist with any building code, zoning code, or other permitting issues to facilitate and enable the construction of such units. The level of ' assistance, such as permit coordination or subsidy financing, may increase proportionate to the number of committed affordable units. Policy HSG -4.6: Accessory Units. Accessory ('ohana dwelling) units are encouraged in order to increase the supply of rentals. For TODs and TNDs, any provisions in the Project District rezoning ordinance relating to accessory units may preempt the zoning code ohana ' dwelling provisions (HCC Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 3). For existing residences in conventional zoning districts that want to add an accessory unit, the 'ohana dwelling requirements of the zoning code apply. 1 Policy HSG -4.7: Pre -Approved Affordable Housing Designs. The Kona Housing Non - Profit (See Policy HSG -1.2) shall pay for the design of standard accessory units, starter homes, and other appropriate housing types. The County will consider expeditiously issue building permits for pre -approved designs. These designs shall be available to interested individuals or professional builders at nominal or no cost. ' Policy HSG -4.8: Density Bonus for Affordable Housing. The developer shall be granted a 1:1 density bonus over and beyond the 10% density bonus in HCC Section 11-8 for each t affordable housing unit that exceeds the affordable housing requirements, up to a maximum 30% density bonus. ' Objective HSG -5: Maintain Affordable Housing Stock. To maintain an inventory of affordable units to meet present and future needs, while providing some opportunity for homeowners to upgrade their housing condition through equity appreciation. 1 ' KONA CDP 4-93 HouSiNG CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Policy HSG -5.1: Perpetually Affordable Units. Public agencies and non -profits that develop or own affordable housing units shall utilize methods, such as leasing or controlled appreciation, to ensure that sales prices of these units remain perpetually affordable. Policy HSG -5.2: Privately -Constructed Affordable Units. For private projects subject to affordable housing requirements, the Kona Housing Non -Profit or other non-profit shall have a first right of refusal to 10% of the required affordable units. All affordable units shall remain affordable for 40 years. No restrictions may apply after 40 years based on the rationale that newer homes will replace these older homes in the affordable housing stock. During the resale -restricted period, the level of restriction shall meet the following minimum requirements: • 1gt 20 years: The affordable units shall have a minimum 20 -year controlled appreciation restriction (cost of improvements plus appreciation based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index; • After 20 years: The owner may sell the property at market value with a shared appreciation with the County or Kona Housing Non -Profit at 50%; ■ Right of First Refusal: After 20 -years, the Kona Housing Non -Profit shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the unit; • Owner -occupancy: During the resale -restricted period, affordable units must remain owner -occupied or rented out by the owner at an affordable rate as certified by the County real property tax division pursuant to the affordable rent provisions in HCC Chapter 19. Policy HSG -5.3: Redevelopment Shall Not Displace Affordable Units. Where there are concentrations of existing affordable units, redevelopment plans or projects shall ensure that units comparable in number and affordability to the existing units are provided in the new project, with priority given to displaced residents to purchase or rent. Policy HSG -5.4: Renovate Under -Used Existing Rental Housing. For public housing, the County shall explore privatization or other options with the responsible public agency if the responsible agency is financially unable to property maintain the affordable units. For Kona, a developer may earn affordable housing credits under HCC Chapter 11 Housing to rehabilitate public housing rental units or units within a multi -family rental complex owned by a non-profit, with the number of credits earned comparable to the costs the developer would have incurred for construction of new rental units. Objective HSG -6. Address Special Needs. To address the needs of special groups who are not normally provided for in the free market system. Policy HSG -6.1: Elderly and Disabled. Information services on housing choices to the specific needs of the elderly and disabled (including caregivers) as well as potential providers, shall be provided by a one-stop information center coordinated through the Office of Aging (See Policy PUB -3.2). 4-94 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING Policy HSG -6.2: Homeless and Emergency Rent. The Kona Housing Trust Fund may finance the construction or operation of homeless shelters, and supplement or create an emergency rent program to provide short-term (no more than six months) assistance to low- income households who face potential homelessness as a result of unemployment, medical payments, or other unforeseeable causes. ' Policy HSG -6.3: Single -Resident Occupancy (SRO) Units. Recognizing that commuting resort workers often prefer an affordable place to stay overnight during workdays and return home on the off -days, that immigrant farm workers are often single, and that SRO's often are ' the last resort before homelessness, developers and government housing agencies are encouraged to provide such units in their mix of affordable housing units. Policy HSG -6.4: Farm Worker Housing. To support Kona's agricultural industry and its desire to strive for greater food sustainability, farm worker housing shall be a permitted use on agricultural lands where the tenant farm worker does not have to work on the same parcel ' where the farm worker housing is located. Actions ' Because the same actions in the Housing section crossover several policies, the actions are grouped together. Acknowledging the island -wide programs, the following actions implement the Housing policies to increase housing choices specifically for Kona: Action HSG—a: Establish the Kona Housing Non -Profit. The Kona CDP Implementation Committee, with assistance from OHCD, needs to designate or establish a non-profit entity (Policy HSG -1.2). The ' legal form of this entity needs to be appropriated to receive community donations, receive funds from the County Housing Trust Fund for specific projects, enter into agreements with developers (who would sell the units encumbered with covenants) for shared appreciation on certain HCC Chapter 11 housing ' units, and possibly buy certain units from developers to lease (as rentals or leased land) (OHCD, 1-2). Action HSG—b: Operate the Kona Housing Non -Profit. Once established, the Kona Housing Non - Profit will set up an account (Policy HSG -1.3) to fund various initiatives set forth in the policies including the following: ' 1. Sponsor a design contest and retain the winner to prepare pre -approved plans for starter homes, accessory units, or other appropriate housing types (Policy HSG -4.7); (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 2-3) ' 2. Draft standard first right of refusal provision to be included in the Affordable Housing Agreements, executed between the developer and OHCD and incorporated as deed ' covenants (Policy HSG -5.2); (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 1-2) 3. Exercise rights of first refusal and purchase Chapter 11 units from developers to rent or lease to income -qualified households (Policy HSG -5.2); (Kona Housing Non -Profit, on- going) 4. Establish programs in coordination and to supplement island -wide programs to do the following: (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 2-3) 1 ' KONA CDP 4-95 HOUSING CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS i. Assist first-time homebuyers with down payments or other assistance (Policy HSG - 3.2); ii. Work with landlords to negotiate affordable rents that qualify for property tax breaks and/or Section 8 (Policy HSG -3.3); iii. Work with employers to locate affordable for -sale or rentals in the vicinity of the workplace (Policy HSG -3.4); iv. Supplement the island -wide homebuyer education program to expand the outreach in the Kona area (Policies HSG -3.1 and HSG -3.4); V. Coordinate with other related programs to establish an emergency rent program (Policy HSG -6.2); vi. Coordinate with OHCD and other appropriate programs to establish a Kona -specific data gathering and market -monitoring initiative (Policy HSG -2.1); vii. As a result of continually monitoring the needs of the Kona community, advocate or take action to meet existing or emerging deficiencies for special needs groups (e.g., elderly, disabled, homeless, farmworkers) (Policies HSG -6.1, HSG -6.2, HSG -6.3, and HSG -6.4). Action HSG—c: For government and non -profits to produce the units at subsidy levels to meet the needs of the lower income groups, the following actions need to be taken: 1. The County and the community (e.g., the Kona Housing Non -Profit) should encourage the State agencies currently developing affordable projects (e.g., DHHL at Laiopua, HHFDC at Keahuolu) to review their projects for consistency with the policies to provide affordable rentals (Policy HSG -4.1), mix of housing types (Policy HSG -4.4), and perpetual affordability strategies (Policy HSG -5.1); (OHCD, Kona Housing Non -Profit, DHHL, HHFDC, on-going) 2. The Kona Housing Non -Profit should coordinate with the pertinent State and County agencies to inventory potential public lands that are suitable for housing development and initiate project planning or ensure land -banking for affordable housing purposes; (Kona Housing Non -Profit, DLNR, 1-2) 3. The County or Kona Housing Non -Profit should explore privatization options with the State housing agency. (OHCD, Kona Housing Non -Profit, 1-2) Action HSG -t: To gain the assistance of the private sector, several existing laws have been amended by enactment of this plan: TOD/TND mixed affordable housing requirement, TODITND preemption of 'ohana dwelling, Project Description Affordable Housing Floating Zone (enacted by plan). Additional Chapter 11 Housing credits for workforce housing,; disabled , elderly, live/work units; 1:1 density bonus; resale restrictions (enacted by plan). Action HSG—e: New private developments are encouraged to creatively provide low cost/affordable housing and meet certain needs especially critical to Kona. The Design Center should help to increase awareness of these policies and stimulate creativity to meet these needs. Developers, with assistance from the Design Center, are instrumental in carrying out the following: (PD/DC, on-going) 4-96 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HODS/NG 1. Take advantage of the higher densities permitted in TODs and TNDs to financially support building at least 25% affordable units , in a creative manner that results in a mix of housing types, tenures, and affordability (See Policies HSG -4.1 to HSG4.8); 2. Take advantage of the Affordable Housing Floating Zone; 3. Take advantage of the credits recognized to provide affordable disabled, elderly projects and live -work units (Policy HSG -4.4), and rehabilitation of public housing units; 4. Although no additional credits are offered, strive to provide accessory (Policy HSG4.6) and SRO (Policy HSG -6.3) units; 5. Encourage redevelopment infill projects within existing developed areas such as Kailua Village and the Rural Towns (Policy HSG -4.5), while considering potential displacement of any existing affordable housing (Policy HSG -5.3); 6. Take advantage of the County's interpretation of Hawai'i Revised Statutes (HRS) 205 relating to farm worker housing as well as the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines to provide clustered farm worker housing in rural areas (Policy HSG -6.4) KONA CDP 4-97 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 4.6 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES The Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies, and actions that tie-in with and support other sections of the Kona CDP, especially Land Use, Transportation, Housing and Environmental Resources. An important concept promoted by this section is the public-private partnership required to assure that all communities are adequately served. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions County public facilities, infrastructure, and services are those service systems that are provided, staffed, and maintained by government or quasi -public entity to directly serve the residents including: the systems of parks, fire stations, police stations, refuse disposal, drinking water, health, and energy. Transportation - related infrastructure is covered in the Transportation section of this plan. The County also provides services to the elderly, as well as supplements funding for a number of social programs. 4.6.2 Overall Strategy Acknowledging the limited government resources for which Kona competes with other districts, the policies in this section set forth the expectations and priorities of the Kona community to enable the community and government to optimize the type, timing, location, financing, quality, and maintenance of public infrastructure, facilities, and services. Although sensitive to jurisdiction, the policies and actions attempt to set a framework to integrate the various providers-- whether County, State, Federal, quasi -public (e.g., HELCO), or private (e.g., private hospitals or schools). The community's expectations and priorities are guided by the following principles: 1. Public safety—the policies set a minimum level of service for essential public safety services including police protection, fire protection, emergency response, disaster response, and highway safety, and promote a community-based approach to crime prevention; 2. Healthcare—the policies recognize the limited role of the County and community in the healthcare system, but frame the desired outcome to foster coordination and partnerships for this critical basic need; 3. Growth management and environmental quality—the policies use public infrastructure to influence the location and timing of growth such as prioritizing the infrastructure that service TODs as an incentive to develop within TODs, as well as ensuring that this infrastructure supports this growth in a manner that reduces waste and pollution, conserves water, and generally minimizes environmental impacts; 4-98 KONA CDP Pub. Fac., Inf., & Guiding Principles Ser. 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ Acknowledging the limited government resources for which Kona competes with other districts, the policies in this section set forth the expectations and priorities of the Kona community to enable the community and government to optimize the type, timing, location, financing, quality, and maintenance of public infrastructure, facilities, and services. Although sensitive to jurisdiction, the policies and actions attempt to set a framework to integrate the various providers-- whether County, State, Federal, quasi -public (e.g., HELCO), or private (e.g., private hospitals or schools). The community's expectations and priorities are guided by the following principles: 1. Public safety—the policies set a minimum level of service for essential public safety services including police protection, fire protection, emergency response, disaster response, and highway safety, and promote a community-based approach to crime prevention; 2. Healthcare—the policies recognize the limited role of the County and community in the healthcare system, but frame the desired outcome to foster coordination and partnerships for this critical basic need; 3. Growth management and environmental quality—the policies use public infrastructure to influence the location and timing of growth such as prioritizing the infrastructure that service TODs as an incentive to develop within TODs, as well as ensuring that this infrastructure supports this growth in a manner that reduces waste and pollution, conserves water, and generally minimizes environmental impacts; 4-98 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PUBLIC FACILITIES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES 4. Sense of community and quality of life—the policies recognize that the types and quality of public facilities and services can enhance the sense of community by encouraging gathering and interaction, by providing lifelong learning opportunities, by building appreciation and respect for nature through trails and parks and other interactive opportunities, by nurturing the soul through art, and cultural activities; 5. Economic catalyst—the related policies in Section 4.8 Economic Development section identify specific public facilities that have the potential to stimulate desirable economic balance; 6. Standard of excellence—the policies set a standard of excellence in the construction, operation, and maintenance of all public facilities and the supportive role of the community to promote civic pride. 4.6.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services Goal., A community where the public infrastructure and facilities are sustainably built and maintained with innovation and pride, promote sense of community, and support a quality of life where visitors and residents feel safe, healthy, and inspired. ' Objective PUB -1: To coordinate planning and budgeting for public facilities, the Official Public Facilities and Services Map shall identify existing and proposed public facilities. ' Policy PUB.1.1: Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The Official Public Facilities and Services Map shall identify existing and proposed public facilities. Proposed facilities shall distinguish whether the mapped site is committed or requires further planning. On the premise ' that the mapped proposed facilities are priority, only those proposed facilities shown on the map shall be eligible for funding (See Figures 4-10a to 4-10c). (Enacted by plan) ' PUBLIC SAFETY Objective PUB -2: Public Safety. To establish a minimum level of service for public safety resources ' in order to identify deficiencies and plan for future growth, and to recognize that how we design our communities can help to prevent crime. ' Policy PUB -2.1: Law Enforcement Level of Service. To enable timely response over a geographic area spanning approximately 60 miles long, there should be, at a minimum, a police station for North Kona and another police station for South Kona. The North Kona ' police station should have an adequately -sized holding jail and should be located near the court for efficient operations. Until superseded by a county -wide standard, the number of police officers for each district should be planned and budgeted at 4 officers/1000 persons in order to cover three shifts with a minimum of three officers per shift (Personal Communication, Chief Lawrence Mahuna, December 19, 2007). ' Action PUB -2.1a: Plan a new North Kona police station to be located within the Honokohau Village TOD, and program for design and construction funding 1 (Police, 5-10). ' KONA CDP 4-99 PUBLICFACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERV/CES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-100 KONA CDP r � � I. � w � ■� � � � i. Iw � w � w I� w � I. Kiholo Kaupulehu Makalawena Keahole I F Kailua Keauhou Kaawaloa p' pt: Napoopoo LEGEND Lifeguard Station' Fire Station* Fire Station - Volunteer' Proposed Fire Station'-" �. Police* Hookens . Proposed Police Station' " C Hospital' P Proposed Hospital" N Emergency Shelters' Bus Baseyard" Financing Districts' Proposed Transit Line ••��• Trunk Secondary Kona Urban Area _ 7 Rural Town TON 1 CDP Planning Area Existing Roadway• .: Policy layer. "Specific location to be determined. Milolii Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is Manuka t the repository of the official map. Waikoloa yI Puuwaawaa Cook naunau Kealia - Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10a Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Public Safety Kaupulehu Makalawena Keahole Kiholo Y LEGEND County Park - District` Proposed University" County Park - Community` a School` L _ I Community Park 2 -mile Service Area' Library` County Park - Neighborhood` Financing Districts" County Park - Other` Proposed Transit Line ••••� Trunk Proposed COH Park* Secondary I= Dishct Park" Q Kona Urban Area Regional Park" Rural Town TODs Proposed Courthouse* CDP Planning Area Proposed Civic Center` * Policy layer. " Specific location to be determined. Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. Hookena Milolii Manuka taatain Cook Kipahoehoe \ Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10b Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Community Facilities Kailua Keauhou LEGEND Priority Sewer Area' ® Wastewater Re -use Area* Kealakehe WWTP Expansion - Natural Wastewater system" #j Existing Transfer Station Proposed Transfer Station" Financing Districts' OKona Urban Area ORural Town TODs CDP Planning Area — Existing Roadway Policy Layer * Specific location to be determined. 0 2 4 1 inch equals 4 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. Kealakekua i Miles 8 ;,Ilnll Waikoloa Q Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Waste Management CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, PUBLIC FACILITIES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' Action PUB -2.1b: Coordinate with the State to relocate the circuit and district courts to the Honokohau Village TOD (State Judiciary, PD, 5-10). ' Action PUB -2.1c: Design and construct the relocated South Kona police station. The County is in the process of acquiring a site (TMK: 8-2-001:072 and 084) (Police, 2.3). ' Action PUB -2.1d: Support the addition of manpower for policing efforts (Police, on-going). Policy PUB -2.2: Crime Prevention Emphasis. The community policing program with its emphasis on building relationships and partnerships with the community plays a vital role in ' creating a safe Kona. But, beyond community organization and education programs, such as the Neighborhood Watch Program, the presence of these police officers on foot or on bicycles in villages instills a sense of public safety. The design of new or renovated buildings or public ' facilities shall consider environmental design principles that prevent crime. Action PUB -2.2a: Support for the community policing program should continue (Police, on-going). Action PUB -2.2b: In Villages (e.g., Kailua Village, TODs, rural towns), consider reinstating the bicycle patrols (Police, 3-5). Action PUB -2.2c: Through a Business Improvement District or other ' organization, partner with downtown businesses to enhance security and orderliness (KVID, 1.2). Action PUB -2.2d: Develop a public safety audit checklist and conduct neighborhood and downtown safety walks to identify potential crime spots or unsafe areas (Police, KVID, COMM, 2.3). Action PUB -2.2e: Incorporate in the Village Design Guidelines crime prevention through environmental design principles (PD, 3-5). Policy PUB -2.3: Fire Protection, EMS, Rescue, HazMat Level of Service. Until superseded by a county -wide standard, fire station locations should be planned to provide a response time of 8 minutes in the Urban Area (10 mile radius with 5 mile overlap) and 12 minutes in the rural areas (15 mile radius with 5 mile overlap). All fire stations should provide fire protection and EMS services. Rescue services should be provided by ground and sea by at least one station in each district, and by helicopter to service the North Kona and South Kona districts. One station should have HazMat capability to service the North Kona and South Kona districts. KONA CDP 4-107 PUBLIC FACILITIES, CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Adapted from: Zelinka, A. and D. Brennan, Safescape: Creating Safer, More Livable Communities Through Planning and Design. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2001. Fear of crime impairs quality of life and sense of community. Certain features of the physical environment contribute to fear. People fear signs of deterioration, such as broken windows, graffiti, trash, as a signal that a place is no longer maintained or controlled by those who live or work there, thus, becoming attractive targets for potential criminals. Other physical features such as bushes, low lighting, and dark tunnels limit the ability to see into a place where someone may be hiding, or limit the ability to escape (e.g., deadends). The CPTED approach to crime prevention is a shift in the discipline of criminology from a paradigm of examining the individual criminal to one which studies the crime event, i.e., the physical and social environments that make the opportunity for a crime to be committed exceed the risk of apprehension. The three tenets of CPTED are as follows: Natural access control: the physical guidance of people coming and going from a space by the judicial placement of entrances, exits, signs, fencing, landscaping, lighting, and wayfnding assistance such as kiosks. People should have information to know where to go and avoid feeling lost and confused. Criminals should have not only a difficult time entering a space without being observed, but also should be provided with no opportunities to justify or rationalize their presence trespassing into private or semiprivate spaces. Natural surveillance: the organization of physical features, activities, and people in such a way as to maximize visibility (i.e., users would feel they will be seen if they do something illegitimate). The placement of windows, doors, and common areas; the alignment of sidewalks and paths; the locations and levels of lighting; and the proper design and size of open spaces can contribute to natural surveillance opportunities. The built environment that supports socialization and interaction with others reduces fear of others and enhances public safety because we are more apt to look out for those with whom we are familiar. Territorial reinforcement: the use of physical attributes that express ownership, such as fences, pavement treatments, art, signage, and landscaping to clearly design a hierarchy of spaces: public (intended for all to use); semiprivate (intended for specific users or uses); and private (intended for private use by businesses and homeowners). A sense of ownership and stewardship ensures continued management and maintenance to avoid deterioration. Physical design should not be the exclusive focus. Social structures such as community police, community organizations, and events complement the physical design strategy. Action PUB -2.3a: Existing and proposed fire stations meet the level of service for the Urban Area. A new fire station is needed in South Kona in the vicinity of Ho`okena (Fire, 5-10). Policy PUB -2.4: Beach Safety Level of Service. Lifeguard stations should be located at County and State beach parks, in accordance with the "Needs Assessment Study" prepared by the County Fire Department as shown on Figure 4-10a Public Facilities and Services Map - Public Safety. Action 2.4a: Identify proposed lifeguard stations on the Official Public Facilities Map (Fire, PD, on-going). Policy PUB -2.5: Highway Safety Level of Service. In order to reduce the number of motor vehicle traffic accidents, high-risk locations or hot spots should be identified in order to improve roadway safety. 4-108 KoNA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PUBLIC FAC/LIT/ES, tPOLICIES, AND ACT/ONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' Action PUB -2.5a: Identify motor vehicle related fatalities and injuries (Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations, on-going). ' Action PUB -2.5b: Improve data collection, assessment, and dissemination of information (Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations, on-going). ' Action PUB -2.5c: Encourage an integrated planning and design process for improvements in roads, emergency medical services, and public transportation ' (Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations. on-going). Policy PUB -2.6: Disaster Shelters and Critical Facilities. There shall be adequate ' hurricane -proof shelters concurrent with the growing population. Where designated on Figure 4-10a Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Public Safety, new public buildings shall be evaluated by the Civil Defense regarding whether or not the design should include ' specifications to be hardened to serve as a hurricane shelter. Any new fire station or hospital shall be appropriately designed to withstand all hazards. Action PUB -2.6a: Identify additional shelters where deficient (State and County CD, 3-5). HEALTHCARE Objective PUB -3: Healthcare. To ensure access to healthcare and promote a healthy lifestyle. Policy PUB -3.1: Medical Care. The community shall support a viable medical clinic to ensure a safety net for those without health insurance or those unable to access the mainstream medical system. Action PUB -3.1a: Coordinate with the County of Hawai'i Healthcare Crisis Plan (Mayor's Office, 3.5). See Related Policy ECON-1.1 Hospital as Stimulus for Healthcare Industry. Policy PUB -3.2: Long -Term Care. An information center/activity center shall serve as a clearinghouse for the community-based and institutional long-term care choices available. This resource center may be co -located with a senior recreational center in Kailua. Action PUB -3.2a: Plan, design, and construct an information center/activity center for the disabled and elderly (OA, 5-10). Policy PUB -3.3: Preventive Health through Walkable Communities. Through the Village Design Guidelines' pedestrian -friendly street standards, Kona shall be known as an avid walking and biking community conducive to all ages. Also refer to Policy LU -2.2 TOD/TND Components. KONA CDP 4-109 PUBLIC FACILITIES. INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy PUB -3.4: Universal Access. As its expression of compassion and caring, the Kona community shall take pride in having all public facilities accessible to the disabled and respectful of the accessible parking stalls. Action PUB -3.4a: Continue to work with the police department to assist in accessible parking enforcement (Police, on-going). Action PUB -3.4b: Offer educational programs to sensitize residents to the challenges of the blind, deaf, or wheel -chair bound person (One Stop Community Resource Center, RBD, 2.3). Action PUB -3.4c: Continue to implement curb ramp program for streets and sidewalks and parks and recreation program facilities (PR, DPW, on-going). GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Objective PUB -4: Growth Management. To prioritize and locate growth -supporting infrastructure (water, sewer, drainage) to support the TODs and infill development and to minimize the environmental impacts of such growth. Policy PUB -4.1: Water for TODs. To encourage and direct development to the TODs, a priority shall be to provide an appropriately sized water transmission line within the Keohokalole Highway Corridor, and to flexibly enable water allocation policies to support the Kona CDP land use policy to concentrate growth within the TODs, in lieu of sprawl. Action PUB -4.1a: Update, as necessary, DWS's master plan for Kona to support future growth in the TODs (DWS, 2-3). Water tank. Action PUB4.1b: Amend DWS's Rules, as necessary, to support the Kona CDP land use policies (DWS, 3-5). Policy PUB4.2: South Kona Water System. In recognition that the extension of the County water system south beyond its existing limit at Ho'okena would increase the growth pressures to convert agricultural land to urban uses, the South Kona County water system shall not be extended further south. (Enacted by plan) Policy PUB4.3: Agricultural Water. Recognizing the importance of agriculture as part of the rural character of Kona, the pervasiveness of small farms, and the critical need for irrigation in Kona's relatively dry climate, DWS shall develop a policy to implement best efforts to serve the agricultural water needs of the Kona area. This policy is not intended to subsidize the 4-110 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PUBLICFACILITIES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' farmers. Instead, the intent is to explore cost-effective systems to provide water for irrigation purposes, set water rates that encourage the small farms, and to ensure that these agricultural customers are committed to agriculture and use the water responsibly. Towards this end, the ' policies may consider agricultural dedication for property tax purposes (to evidence a commitment to agriculture) and the use of best practices irrigation (to evidence responsible water use) as a condition to receive DWS agricultural water rates. ' Action PUB4.3a: Develop policies and plans to provide water for agricultural use, and amend DWS's Rules accordingly (DWS, 3-5). Action PUB4.3b: Develop an irrigation best practices certification program (SWCD, 2.3). ' Action PUB4.3c: Develop an application form to facilitate verification of the agricultural dedication and irrigation best practices certification (DWS, 2-3). Action PUB4.3d: Update Kona water system master plan to incorporate agricultural water component (DWS, 3.5). Policy PUB4.4: Sewer Priorities. In order to protect the nearshore water quality, the requirement to hookup to the County sewer system (HCC Section 21-5) shall be strictly ' enforced. The highest priority in expanding the sewer system within the Kona Urban Area shall be to service any shoreline properties that do not have access to a public sewer system and then to service lots within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline. Any new subdivision within 1 mile of shoreline within the Kona Urban Area shall either hookup to the public sewer system, or provide a private treatment system, and/or install dry sewers (see Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management). Private wastewater collection ' systems within the 1 mile zone shall be designed and constructed to County standards to enable potential connection to County sewer system. The County shall ensure that TODs can be served by the public sewer system in a timely manner. ' Action PUB -4.4a: Identify the violators and enforce the sewer hookup requirements (DEM, 1-2). Action PUB4.4b: Develop a sewer plan to service the Kahalu`u area (DEM, 3.5). Action PUB -4.4c: Update the sewerage master plan to service the entire Kona Urban Area with priority to the TODs and the areas within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline (DEM, 3-5). Policy PUB4.5: Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Reuse. The Kealakehe Wastewater ' Treatment Plant shall be expanded to accommodate the projected sewage volume from the Urban Area extending south of Hina Lani Street to the Keauhou Wastewater Treatment Plant service area. A new County wastewater treatment plant shall be located in the vicinity shown on Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management and designed KONA CDP 4-111 PUBLIC FAC/UT/ES, CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS to the extent feasible to utilize a natural treatment system that can double as an open space feature. Action PUB4.5a: Master plan the expansion of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant (DEM, 1-2). Action PUB4.5b: Master plan the development of a new wastewater treatment plant servicing north of Hina Lani Street that considers the feasibility of natural treatment systems (DEM, 2-3). Action PUB4.5c: Master plan a comprehensive wastewater reclamation system to maximize reuse (DEM, 2-3). Recycled Water - treated wastewater that by design is intended or used for beneficial purpose. R-1 Water - recycled water that is at all times oxidized, then filtered, and then exposed, alter the filtration process (Significant reduction in viral and bacterial pathogens). R-2 Water - recycled water that has been oxidized, and disinfected (Disinfected secondary recycled water). R-3 Water - oxidized wastewater (Undisinfected secondary recycled water). Policy PUB -4.6 Wastewater Reuse Area: Recognizing the limited drinking water supply in the Kona area, every effort should be taken to develop a feasible wastewater reclamation system for non -potable uses. Also refer to Policy TRAN-3.3. The wastewater reuse area should be, at a minimum, located mauka of the shoreline up to Keohokalole Highway (Mid - Level Road), north of Palani Road and south of Huliko`a Drive (See Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management). Action PUB -4.6a: Future wastewater reuse areas shall be identified on Figure 4- 10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management (DPW, PD, on-going). Policy PUB4.7: Urban Stormwater Management. In recognition that stormwater runoff transports sediment and contaminants, thereby threatening the degradation of Kona's coastal water quality, and that Kona's undefined drainageways and susceptibility to intense rainfall cause flash flooding that threatens life and property, innovative solutions are necessary to address Kona's unique conditions and to guide future development and flood management projects. Acknowledging the complexity of managing stormwater, a stormwater management program tailored to Kona shall evolve through a public education and training phase, voluntary incentives, and the ultimate development of Stormwater Management Guidelines that will regulate development and establish standards for public projects. The evolution of this program shall consider the following: (a) a connected hierarchical overflow system where overflows from 10 -year storm facilities (e.g., drywells) are directed to higher -capacity flood management systems, so that the total system can safely accommodate a 100 -year storm; (b) use of natural drainageways and retention areas to the extent possible to maximize infiltration (groundwater recharge), filtration, and settling; 4-112 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PUBLIC FACILITIES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES (c) multi-purpose use of the higher -capacity (e.g., 25 -year, 50 -year, 100 -year) flood management facilities for recreation or other uses since these areas will flood infrequently; (d) engineered "natural" flow ways to direct the sheetflow runoff into more defined drainageways; (e) onsite retention measures, such as rainwater harvesting methods; (f) street standards that minimize runoff and transport of sediment and contaminants; (g) watershed management system perspective; (h) Based on the Stormwater Management Program, existing and proposed stormwater management flow ways and facilities shall be shown on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map, especially those maintained by the County. Action PUB4.7a: Hire a consultant to develop Stormwater Management ' Program and Guidelines, incentives, and Education/Training Program, such as Low Impact Development (LID). (DPW, 2-3). ' Action PUB -4.7b: Implement the education and training program; adopt and publicize the incentives; adopt and enforce the Stormwater Management Guidelines (DPW, 2-3). SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Objective PUB- 5: Zero Waste. To maximize recycling, reuse, and reduction. Policy PUB -5.1: Integrated Waste Disposal. To the extent feasible, Kona's proposed natural system wastewater treatment facility shall be co -located with a non -edible crop, such as a biofuel crop, to use the R-1 wastewater effluent, and also co -located with Kona's green waste composting site to compost the sludge from the wastewater treatment facility for use on biofuel crop. Action PUB -5.1a: Find entrepreneur(s) for biofuel crop (R&D, 3-5). Action PUB -5.1b: Master plan concept and financing for new natural system wastewater treatment facility and relocated transfer station/recycling center; obtain DLNR approval to use State land (DEM, 5.10). Policy PUB -5.2: Solid Waste. Within the Kona Urban Area, to increase the capture of recyclable materials and also to decrease the number of automobile trips, the County shall explore feasible alternatives for residential curbside collection, including source -separated recyclables. KONA CDP 4-113 PUBLIC FACILITIES. CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE Objective PUB -6. Quality of Life. To foster a sense of community and health through the public realm such as gathering places, parks, pedestrian networks, and open spaces. Policy PUB -6.1: Gathering Places. TODs shall include appropriate public gathering areas, such as plazas, in accordance with the Village Design Guidelines. The planning and design of such public spaces shall address any maintenance requirements. (Enacted by plan) Policy PUB -6.2: Active Recreation Opportunities. A range of recreational opportunities shall be provided to encourage physical activity and interaction among toddlers, youth, teens, adults, and seniors, including, without limitation the following: (a) Regional park (minimum 50 acres)—New regional park at Kealakehe as shown on the Public Facilities Plan to include playfields, multi-purpose building (e.g., gymnasium) (b) Kona Civic Auditorium or Performing Arts Center. Facility to provide a venue for major entertainment, social, cultural, and performing arts opportunities. (c) District park (10-30 acres)—Upgrade the Old Airport Park to enhance the playfields, swimming pool, multi-purpose building, courts (basketball, tennis, volleyball), tot lots, fitness area, pet area, and skateboard area; locate a district park to service South Kona to include playfields, multi-purpose use building (e.g., communitylsenior center, gym), and a tot lot (d) Community parks (4-8 acres)—A community park should be located 2 miles apart within the Urban Area to include, at a minimum, playfields and a restroom, as designated in the Public Facilities Plan to provide adequate playfields for youth leagues; multi-purpose use of school playgrounds should be candidates for these types of parks. (e) Neighborhood parks (up to 4 acres) – Subdividers shall provide neighborhood parks (including community gardens, community centers, pocket parks, and pet parks) '/2 mile apart for area residents and provide for private maintenance or pay a fee pursuant to HCC Chapter 8. Action PUB -6.2a: Identify deficiencies to the park system described in Policy PUB -6.2. Include consideration of the following (PD, DPR, on-going): 4-114 KONA CDP 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, PUBLIC FAC/L/T/ES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES skateboard areas network of walking paths and historic trails to be integrated into and between future development projects in both rural and urban areas pet -friendly parks and leashed dog walking areas with appropriate facilities Action PUB -6.2b: Establish a Master Plan for expansion and improvement of the Old Airport as a district park (PR, PD, 1-2). Action PUB -6.2c: Begin the process to find a location for and fund the Kona Civic Auditorium. Invite public input regarding design requirements and preferences (PR, PD, 2-3). Action PUB -6.2d: Prepare Master Plan for Kealakehe Regional Park (PR, PD, 3.5). Action PUB -6.2e. Begin the process to find location, acquire site, prepare Master Plan, and fund a South Kona District Park (including integrated community services center) (PD, PR, 3-5). Policy PUB -6.3: Optimize recreational facilities in the rural areas. Action PUB -6.3a: Establish, in cooperation with the State Department of Education, joint use of school facilities for recreational and community use (e.g. Konawaena, Honaunau, and Ho`okena Schools) (PR, DOE, PD, on-going). Policy PUB -6.4: Environment as a Public Realm and Classroom. For Kona, nature is the most culturally significant public realm as the setting for interaction, stewardship, and learning. The Open Space Network is the primary access point to nature and culture. The purpose of this policy is to emphasize the educational value of the Open Space Network (see Policy ENV - 2.1 Open Space Network Program), to accordingly design this Network with interpretive opportunities, to encourage teachers to incorporate the Network into their activities, for the visitor industry to sensitively share learning opportunities of the Network with visitors, for residents to use the Network opportunities to interact with nature whether for leisure or subsistence purposes, and to develop deeper respect for people and places through cultural learning opportunities accessed through the Network. Action PUB— 6.4c: See Actions ENV -2.1a CR -1.1e. Policy PUB -6.5: Public Art. In recognition of Kona's embrace of cultural traditions, opportunities should be sought to creatively incorporate public art into public areas or facilities, to create a sense of place. KONA CDP 4-115 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE. AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES. AND ACTIONS Action PUB -6.5a: Consider 1% of public facilities construction budget to be allocated for public art at new County facilities (Kona CDP Implementation Committee, on-going). Policy PUB -6.6: Important Role of Schools in Creating a Sense of Community. The quality of its schools defines the quality of the Kona community. Quality schools show the caring of the community for its children. Quality schools are an investment in the quality of the future, which create outstanding citizens who acquire market -competitive survival skills. • Encourage the placement of an elementary school campus in every Neighborhood TOD/TND. • Link intermediate schools to the public transportation line. • Encourage schools to be utilized as community hubs for family -centered recreation and learning. • Encourage local governance of public schools. • Where DOE plans do not provide for development of planned school sites, charter or private school alternatives should be sought. • To provide life-long learning opportunities and to draw the community into the schools, the schools and the community are encouraged to develop community-based, after- school programs open to all ages. STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE Objective PUB -7. Standard of Excellence. To set a standard of excellence in design, operation, and maintenance for public workers in Kona to strive toward and for the community to encourage such efforts through partnerships. Policy PUB -7.1: Excellence in Design. Design of County facilities shall be evaluated on a life cycle cost basis, accept a higher level of risk for innovation where government has the opportunity to lead by example, and a reasonable premium to incorporate aesthetics or character. Action PUB -7.1a: Use charrettes to the extent practicable in the design process of County facilities to involve the community, broaden the design input with multi -disciplinary expertise, and stimulate creativity (DPW, PD, on-going). 4-116 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, PUBLICFACILITIES, ' POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' Action PUB -7.1b: Update the community at milestones in the design process such as at the end of the schematic, design development, and pre-bid construction documents phases (DPW, PD, on-going). ' Policy PUB -7.2: Excellence in Maintenance. If the community and responsible public workers cannot stand next to the public facility with pride, then that is a call to action for both ' the community and the responsible public agency. Action PUB -7.2a: Develop a maintenance level of service for parks and ' streetscapes to establish a baseline expectation (PR, DPW, 2.3). Action PUB -7.2b: Encourage adopt -a -park and adopt -a -street civic participation to meet the level of service expectations (PR, COMM., on-going). Action PUB -7.2c: Provide for upgrading and maintenance to the public facilities ' in critical need of attention (PR, DPW, on-going): I. Develop a strategic management plan for upgrading facilities at Kahalu`u ' Beach Park, La`aloa Bay Beach Park, Hale Halawai, Higashihara Park, Yano Hall. ii. Maintain parks and public facilities in remote areas, such as Miloli`i. Action PUB -7.2d: Increase lighting at public restrooms (PR, DPW, 2-3). ' Action PUB -7.2e: Open existing public restrooms that are currently closed (e.g. Kainaliu), and provide for more public restrooms in strategic locations (e.g. Hale Halawai, pier in Kailua) (PR, DPW, 1-2). ' Action PUB -7.2f: Initiate a process to establish a monthly, scheduled maintenance review of public facilities in Kona (PR, DPW, 1-2). ' Policy PUB -7.3: Recruitment Incentives. Since government's ability to achieve excellence depends on its ability to fill positions with qualified workers, and since affordable housing close to work is one of the primary obstacles to recruitment, housing projects where government provides land or other substantial resources shall give a high priority to government workers purchasing or renting units within the project. PUBLIC SERVICES AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS ' Objective PUB— 8: To promote the cooperation between government, citizens and organizations, and to facilitate the development of programs to strengthen families and communities. ' Policy PUB -8.1: One -Stop Community Resource Center. The County shall serve as point of community access for information and referral for health, education and social services. KONA CDP 4-117 PUBLIC FACILITIES, CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACT/DNS This is not to duplicate services or provide direct services provided by private service organizations, but to foster maximum utilization of all available resources. Action PUB -8.1a: The County shall work with community to establish One -Stop Community Resource Center (R&D, COMM., 3.5). 1. The County shall provide a community resource staff member at a central location. 2. Staff will be knowledgeable about community resources for families and individuals. 3. Staff will assist community members navigating public systems and understand eligibility criteria for public and privately offered programs. 4. The resource center will be able to identify gaps in services for families and individuals and advocate for improved access to and availability of services. Action PUB -8.1b: Increase funding for the Healing Our Island Program (R&D, 3- 5). Action PUB -8.1c: Increase transportation options, especially small vans, in order to reduce rural isolation and increase access to programs, jobs, and activities (R&D, MT, 2-3). Action PUB -8.1d: Increase demand -response transportation through the use of small vans in order to increase accessibility to drug and alcohol treatment and programs (R&D, MT, 3.5). Action PUB -8.1e: Increase the number of therapeutic living programs and facilities (R&D, MT, OA, 3.5). Action PUB- 81 Develop a de-tox program in Kona (COMM., non-profit, 1). Action PUB -8.19: Establish a youth intake center to provide more immediate intervention for youth in Kona (COMM., non-profit, 1-2). Action PUB -8.1h: Expand partnerships among substance abuse treatment providers and improve coordination and integration of services (COMM, non- profit, on-going). Policy PUB -8.2: The County shall serve as an advocate for programs serving the elderly, disabled, and homeless persons. 4-118 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS. OBJECTIVES. ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENERGY' Action PUB -8.2a: Provide demand -response transportation (e.g. small vans) for the elderly, youth, and disabled (R&D, MT, 3-5). Action PUB -8.2b: Expand partnerships among providers and improve coordination and integration of services for residents with disabilities or special ' needs (COMM., non-profit, OA, on-going). Action PUB -8.2c: The County shall provide a new homeless shelter and an ' opportunity for transitional living to low income rental housing (OA, 3.5). 4.7 ENERGY t The Energy section of the Kona CDP identifies that objectives, policies, and actions that will guide Kona toward energy sustainability. Energy is a key ' component for achieving a sustainable community, which is a guiding principle of the Kona CDP. In that regard, it supports other sections of the Kona CDP, ' particularly Housing; Transportation; Land Use; and, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services. 4.7.1 Existing Conditions The Island of Hawaii, including the Kona Districts, depends almost entirely on foreign sources of fuel for its energy needs. Over 70% of electricity generation and virtually all transportation fuel currently use imported petroleum products. High crude oil prices are linked with this island's high electricity prices, which are more than three times the national average. Gasoline prices are among the highest in the nation. Guiding Principles Energy 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ Kona has one power plant, the Keahole Power Plant, that currently uses imported petroleum diesel. Energy policies have a pervasive influence on other related policies: Housing. Energy policies can lower residents' energy costs for housing and commuting, thereby providing more funds for home financing or renting; ' • Transportation and Land Use. Transportation and Land use policies that reduce dependence on the automobile through compact, walkable, mixed use, villages and expansion of the transit system also reduce fuel consumption; ' • Environment. Global warming. Energy policies that support energy conservation and replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources reduce greenhouse gas emissions ; ' KONA CDP 4-119 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ENERGY POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS — Open space. Energy policies provide further justification to preserve forests and other natural open spaces that lower air temperature and remove ("sequester") carbon dioxide; Economy. Energy policies can stimulate new local business opportunities (e.g., solar water heater installers, 311 party distributed energy providers). Additionally, savings from energy conservation measures translate into more disposable income for individuals and working capital for businesses. The dollars from new local businesses, disposable income spending, and working capital re- circulate in the local economy, thus creating more economic benefit than importing from foreign sources. 4.7.2 Overall Strategy Most energy policies need to apply equally to the entire county, and should not be limited to a particular community plan. The overall strategy for the energy policies in this section, therefore, are intended to inspire individuals as well as private and public organizations to embrace these broader initiatives. There are also certain policies that are highlighted as unique to the conditions of Kona. The overall strategy for the energy policies is to reduce per capita demand and move toward renewable energy sources through the following: Energy efficiency in transportation (County transit, automobile fleet purchasers). Transportation fuels account for over 75% of the energy demand on Hawai'i Island.? Most of the transportation fuel is consumed for ground transportation, with aviation accounting for 23%. The related polices in Transportation and Land Use reduce transportation fuel usage by expanding the mass transit system and creating more compact, mixed-use walkable villages. Energy efficiency in homes and buildings (builders, designers, homeowners). Residential use accounts for the largest share of electrical demand on the island and drives the peak period demand. Large homes are a recent phenomenon in Kona that consume large amounts of energy, particularly for air conditioning. Residential structures in the County are currently exempt from complying with the Model Energy Code. The policy is to encourage the removal of this exemption for the new larger residences. Conservation and energy efficiency of the water system (DWS). The DWS is the largest single user of electricity on the island. Since it uses most of this electricity to pump water, the policies encourage DWS to reduce the amount of water it needs to pump by controlling leaks and promoting water conserving appurtenances (essential for Kona's dry climate). Moreover, by adding power -generating pressure reducing valves (taking advantage of Kona's sloping topography), some of the power can be recovered. Renewable energy sources (HELCO, private providers). The policies encourage LEED and other sustainable building standards to be used, beginning with the County, which would lead the charge by example. 7 Johnson, J., at at, Hawai'i County Baseline Energy Analysis, prepared for the Kohala Center and County of Hawai'i, May 2006. 4-120 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENERGY 4.7.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Energy Goal: Establish Kona as a model for sustainability and energy self sufficiency. ' Objective ENGY-1. To provide a multi -prong framework, including standards, innovations, incentives, and education, to reduce the dependency on imported fossil fuels through energy ' efficiency and renewable energy generation. Policy ENGY-1.1: Energy Building Standards for New Residences. Recognizing that ' residential housing is the largest consumer of electricity (38%) and that air conditioning as a significant driver of residential demand is a relatively recent phenomenon in West Hawai'i due to the numerous larger homes, this Kona CDP supports the mandatory application of the ' Model Energy Code to residential structures with gross living floor area of 6,000 square feet (s.f.) and over (Davies, M. et al, October 3, 2007). For residences less than 6,000 s.f., this CDP supports expedited permit processing by the County for builders who voluntarily employ ' energy efficient measures certified under the Hawai'i BuiltGreen 8 EnergyStar,9 or LEED programs.to Action ENGY-1.1a: Provide a standard logo label to stick onto the title page of building plans to alert the Kona permitting agencies to expedite processing (DPW -BD, PD, -2). Policy ENGY-1.2: Energy Saving Renovation for Existing Residences. For existing home retrofits, investigate establishing a Home Performance with EnergyStar (HpvvES) program, as ' modified and implemented in the State of Oregon." Trained and certified contractors work with homeowners to assess the energy performance of a residence, list recommended improvements, and analyze the approximate payback period (identifying and factoring eligible tax credits). (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 2-3) Policy ENGY-1.3. Mortgage Incentives. Advocate for a mortgage program that provides ' combined benefits for energy efficiency (to increase marketability of certified homes) and location efficiency (to increase marketability of homes in the walkable transit -oriented villages). 1 ' 8 Hawai'i BuiltGreen is a self -certification program administered by the Building Industry Association of Hawaii, which is a professional trade organization affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders. This is a local initiative based on homegrown knowledge of professionals familiar with the unique conditions of Hawaii. See www.HawaiiBulItGreen.com for ' more information. 9 EnergyStar, a joint program of the U.S. EPA and U.S. Dept of Energy, is a rigorous certification of energy efficiency. There is an EnergyStar certification for products and a separate certification for homes. Builders of EnergyStar homes can qualify for the Energy Efficient Home Tax Credit for Builders for federal income taxes. See www.energystar.gov for more ' information. 10 Hawai'i Revised Statutes section 46-19.6 requires all county agencies to place a "priority on processing of permit applications for construction projects incorporating energy and environmental design building standards." rr The Oregon program is described in Davies, M., et al, page 108. For details, see ' hffp://www.energvtrust.org/residential/index.html. KONA CDP 4-121 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ENERGY POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Action ENGY-1.3a: Work with lenders to publicize available mortgage programs. Currently, there are conventional, FHA, and VA Energy -Efficient Mortgages, but Location -Efficient Mortgages are currently available only in select metropolitan areas (Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, LA). There is no mortgage program at this time that is a composite of the two (Credit Unions and other lenders, 3-5). Policy ENGY-1.4: Energy -Related Water System Technology and Practices. As the largest single consumer of electricity in Hawai'i County, water conservation programs by the DWS translate into energy conservation programs. Aggressive efforts to fix water leaks and conserve water (e.g., dual -flush toilets, drip landscape irrigation systems, and low -flow shower heads) save energy by reducing the need to pump water. To take advantage of Kona's sloping terrain, consider installation of power generating -pressure reducing valves, which are turbines placed on existing water lines that produce electricity while relieving water pressure for domestic use at lower elevations. Action ENGY-1.4a: Finance a leak detection program for the County Kona water systems (DWS, 3-5). Action ENGY-1.4b: Install photovoltaic systems to power deep well pumps for the County Kona wells (DWS, 3.5). Action ENGY-1.4c: Pilot installations of power generating -pressure reducing valves in Kona are in progress (DWS, on-going). Policy ENGY-1.5: Distributed Energy and Other Innovative Technology Support. Photovoltaic systems are typically used as distributed generation when connected to the electrical grid where they have the potential to sell excess energy back to the grid. This is an emerging technology with challenges for the utility to incorporate such systems into the grid. This policy is aspirational and expresses general support in whatever way possible (e.g., permit coordination, grants) to encourage further development in this endeavor. Policy ENGY-1.6: Alternative Fuel for Keahole Power Plant. Consider biofuel to replace fossil fuel at the Keahole Power Plant. Policy ENGY-1.7: County Lead by Example. For projects and offices in Kona, the County shall lead by example in the following areas: 4-122 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT a. New buildings—certified by LEED, EnergyStar, or Hawaii GreenBuiit b. Existing buildings—certified by LEED for major renovations or operations and maintenance c. Street lights—use energy-efficient or solar -powered lights d. Rain water and gray water harvesting—for new buildings, evaluate the possibility of installing rain water harvesting techniques such as tanks that collect roof drainage, roof -top tanks for toilet flushing, piping stormwater to lawns and gardens, permeable pavements for parking lots with collection system e. Pesticide substitution—explore nontoxic alternatives for maintaining landscaping in public rights-of-way, parks, and at County facilities f. Purchasing—purchase EnergyStar and products made from recycled materials; purchase energy-efficient vehicles (and pioneer electric vehicle purchases when they become available). 4.$; EMOMIC.DEVELOPMENT The Economic Development section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies, and actions that ' focus on supporting important foundations of Kona's economy as well as key opportunities for economic development for which Kona is strategically tpositioned. Maintaining a vibrant economy in Kona is essential for achieving the visions of the Kona CDP. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions According to Hawaii Business Directory, Kailua had 2,652 business listings in 2005 and increased by 10.8 percent in 2 -years with 2,939 business listings in 2007 (Hawai'i Business Directory, 2006). In 2006, four industry sectors dominated Hawai'i Island's total employment: 1) leisure and hospitality, which includes accommodation and food services; 2) trade, transportation and utilities of which retail is a Guiding Principles Econ. Devi. 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. ✓ 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ major contributor; 3) government, where most of the employment is at the state level; and, 4) education and health services, which includes health care and social assistance. Together, these four industries accounted for 73.3 percent of the total employment in Hawai'i County. The major economic sectors for Kona include: 1. Tourism. Tourism (and visitor -related activities) is the major industry on the Island of Hawaii. In 2005, there were 11,351 visitor accommodation units on the Island, located mainly in Hilo, Kona and South Kohala, an increase of 13 percent over the previous year. These breakdown KoNA CDP 4-123 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS by unit type as: 1) hotel- 6,977; 2) timeshare -, 1,592; 3) condo/hotel — 1,462; 4) individual vacation- 756; 5) bed & breakfast - 353; 6) other -189; 7) hostel- 21; and 8) apartment/hotel -1. As Kona and South Kohala are the major destination areas, most of the units (approximately 8,000) are located in those two areas (County of Hawai'i, 2005). An increasingly significant part of the tourism industry on the Island is the cruise ship industry. The County has experienced the largest impact from the cruise ship industry, with its relatively small tourist base. Hawaii cruise ship visitor arrivals were 312,812 in 2005, and grew by 27 percent to 397,318 in 2006 (County of Hawai'i, 2005). In 2005, about 66 percent of all visitors Island stayed in hotels, 7.7 percent stayed in condominiums, 9.7 percent stayed with friends and relatives, 8.9 percent stayed in timeshare properties and 11.6 percent stayed on cruise ships. Hotel occupancy rates in Kona averaged 75.8 percent in the five year period from 2000 to 2005 (County of Hawai'i, 2005). 2. Diversified agriculture. Diversified agriculture, as referred in this plan, includes all agricultural commodities, except sugar and canned pineapple. According to figures supplied by the State Department of Agriculture, the revenue generated by diversified agriculture has continued to demonstrate gains every year since 1986. The majority of the fresh vegetables and fruits consumed in the State is imported. In many instances _..�•� ■ate � Y produce can be grown locally and with V Farmer's Market. Kamehameha Investment Comoration. I equal or better quality than imports. However, for local produce replace a corresponding import, it must be grown and marketed year-round in sufficient quantity to meet local market demand. Without a commitment to use local produce, it is difficult for local growers to compete effectively with imported produce. Another opportunity for diversified agriculture expansion is the cruise line industry. A number of cruise lines are now sailing to Hawai'i. Recently, there was an agricultural trade show hosting Norwegian Cruise Line purchasing officials. It was reported that these ships need fresh produce and fruit to supply the equivalent of 10 restaurants per ship and serve up to 2,000 passengers daily. (County of Hawai'i, 2005). Still another potentially profitable market for locally grown produce is the new and largely untapped niche, of the seasonal overseas market. Some farmers have already successfully entered this niche market. The increase in direct sales of agricultural products at farmers' markets demonstrate an increasing interest among the public to purchase fresh, locally produced agriculture products. In October of 2007, the Hawai'i Food Summit held in Kona was attended by about four 4-124 KoNA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT hundred people interested in supporting the concept on increased food sustainability. Other events, such as The Taste of the Range, also indicate the growing support for local agriculture. Hawai'i Island's climate and year-round growing season is conducive to agricultural production. Agriculture contributes substantially to the County's economy and produces a variety of goods for export and local consumption. The major industries in Kona are: aquaculture; cattle; coffee; forestry and macadamia nuts. 3. Forest and Ranching. Forestry in Kona includes a wide range of climate- and zone -specific forests, from the smaller, naturally occurring dry forests of Kapulehu to larger forests containing high value plantation species that are harvested commercially in areas such as the H6naunau forest in South Kona (Allen, William, Bioscience, "Restoring HawaiTs Dry Forests' Dec. 200, Vol 50. No.12) and (CTHAR, Economic Issues, "Characteristics of HawaiTs Retail Forest Industry in 2001," Feb 2006). Increasing interest lies in promoting ecologically sound methods of forestry, such as biodiverse agroforestry, in contrast to older methods of farm forestry like alley farming, as well as in reforesting former pastureland and the conservation and management of forests unique to Hawai'i (Leakey, Roger, "Agroforestry: Tree -based Polycultures, www.agroforestry.neYevents/afwkshp2006/virtualwkshps.html#Anchor-Agenda- 11481). The most recent 2001 survey estimated HawaiTs forestry industry valued at $30.7 million, which includes a retail sector valued at $23.9 million (CTHAR, Economic Issues, "Characteristics of HawaiTs Retail Forest Industry in 2001," Feb 2006). Within the islands of Hawai'i and Kauai alone, there are more than 40,000 acres of standing, harvestable timber, along with over 20,000 acres in various stages of planting, planning or natural regeneration (Leone, Honolulu Star Bulletin, "Native Bat Forces Review of Timber Harvesting," Dec. 12, 2002). The livestock industry on the island of Hawai'i includes approximately 450 beef cattle and dairy ranching operations, located primarily in the North Kohala, Kona, and Ka'u districts, which generates over $20 million per year for the island. The island's beef cattle industry provides over half of the state's beef supply on approximately 650,000 acres of grazing land; however, most calves are now exported to the mainland U.S. Over 2,000 dairy cows, primarily Holstein -Friesians, stock the four major dairies on the island, providing almost all of the fresh fluid milk supply. The dairy industry generates over $7.5 million in farm gate revenues ("County of Hawai'i Agriculture: Livestock" www.hawaii- county.com/bigislandag/livestock.htmi. 1997). Significant amounts of pastureland on the island are currently being withdrawn from use due to sale and other factors, and, in line with more biodiverse farming trends, Kona is currently seeing some efforts toward reclamation of pastureland for agroforestry, in certain areas (Kelley, Jack. "Shifting Paradigms for West KONA CDP 4-125 ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Hawai'i" Hawaii Island Journal, Dec. 4, 2004 www.hawaiisalandjournal.com/2004/12bO4b.html). 4. Redevelopment Needs. A high priority is the need to invest in Kailua Village as the commercial, cultural, and visitor center for Kona. Capital reinvestment in Kailua properties has been below needed thresholds for years. Faced with a continuing decline, some tenants have departed as their leases have expired, and prospective tenants and owners have elected to locate their operations outside of the Village center. On the other hand, increasingly, travelers are choosing to stay in time-share units, condominiums, on cruise ships or with friends and family. This provides the Village with new opportunities to become economically and culturally strong. Also, the new owners of the King Kamehameha Beach Hotel will soon begin a $25 million upgrade to the facility. But without substantial improvements, Kailua Village's current businesses will likely be drawn away by the new commercial center on Queen Liii'uokalani Trust lands, mauka of the Old Airport. This will further decrease the economic viability of the Kailua Village. One proactive response to this threat has been the creation of the Kailua Village Business Improvement District (KVBID). Business Improvement Districts are a concept that swept through North America in the 1990s. They generally involve a legal mechanism to create a sustainable funding base for enhancing the management of a business district. The KVBID is a collaborative effort between business, government and area residents to develop and implement creative solutions to improve the cleanliness, attractiveness and economic vibrancy of Kailua Village. District landowners, lessees of land, commercial tenants and residents are assessed according to property tax valuations and these assessments return directly to the District to fund programs and improvements. 5. Housing Needs. The current shortage of all types of affordable and workforce housing is making it difficult for many residents to make a living as well as creating a major obstacle for employees in Kona. 4.8.2 Overall Strategy companies to attract and retain Housing in K Economic vulnerability increases with excessive dependence on imports (e.g., susceptible to shipping strikes) and lack of diversity (e.g., susceptible to global recessions that reduce visitor travel). Therefore, the overall strategy for Kona's economic development is to support Kona's current strengths in agriculture and tourism, and to diversify with new opportunities that reduce dependence on imports, complement other objectives such as recycling and alternative energy, and provide job opportunities that raise the skill levels of the workforce. Pertinent initiatives include the following: (a) Energy industry. With NELHA as a catalyst, the policies encourage the development of renewable and distributed energy endeavors. 4-126 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ' (b) Health industry. With a new Kona hospital as a catalyst, the policies encourage the development of health-related endeavors where Kona adds its own stamp to the island's reputation as the healing island. ' (c) Resource recovery network. The policies envision the development of interdependent industries in Kona that exchange and make use of each other's byproducts. ' (d) Food industry. Kona has a name brand specialty export crop in the Kona coffee. The policies support the health of that agricultural sector. Additionally, the policies recognize ' the benefits of increasing locally produced food for the local market by reducing the current 85% dependence on imported food to the island. The suggested means is through the expansion of the underutilized Keahole Agricultural Park, and support for farmer's markets, ' NELHA's aquaculture incubation, community gardens, and opportunities to share cooking and food traditions. The inspiration is the Kona Field System, a vast, intensively cultivated area in the Kona uplands, which once supported a native Hawaiian population comparable ' in size to Kona's population today. According to figures supplied by the State Department of Agriculture, the revenue generated by diversified agriculture has continued to demonstrate gains every year since 1986. Diversified agriculture includes all agricultural ' commodities except sugar and canned pineapple. In order to move beyond the development of specialty niche market products and actually replace imports, locally - grown products must be supplied in sufficient quantities, year around, to meet the local market demand. Without the ability to make this commitment, it is difficult for local growers to compete effectively with imported products: Besides increasing our food sustainability, the development of a strong agricultural industry in Kona serves as an incentive to protect ' agricultural lands for agriculture. The primary strategies for the enhancement of our Agricultural Industry in Kona focus on ' the following. 1. Protection of Agricultural Lands. The maintenance of the current overall density of agriculturally- zoned lands outside of the Kona Urban Area (UA) will discourage unplanned sprawl as well as protect agricultural lands for agricultural uses. See Policy LU -3.8 ' 2. Rural Clusters. The adoption of the new program will encourage clustering of development on agricultural lands in exchange for the perpetual protection of ' contiguous blocks of lands for crop production. The program will also provide an opportunity to create affordable housing in rural areas. See Policy LU -3.3 3. Availability of Water. The Plan supports the need to identify irrigation water sources for the agricultural industry. See Policy PUB -4.3 4. Agricultural Tourism. The County shall adopt a program to define the legal ' development of our agricultural tourism industry. See Policy ECON. 2.1 5. Buy Local. The development of a "Local Grown" marketing program for agricultural products will promote Kona's agricultural industry which, in turn, encourages the protection of agricultural lands. See Policy ECON. 2.1 ' KONA CDP 4-127 ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 6. Urban Community Gardens. Land provided for use as community parks can be used for the development of community gardens within urban areas. See Policy PUB -6.2 (e) Ecosystem Services. The concept of ecosystem services attempts to make conservation a viable business option. The policies encourage the further exploration and development of this concept. (f) Workforce Development and Innovation. The new West Hawaii University or community college would synergize with NELHA, the hospital, and the Design Center to provide training opportunities for Kona's upcoming generation and, thereby, also attract new businesses. With partnerships established among other universities with expertise in emerging technology, engineering, and science, the university can stimulate innovative applications in the business arena. (g) Redevelopment. For our existing communities to thrive and for new opportunities to expand, we must invest in and maintain our basic infrastructure. The formation of a redevelopment District in Kailua is necessary in order to maintain and enhance Kailua Village as the commercial, cultural, and visitor center for the Kona District. As part of the proposed Kailua redevelopment project, it will be very important to provide new workforce housing and live -work units in the Village area to serve the needs of local business. Redevelopment priorities for our Mauka Towns also need to be established. 4.8.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Economic Development Goal. To foster economic diversification, reduce import dependence, and increase that Objective ECON-1. Strategic Public Facilities and Business Opportunities as Economic Stimuli. To optimize the potential of certain public facilities and policies to stimulate ancillary economic growth that is desirable because they are environmentally clean, diversify the economy (i.e., not visitor - dependent), pay decent wages, and demand skills and intellect that challenge Kona's existing and upcoming workforce. Policy ECON-1.1: Hospital as Stimulus for Healthcare Industry. Kona needs a new hospital to replace its existing outdated and out -of -place facility. The new hospital should be located on Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) for optimum accessibility by automobile or transit. To encourage the private sector to negotiate a site for the hospital, the TOD in which 4-128 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT the hospital decides to locate within shall be automatically designated a Regional Center TOD if the Official Kona Land Use Map has designated it as a Neighborhood TOD. As a Regional Center TOD, there would be incentives for medical offices and other hospital -related businesses to develop in the vicinity. Action ECON-1.1a: Develop Request for Proposal (RFP) for new hospital, negotiate with candidates, and select new site (DOH, PD, private, 1-2). Action ECON-1.1b: Develop medical center TOD master plan and rezone as a ' Regional Center TOD (DOH, PD, private, 1-2). Policy ECON-1.2: Civic Center as Stimulus for Office and Retail Development. The proposed civic center should be master planned within the context of an overall TOD master plan in order to have the civic center function as an inviting and attractive town center, and to properly capture the potential secondary business demands generated by the numerous ' County employees working at the civic center as well as the residents drawn to the civic center to conduct business. Action ECON-1.2a: Develop TOD master plan with the civic center as the heart of the town center and rezone as a Commercial TOD (DPW, PD, 2-3). ' Policy ECON-1.3: NELHA as Stimulus for Energy and Research Industry. NELHA has paradoxical missions: is it a research institution that requires State subsidy or a self-sustaining commercial operation. Are the diverse uses of the cold, pristine, deep ocean water its focus or ' is the innovative energy research that may use the deep ocean water or other ocean resources as well as non -ocean energy research its focus. The Kona CDP encourages the State and NELHA's board of directors to balance NELHA's complex mission in order to make it a world- class renewable energy research center with close ties to the proposed West Hawai'i University. To offset research subsidies, the plan supports commercial development of the mauka NELHA area by businesses incubated at the NELHA's research area. The proposed ' frontage road would provide convenient access by residents and visitors to this proposed commercial area. Action ECON-1.3a: Encourage DBEDT and NELHA Board of Directors (BoD) to reevaluate and publicly articulate NELHA's short- and long-term business plan (DBEDT, NELHA, 1.2). Action ECON-1.3b: Develop a master plan for the commercial development of the mauka area of NELHA and obtain entitlements (DBEDT, NELHA, 1.2). Action ECON-1.3c: Design and construct the frontage road to complement and timplement the commercial master plan (NELHA, private, DPW, PD, 5.10). Policy ECON-1.4: University as Workforce Development. The synergistic relationship of a university or community college at West Hawai'i with the hospital, NELHA, and Design Center KONA CDP 4-129 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES. POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS will provide opportunities for the West Hawaii residents to obtain the necessary education and training to fill jobs in the emerging skill areas of healthcare, energy, agriculture and urban design. Action ECON-1.4a: Work with the State, university system, and the community to finalize decisions regarding the mission and size of the new university at West Hawaii (UH, PRIV, on- going). Hawaii Community College 8 UH West Hawaii Service Center, Nancy Pislrchio Action ECON-1.4b: Develop a master plan and program funds for the design and construction of the campus (UH, private, 3.5). Action ECON-1.4c: Develop the TOD master plan for the surrounding areas of the university in coordination with the adjoining Palamanui project (UH, private, 3.5). Action ECON-1.4d: Formalize the relationships between the Hawaii Community College and the Design Center, NELHA, and the healthcare industry (UH, NELHA, DC, on-going). Policy ECON-1.5: Food industry catalysts. Support the expansion of the Keahole Agricultural Park to provide affordable farm lots that emphasize local food production. The proximity of the Park to the new university (for research and technical support), the airport (for exporting), and the urban villages (for direct marketing such as farmers' markets) makes this area a unique opportunity. Policy ECON-1.6: Conservation as a viable business option. Support the evolving refinement of the concept of ecosystem services to encourage private owners to manage or restore their lands in their natural state (See Policies ENV -1.3 and ENV -1.4). Policy ECON-1.7: Redevelopment as Economic Stimuli. The County shall work with the Kailua Village Improvement District, the Chamber of Commerce and other Stakeholders to develop the Kailua Village Redevelopment District Plan and the Rural Towns' redevelopment plans (See Policy LU — 2.4). The plans shall address: • Infrastructure improvements and public safety • Infill and Brownfield Development • Multi modal transportation • Mixed-use development opportunities • Affordable and workforce housing 4-130 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Public Parking ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT roucy LUUN-115: tco-mausrnai varK. ' To encourage the feasibility testing of the concept of an eco -industrial park, which is a community of firms that exchange and ' make use of each other's byproducts, there shall be a floating Project District called the Eco -Industrial Park that shall be available to areas within the Urban Area zoned MG, ML, or MCX. The County would assist by funding experts to work with the developer to create a master plan . , z - t and marketing scheme, to expedite permit Rendering of Eco -Industrial Park cor+. approvals, and to coordinate with the ' County's Solid Waste Division and other interested parties. On a smaller scale, a community program shall recognize efforts by individual businesses to modify their practices to reduce waste and/or substitute with recoverable materials. Action ECON-1.8a: Establish a pool of expertise and information on the eco - industrial park concept (R&D, 3-5). Action ECON-1.8b: Establish a reuse center to refurbish and sell used appliances and materials (In progress by OHCD and Catholic Social Ministries). Action ECON-1.8c: Establish a community recognition program for green businesses (Being done by Chamber of Commerce). Objective ECON-2. Strengthen and Encourage New Agricultural -Related Endeavors. To enhance existing and encourage new agriculturally -related endeavors. Policy ECON-2.1: Explore and provide opportunities to support, promote, or enhance Kona's agricultural industry. Action ECON-2.1a: The County will work with Kona's Agricultural Community to make recommendations for priorities such as (R&D, DOA, COMM., on-going): 1. Market research for potential export crops in North and South Kona, 2. Language assistance to enable non-English speaking farmers to market their crops. 3. Agricultural industry training for current and new farmers. 4. Establishment of processing facilities in order for farmers to increase opportunities to develop value-added products. KONA CDP 4-131 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES. ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 5. Encouragement local institutions (e.g., school cafeterias) to purchase locally produced food. 6. New "crop incubator" projects. 7. Centralized data center to serve as a clearinghouse for information on available Kona agricultural products, services, and markets. 8. Establishment of a commercial kitchen and drying facility to encourage increased diversity in value-added products. 9. Expand the County's "green waste" nutrients recycling program and purchase a tub grinder for the Kona Green Waste Processing Facility. 10. Programs and events to support and promote agriculture in Kona. Action ECON-2.1b: Create and adopt a county Agricultural Tourism program/policy (RBD, DOA, COMM., 2.3). Action ECON-2.1c: In partnership with the agriculture community in Kona, the County will establish a "Local Grown" program for agriculture products (RBD, DOA, COMM., UH, 1-2). 4-132 KONA CDP ACT/ON PLAN CHAPTER 5 5.ACTION PLAN ' With the growth of the population around the Island, it has been increasingly clear that regional approaches are necessary to effectively implement many of the broad Objectives identified within the County General Plan's Elements. The County General Plan, approved in 2005, marked a new era in ' government for the County of Hawai'i because it established the program serving to develop Community Development Plans around the Island. ' The Kona CDP is not expected to provide all the solutions. What the drafting and adoption of the Kona CDP, or any of the Island's CDPs, does is provide a major step in the increased regionalization of the Island's planning so that we may become more effective in addressing both the character of the region ' as well as the needs of the local residents. The Kona CDP contains Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions that are targeted to be implemented within Kona. Some of the Actions will be enacted by the adoption of the Kona CDP by the Hawai'i County Council. Others will require subsequent activities, ' appropriation of funding, community-based program development, participation by private business and/or other government agencies. ' Due to the Kona -specific nature of this Kona CDP as a County legal policy document, it will be very important over the planning horizon of the Kona CDP to monitor, assess, and facilitate progress being made toward the implementation of all the Policies and Actions. The structure and staffing of the ' Planning Department will need evolve to provide for the long-range planning oversight that will be necessary to implement and administer the Kona CDP. In addition, due to the focus of the County Planning Commission as a regulatory body, as well as the enormous task that oversight Kona -specific ' policies will require, there is the need for creating of a regional Implementation Committee (IC) dedicated specifically to monitoring and facilitating Kona CDP Policy implementation. 5.1 FINANCING PLAN There shall be a financing plan to identify alternative funding sources for infrastructure, public facilities and services, and other initiatives identified in the Kona CDP. Upon completion of the financing plan, the Implementation Committee shall recommend appropriate actions. 5.1.1 Scope of the Financing Plan The financing plan shall address, at a minimum, the following: Financing Policies. Articulate the financing policies, such as when special assessments or taxes are appropriate compared with general obligation bonds, who would merit special treatment under certain funding mechanisms (e.g., affordable housing units), and the acceptable maximum tax burden. 2. Build -out Rate. Use the latest available information to project the build -out of the planning area, which the County will provide upon discussions with landowners and developers. KONA CDP 5-1 CHAPTER 5 ACT/ON PLAN 3. Funding Needs. Provide cost estimates for the infrastructure, facilities, and services listed in the following section. Develop a phasing plan based on the build -out rate and financial feasibility analysis. To ensure concurrency, critical infrastructure (i.e., roads, sewer, and water) shall be in place at the time of projected occupancy. 4. Alternative Funding Sources. Consider at a minimum the appropriateness of following funding sources: a. General fund current revenues; b. General obligation bonds; c. Revenue bonds (including redevelopment authority bonds); d. Land -secured financing (improvement districts, community facilities districts); e. Business improvement districts (services and facilities); f. Development fees (e.g., DWS facilities charges); g. User fees; h. Impact fees (examine the potential uses of this source if an impact fee ordinance has not been adopted); i. Tax -increment financing, and/or other means to earmark portions of property tax revenues generated from the planning area for specific improvements or services; j. Grants and donations; k. Reimbursement programs (formal mechanisms to reimburse initial developers or public agencies for upfront funding). 5.1.2 Funding List The following funding list is compiled from Chapter 4 and not ordered in priority. 1. Programs a. Design Center setup (See Policy LU -4.1) b. Civic Center TOD master planning program (See Policy ECON-1.2) c. Kailua Village Redevelopment Planning Program (See Policy LU -2.3) d. Rural Towns Redevelopment Planning Program (See Policy LU -3.1) e. Open Space Network program (See Policy ENV -2.1) f. Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (See Policy ENV -1.2) g. Anchialine Ponds and Nearshore Water Quality Management and Monitoring Program (See Policies ENV -1.11 and ENV -1.12) h. Urban Stormwater management Program (See Policy PUB -4.7 i. Cultural Resources Inventory (See Policy CR -1.1) j. Kona Cultural Resources Committee and Cultural Landscape Report support (See Policy CR -1.1) 5-2 KONA CDP ACT/ON PLAN 2. Capital improvements and equipment CHAPTER 5 a. Transportation i. Roads (See Policies TRAN-1.2, TRAN-1.5, TRAN-6.2, and Figure 4-3 Official Transportation Map) 1. Kahului-Keauhou Parkway 2. Mamalahoa Bypass 3. Keanalehu Street –Manawale'a Street 4. Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) a. Phase I: Palani Road to Kealakehe Parkway b. Phase II:Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street c. Phase III: Hina Lani Street to Kaiminani Drive 5. Kamanu Street Extension 6. La'aloa Street Extension 7. Lako Street Extension 8. Nani Kailua Street Extension a. Makai section (Kuakini Highway to Alii Drive) b. Mauka section (HualMai Road to Kuakini Highway) 9. Kealaka'a Street Extension 10. Hienaloli Street Extension 11. University Drive 12. Frontage Road - 13. Kuakini Highway Extension 14. Kakalina Street Extension 15. Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Phase II (Kealakehe Parkway to Airport) 16. Kealakehe Parkway Extension to Kealaka'a Street ii. Buses—add new buses to improve existing service and for new routes as proposed roads are completed. (See Policy TRAN-1.4) iii. Rural paratransit (See Policy TRAN-5.1) iv. Park & Ride Facilities (See Policy TRAN-3.8) 1. Makaeo Village 2. Captain Cook v. Transit Stations (See Policies TRAN-1.6 and TRAN-3.8) 1. Kailua or Makaeo Village hub 2. TODs vi. New bus maintenance facility (See Policy TRAN-1.4) KONA CDP 5-3 CHAPTER 5 ACT/ON PLAN vii. County parking lots/structures (See Policy TRAN4.3) 1. Kailua Village 2. TODs viii. Safe Routes to School improvements (See Policy TRAN-3.5) ix. Trails and bikeways—to be determined by Open Space Network Plan (See Policies TRAN-3.6, b. Water (See Policy PUB4.1) i. Source ii. Storage iii. Transmission c. Wastewater (See Policies PUB -4.4, PUB -4.5, and PUB -4.6) i. Kealakehe WWTP Expansion ii. New natural system WWTP iii. Sewer system expansion iv. Kahalu'u sewer extension v. Wastewater reclamation system d. Drainage (See Policy PUB -4.7) i. Flood mapping ii. Drainageways-- to be determined by Urban Stormwater Management Program e. Housing(See Policy HSG -1.1) i. Setup costs for Kona Housing Non -Profit ii. Kona Housing Trust Fund Financing program Parks (See Policy PUB -6.2) i. Regional park—new Kealakehe park ii. District park—upgraded Old Airport Park and new district park in S. Kona iii. Community parks—located approximately every two miles in the Kona UA iv. Neighborhood parks—financing to be determined by TODITND master plans v. Performing arts center/auditorium (if not part of regional park) g. One -Stop Community Resource Center w/ senior recreational center (See Policies PUB -3-2 and PUB -8.1) h. Open Space acquisitions (See Policies ENV -3.1, ENV -3.2, and ENV -3.3) i. Setup costs for Kona Treasures Fund ii. Candidate acquisition properties to be identified in Open Space Network Map i. Civic Center (See Policy ECON-1.2) 5-4 KONA CDP ACT/ON PLAN CHAPTER 5 j. Fire (See Policies PUB -2.3 and PUB -2.4) i. New Makalei fire station, plus equipment and additional operational cost ii. New South Kona fire station, plus equipment and additional operational cost t iii. Captain Cook expansion (currently in design phase) iv. New lifeguard stations, plus additional operational cost k. Police (See Policies PUB -2.1 and PUB -2.2) i. New South Kona police station (County is in the process of acquiring land) ii. Relocation of North Kona police station iii. Helicopter ' 1. Courthouse—relocate courthouse to Civic Center (See Policy PUB -2.1) tm. Solid Waste-- Relocate transfer station n. Schools—financing of new schools within the TODs and TNDs to be determined ' by the TOD/TND master plans (See Policy PUB -6.6) o. University (See Policy ECON-1.4) 1 p. Medical Center (See Policy ECON-1.1) ' 3. Services a. Maintenance of drainageways (See Policy ENV -1.8) ' b. Right-of-way landscape maintenance (See Policy TRAN-3.3) c. Pathways maintenance (See Policy ENV -2.1) d. Repaving upgrades for bike and pedestrian improvements (See Policy TRAN-3.4) ' e. 4 police officers/1000 residents (See Policy PUB -2.1) f. Parks maintenance (See Policy PUB -7.2) 5.1.3 Financing Districts Map In order to track the creation of financing districts such as community facilities districts, improvement ' districts, tax increment financing districts, business improvement districts, and redevelopment districts, such districts shall be included on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map (Figures 4-10a to 4- 10c) upon formation by ordinance. 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION Empowerment at the community level increases local access to decision making, thereby stimulating ' civic engagement. Broader civic engagement increases the overall knowledge and skill capacity of the community and this increasing capacity provides effective input and creates energy to enable the plan to evolve and adapt to the changing community needs. 1 Therefore, this chapter sets forth a recommended community-based structure created to ensure the implementation of the Kona CDP. This requires several things: 1 I KONA CDP 5-5 CHAPTER 5 ACT/ON PLAN There is a community-based entity serving as the steward of the CDP, the "keeper of the flame', in terms of the plan ; This entity is composed of representatives from the CDP planning area; and This entity keeps itself apprised of local land use issues. 5.2.1 Organizational Structure and Membership The recommended structure is to establish an appointed committee to be administered and staffed by the Planning Department. This Implementation Committee (IC) would consist of nine members with at least three members being residents of South Kona. In addition to the nine members, one representative each from the Design Center, the Kona Housing Non -Profit, the Kona Treasures Fund, and the Kona Cultural Resources Committee shall serve as ex -officio members of the Implementation Committee. The selection of the members shall be guided by the following criteria: • "Can do" attitude with optimism moderated by realism • Open-minded when considering whether the old ways may no longer work • Willing and able to work with and collaborate with people who may have different points of view • Respect and appreciate other cultures besides their own • Willing to work with government by collaborating and building partnerships • Ability to see the "big picture' — consider and include more than one's own agendas. Cultural competence in Hawaii's multi -cultural society. • Knowledge of the challenges of living and working in the distinctly different parts of Kona (North and South Kona Districts) • Connected with the community and know the people in the community. Although guided primarily by the above criteria, the selection shall also strive to balance representation of the following interests: • Environment; • Housing; • Hawaiian Heritage • Cultural Resources or Activities • Landowners/Developers ■ Business or Financing • Public Safety or Health • Education • General, including elderly, youth, or other interests. 5.2.2 Duties The Implementation Committee (IC) shall serve as the official advocate for the Kona CDP. In addition to partnering with County government, the IC shall strive to stimulate and provide guidance for community-based participation in the implementation of the Kona CDP goals, objectives, policies and actions. The timeline specified in the Implementation Matrix shall guide the establishment of the IC's priorities. The IC shall adopt rules of procedure. 5-6 KDNA CDP ACT/ON PLAN CHAPTER 5 ' A. Plan implementation duties i. Receive periodic updates from County Departments at least once per year regarding Kona t CDP implementation based on the Implementation Matrix; ii. Make recommendations on Kona CDP official map amendments; iii. Respond to public questions on the Kona CDP or forward questions to the proper agencies ' for response; iv. Initiate and coordinate actions for which the community has assumed responsibility; v. Advocate for action if implementation stalls; ' vi. Annually evaluate progress on Kona CDP actions and assess the need to update/amend policies; vii. Review and revise the indicators on an annual basis, or as otherwise necessary; ' viii. Hold annual "town" meetings to discuss implementation issues, progress, and need for changes; ix. Assist in the education of government and the community regarding the Kona CDP - specific policies adopted for the planning area. B. Budgetary duties ' i. For any 'block" CIP appropriations to the CDP planning area, establish priorities and monitor progress based on the Kona CDP; ii. For the annual County -wide CIP Budget, provide a list of priorities to the Planning ' Department as input in the preparation of the Budget; iii. For the annual County -wide Operational Budget, provide recommendations to the relevant departments as input in the preparation of the Budget. ' iv. Assist the County in implementing the funding plan C. Regulatory Updates ' i. The Planning Commission(s) has the responsibility for regulatory decision-making, which is very time-consuming. The role of the IC should be to focus on proactive implementation of the Kona CDP, and not to be consumed by reacting to every permit application. ' Nevertheless, it is important for the IC to be aware of pending and approved applications. For this purpose, the Planning Department should provide a report to the IC at intervals desired by the IC of all pending and approved permits processed by the Planning ' Department located within the Kona CDP planning area. 5.2.3 Annual and Comprehensive Review ' With support from the Planning Department, the IC shall prepare an annual report to the community outlining the progress and obstacles in implementing the Kona CDP. The Report shall cover, at a ' minimum, the following: A. Summary report card based on the Kona CDP Implementation Matrix and the Indicators ' identified in Chapters 5 and 6; B. Accomplishments, for the year and cumulative; C. Major issues or challenges, for the year and cumulative; ' KONA CDP 5-7 CHAPTER 5 ACT/ON PLAN D. Recommended amendments to the plan with a determination on whether an amending ordinance should be processed immediately or should be accumulated with other pending recommendations to be addressed in the next comprehensive update. 5.3 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX The Implementation Matrix provides a list of the actions needed to implement the Kona CDP, by element. The matrix indicates the type of actions that will be required to implement the policies, and the completion time of the actions to be initiated. The IC shall have the authority to approve updates to the matrix on an annual basis, or as otherwise necessary, to keep the responsibilities and actions current and effective. County implementation of the actions will be dependent upon available funding. Acronyms/Abbreviations App. Applicant BUS. Businesses CD Civil Defense COE US Army Corps of Engineers COMM Community-based Organization DATA County Data Systems DBEDT State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism DEM County Department of Environmental Management DC Design Center DOA State Department of Agriculture DOE State Department of Education DOH Department of Health DOT State Department of Transportation DHHL State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DLNR State Department of Land & Natural Resources DPW County Department of Public Works DWS County Department of Water Supply Fin. County Finance Department HCCRC Hawai'i County Cultural Resources Commission HELCO Hawai'i Electric and Light Company HHFDC Hawai'i Housing Finance and Development Corporation KCC Kona Chamber of Commerce KCRC Kona Cultural Resources Committee KVBID Kailua Village Business Improvement District KVDC Kailua Village Design Commission Mayor's County Mayors Office MT County Mass Transit Agency NELHA Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawai'i NPS National Park Service OA County Office of Aging 5-6 KDNA CDP ACT/ON PLAN Acronvms/Abbreviations (continued OHCD County Office of Housing and Community Development OSC County Open Space Commission ' OSP Office of State Planning PATH People's Advocacy for Trails Hawai'i PC County Planning Commission ' PD County Planning Department PR County Department of Parks & Recreation QLT Queen Lili'uokalani Trust ' R&D County Research & Development SHPD State Historic Preservation Division State State agency t SWCD Soil Water Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy UH University of Hawai'i CHAPTER 5 ' KONA CDP 5-9 CHAPTER 5 This page intentionally left blank. ACT/oN PLAN 5-1 G KoNA CDP ,r COMPLETION TIMELINE ACTION C C C ` 'O � E � IMPLEMENTOR(S) ' gB 3 0 w` TRAN-1.2a: Design and construct the Keohokalole Highway in functional sections Phase): Palani Road to Kealakehe Parkway ',,. .......,.. a) Design Ready ✓ pp b) Construction Ready ✓ DPl4' c) Construct ✓ DOT, DPW Phase II - Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street a) Design Ready ✓ PD b) Construction Ready ✓ ppW c) Construct - ✓ DPW Phase III - Hina Land Street to Kaiminani Drive a) Design Ready ✓ pp b) Construction Ready ✓ppW c) Construct - - ✓ppW Phase IV - Kaiminani Drive to University Drive a) Design Ready ✓ prdvate _ _ _ b) Construction Ready - ✓ Private c) Construct ✓ Private TRAN-1.4a: Establish bus routes on existing streets along the designated Secondary Transit Route. ✓ MT TRAN-1.4b: Establish bus routes on proposed streets as they are built along the Secondary Transit Route. ✓ MT TRAN-1.4c: Provide bus maintenance facility in the Kona UA to support the expanded bus service. ✓ MT TRAN-1.5a: Design and construct Frontage Road Phase I - Airport to Hulikoa a) Coordinate design and intersections with the DOT's Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening ✓ PD, DO7 b) Coordinate financing with public and private owners ✓ PD, Fin. c) Obtain permit approvals ✓ PD Phase II - National Park Service section ✓ PD, NPS a) Determine alignment within 300 -foot ROW or NPS property Phase III - Connect Kuakini Highway extension a) Coordinate financing and Construction with DLNRIDHHL and OLT ✓ PD, DPW, DLNR, DHHL, OLT TRAN-0.Be: Determine the location, design, and function of major transit hub ✓ MT, PD TRAN-1.6b: Determine funding and construction schedule ✓ MT, PD IRAN -1.6c: Identify Kailua urban transit routes, including phasing and transfer routes ✓ MT TRAN-1.7a: Establish a route to Kailua or Makaeo Village with enhanced frequency and in coordination with ✓ MT rural ratransit service. TRAN-1.71b: Master plan transit station in Coordiabon with Rural Town redevelopment ✓ MT, PD TRAN-3.4a: Identify high priority retrofits and Coordiate with Department of Public Works ✓ PD, DPW TRAN-3.4b: Obtain Department of Public Works repaving and repair project schedule and coordinate ✓ PD, DPW retrofits in conjunction with those projects TRAN-3.8a: Master plan, design, and Construct park and ride facilifies ✓ MT TRAN-3.8b: Coordinate inter -modal Connection with Kona International Airport Master Plan ✓ MT, PD, DOT TRAN-3.8c: Investigate beach service options ✓ MT TRAN4.3a: Identify centralized public parking as part of the TOO Village Master Plans ✓ PD, developer TRAN-4.3b: Identify centralized public parking as part of the Kailas Redevelopment Plan ✓ PD, KVBID 7RAN-5.1b: Commence shuttle service using mini -vans and small buses (i.e. Handi-Van) ✓ MT TRAN-6.2a: Develop financing plan for streets according to the priorities list in PolicyTRAN-6.2 ✓ PD, DPW, Fin. TRAN-3.23: Determine staffing and equipment requirements for landscaping maintenance program ✓ DPW, PD TRAN-3.2b: Identify financing tools for maintenance programs through public financing plan ✓ DPW, PD, Fin. TRAN-3.2c: Implement financing plan for maintenance programs ✓ DPW, PD, Fin. TRAN.3.5a: identify high priority routes in Coordination with State Department of Education, State ✓ Department of Trans ortation, and Court Department of Public Works. DPW, DOE, DOT TRAN-3.6: Designate multi -modal paths (pedestrians, bicycle) ✓ TRAN-4.1a: Implement ddeshare program for County employees ✓ MT, Mayor's Office ACTION TRAN4.11b: Identify major employers to initate TDM programs COMPLETION TIMELINE IMPLEMENTOR(S) n w` E I C ✓ I C C 2B I IMT TRAN4.28: Evaluate work shifts for major employers in relation to existing bus schedules and routes ✓ MT TRAN4.2b: Request major employers to Contribute toward subsidizing commuter transit service. ✓ Businesses TRAN4.3c: Investigate appropriate parking fees ✓ PD TRAN5.1a: Establish fares for seniors, disabled, students, and general public. ✓ MT TRAN-5.1c: Modify shared ride taxi program to use Coupons for the first nine miles and to allow starting the meter after nine miles ✓ MT TRAN-1.1a: Adopts Official Transportation Network Map ✓ TRAN-1.3a: General locations of TODs have been determined by the Official Land Use Map. ✓ TRAN-2.1a: Amends Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to incorporate connectivity standards ✓ Supplements or supersedes sections in HCC Chap. 23, Div.4 (street design) TRAN-2.2a: Update the Official Transportatoin Network Maps with intersection locations as they are determined through preliminary engineering reports or other plans andlor studies. ✓ PD TRAN-3.1: Complete ongoing effort to revise COH Street Standards ✓ PD TRAN-3.3a: Designates the reclaimed wastewater zone on Figure 4-10c Oficial Public Facitlies and Services Ma ✓ TRAN-3.3b: Establish list of recommended vegetation, in consultation with Kona Outdoor Circle, as an amendment to the COH Street Standards ✓ PD, DPW TRAN-3.7a: Develop criteria for selecting and determing appropriate traffic calming tools as part of the on- going revision of the COH Street Standards TRANS.ta: Adopts Concurency Map ✓ ✓ DPW, PD Supplements HCC sec. 25 2-06 LU -2.3b: Initiate redevelopment plan for Kailua Village. Consider the establishment of redevelopment authority, pursuant to HRS Chapter 53 (Urban Renewal), Partner with the Kailua Village Business Improvement Distinct program in preparing ther redevelo LU -2.6a: Negotiate the respective cost-sharing of the appropriate public facilities LU -2.6b: Pmgram funding of major transit routes, transit stations, and major parks within urban core in coordination with proposed TOD build out ✓I ✓ ✓ PD, KVDC, KVBID IDC, Applicants PD, Fin. LU -3.1 b: Prepare town master plan(s) LU -3.21h: Prepare village master plants) ✓ ✓ PD, MT, Town Entity PD, MT, Village Entity LU -2.1b: Conduct public workshop to educate the Community, including Iandwoners, developers, and the public about TOD/TND Villages ✓ PD, R&D, DC LU -3.1a: Indate community organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public, on the opportunities of TODs/TNDs for each of the rural towns R&D, PD LU -3.2a: Inifiate communityorganization effort, including landowners, developers, and public, on the opportunities of TODs(TNDs for each of the rural villages ✓ R&D, PD LU4.1a: As an option, consider budgeting and hiring independent contractors) to determine the structure of the Design Center and to establish a pilot program. During this interim period the independent contractor will provide recommendations to the PI ✓ PD LU41.1 b: Create and fund positions to staff the Design Center ✓ PD W -4.3a: Assign and train staff ✓ PD LU -1 A a: Adopts Oficial Kona Land Use Map ✓ LU -1.2: Defines Urban Area LU -1.3a: County shall work with State to identify lands that may be appropriate to reclassify from Agricuflure to Rural, Consistent with the Kona CDP Policies ✓ ✓ State, PD LU -1.5a: Review rezoning and SMA applications pursuant to Policy LU -1.4 ✓ Supplements criteria for State Land Use, rezoning, and SMA LU -1.5b: Identify priority shorelines for increased setback as part of Policy ENV -2.1 Open Space Network Program ,. PD, PR Policy 1 -11 -1.7:17 -mile protected Coastline ✓ Supplements criteria for Stale Land Use, rezoning, and SMA COMPLETION TIMELINE ACTION a ' Qr C C C C IMPLEMENTOR(a) 41aAllldlter w` p` 25 Zoning Code to define TODs and TNDs Supplements HCC Chap. ✓ 25, Art. 6, Div, 4 (Project Districts LU -2.1c: Work with landowners, through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Village Design Guidelines ✓ PD Policy LU -2.2: TODITND Components Supplements HCC Chap. ✓ 25, Art. 6, Div. 4 (Project Districts LU -2.3a: Official Land Use Map shows general locations ofTODs ✓ 2.1a 82.3a duplicative LU -2.4a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to establish TOO floating zone pmject district Supplements HCC Chap. ✓ 25, Art. 6, Div. 4 (Project Districts LU -2.5a: Adoption of Village Design Guidelines ✓ LU -2.5b: Continually improve and refine the Village Design Guidelines ✓ PD, DCIPD Policy LU -2.7: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Floating Zone Established Supplements HCC Chap. ✓ 25, Ad, 6, Div. 4 (Protect Districts LU -2.8a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to create a TND overlay zone for existing zoned lands within the specified residential and commercial zoning districts Supplements H CC Chap. is HI ✓ 25, Ad. 6, (Planned Una Development) 1.1.14.8b: Review subdivision and plan approval applications pursuant to requirements for parks, housing, street standards, wastewater, and concu ✓ PD LU -2.8c: Review conventional rezoning applications pursuant to Policy LU -2.8 (1)(b) ✓ PD LU -3.3a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code and Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to establish Clustered Rural Supplements HCC Chap. Subdivision PUD ✓ 25, Ad. 6, Div.1 (Planned Unit Development) LU -3.4a: Adopts Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines ✓ LU -3.4b: Continually improve and refine the guidelines ✓ PD, DCIPD LU -3.4c: Work with the State to allow individual home sites smaller than one acre on lands Gassifled as Agricultural to increase the flexibili of the Clustered Rural Subdivision Program ✓ PD, OSP LU -3.5a: Review subdivision application or land with existing zoning Ag -1a do Ag -5a and FA pursuant to PoliLU-3.5 ✓ PO LU -3.5b: Work with landowners through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines ✓ PD Policy LU -3.6: Subdivision on Agriculturally -Zoned Land Served by a Private Water System. Supplements Ping Dept ✓ Rule 22 (Water Variances) LU -3.7a: Reviewing Agricultural Employee Housing proposals pursuant to Policy LU -3.7. Guides interpretation of ✓ I I Ping Dept Rule 13 (Farm Dwellings) LU -3.8a: Review rezoning applications with higher burden of )ustifiation pursuant to Poky LU -3.8 Supplements amendment ✓ I I criteria in HCC sec. 25-2- 40 LU -4.2: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to require mandatory Design Center review ✓ SECTION 4.3 ENV1R .NMENTALSOURCES ENV -1.1a: Compile available GIS environmental data and make it available to Bre public ✓ P0, DATA ENV -1.2a: Organize the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership ✓ pp ENV -1.2b: Budget and hire contractor to coordinate and prepare Kona Mauka Watershed Managemenl Program ✓ PD ENV -1.2c: Implement Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ pp ENV -1.3a: Identify, inform, educate affected public agencies to participate in the preparation of the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ PD ENV -1.4a: Identify, inform, educate affected private landowners to Participate in the preparation of the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ PD ENV -1.4b: Develop and establish Ecosystems Services Incentives and financing program, through Kona Mauka Watershed Mance ement Program ✓ PD ENV -1.6a: Enact appropriate mechanisms pursuant to Policy 1.2 Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ PD ENV -1.7a: Develop priorities and financing strategies to improve accuracy and comprehensiveness of flood mapping ✓ DPW ENV -17b: Budget and hire contractor to study feasibility of regional stormwater management systems,such as flow ways ✓ DPW, PD COMPLETION TIMELINE S t @ t @ � ACTION S IMPLEMENTOR(S) JL i ENV -1.7c: Identify corridors to be recommended for public open space pursuant to Policy 2.2 Open Space ✓ PD, DPW Network Program ENV -1.8a: Establish guidelines for Adopt -a -Corridor Program ✓ DPW ENV -1.11a: Budget and hire contractor to verify and update anchialine inventory and prepare anchialine ✓ PD, USACE pond management program ENV -1.12x: Hire consultant to prepare Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines ✓ PD, DPW, DOH ENV -1.12b: Set up water quality monitoring station locations PD, Community ✓ Organization, UH Sea Grant DOH ENV -1.12c: Organize and train community base water quality team PD, Community ✓ Organizations, UH Sea Grant, DOH ENV -1.13x: Develop appropriate educational tools for residents and visitors and markefing plan to use thorn ,i R&D ENV -1.13b: Conduct educational workshops ✓ R&D ENV-2.ta: Budget and hire consultant to prepare Open Space Network Program. ✓ PD, PR, OSP, DLNR, TNC, NPS ENV -2.1b: Coordinate with Ala Kahakai Trail Program ✓ PD, PR, OSP. DLNR, TNC,NPS ENV -3.1a: Identify high priority areas for acquisition pursuant to Policy ENV -2.1 Open Space Network ✓ PD, PR, OSC, DLNR ram ENV -32a: Develop a financing strategy as pan of the Public Facilities Financing Program ✓ PD ENV -3.3a: Establish Kona Treasures Fund as tax deductible organization ✓ PD, KCC ENV -3.3b: Provide Ponding and staff support as well as public marketing campaign ✓I IPD,KCC Supplements requirements Polk ENV -1.5: Sensitive Resources ✓ for all permit applications to the Ping Dept ENV -1.9a: Supports Chapter 27 pursuant to Policy ENV -1.9 ✓ Polky ENV -1.10: Non-Degrada . In of Anchialine Ponds Supplements SMA and ✓ shoreline setback criteria CR -1.1a: Establish the Kona Cultural Resources Committee. ✓ PD CR -1.1b: Identify by GPS Coordinates at existing historic bail alignments. ✓ PD, KCRC, SHPD, NPS CR -1.1c: On a continuing basis, identify by GPS coordinates, all cultural resource sites, recommend for PD, KCRC, SHPD reservation b SHPD and KCRC and incorporate in County's GIS database CR -1.1d: Budget sufficient County funding to provide for administrative and technical support to KCRC to ✓ PD, KCRC corn ete its duties listed in Poli CR -1.1 CR -1.1e: Establish a work plan to accomplish the duties in Policy CR -1.1 ✓ KCRC, PD CR -1.1f: Prepare Cultural Landscape Report ✓ KCRC, PD CR -2.1a: The County shall apply for certiLcatbn as a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the National Historic Preservation CLG Program in order to be eligible to apply for and receive preservation funding ✓ KCRC, PD administered through SHPD CR -2.2a: The County shall Convene workshop(s) that would include government agency representatives, cultural nopesenlatives and other stakeholders to review and make recommendations on the current ✓ HCCRC programs intended to protect cultural resources and othe CR -2.2b: The County shall recommend amendments to appropriate ordinances to incorporate the stewardship and protection of historic saes, buidlings and artifacts (Grubbing and Grading, Subdivision ✓ HCCRC Code) CR -2.2c: The County shall recommend amendments to appropriate ordinances to incorporate the appropriate use and implementation of native plants in the landscaping of public facilities such as schools, ✓ HCCRC government buildings, and parks. CR -3.1a: Ensure the existence of and support for public and private entities that further the betterment of ✓ public and private Kanaka Maoli agencies, community CR -3.1b: Increase fluency in Kanaka Mach language. ✓ public and private a encies, Community CR -3.1c: Sponsor aoss-sector dialogue on Karate Mack culture and island values ✓ public and private agencies, community CR -3.1d: Protect Kanaka Maoli intellectual property and related traditional knowledge ✓ public and private agencies, community COMPLETION TIMELINE ACTION S C C C IMPLEMENTOR(e) w CR -3.1e: Provide Kanaka Mach cultural education for residents visitors and the general public. ✓ public and private agencies, Community CR -3.2a: Increase the number of educators who teach cultural and historic education ✓ public and private agencies, Community CR -3.3a: Provide Kanakam Mach mentors with opporumms to pass on Hawaiian culture and knowledge to ✓ public and private the next generation of Kanaka Maoli and others agencies, community CR -3.3b: Perpetuate Karate Mach food production associated with land and ocean traditions and practices ✓ I public and private agencies, community : Apply the ahupuaa concept in action plan for the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ public and private i agencies, community HSG - a: Establish the Kona Non-Pmfit ✓ OHCO HSG - b.1: Sponsor a design contest and retain the winner to prepare pre -approved plans for starter ✓ homes, accessory units, or other appropriate housing s Kona Nan -Profit HSG - b.2: Draft standard first right of refusal provision to be induced in the Affordable Housing ✓ Agreements executed between the developer and OHCD and incorporated as deed covenants. Kona Non -Profit HSG - 0: Exercise rights of first refusal and purchase Chapter 11 units from developers to rent or lease to ✓ incom ualified households. Kona Non -Profit HSG- b.4: Establish programs in coordination and to supplement island -wide programs. ✓ Kona Non -Profit HSG - c.t: The County and the Community should encourage State agencies currently developing affordable projects to reviw their projects for consistency with the policies to provide affordable rentals, mix ✓ OHCD, Kona Nan -Profit, of housing types, and perpetual affordability at DHHL, HHFDC HSG . c.2: The Kona Non -Profit should coordinate with the pertinent Stale and County agencies to inventory potential public lands that are suitable for housing development and inflate project planning or ✓ Kona Nan -Profit, DLNR ensure land banking foraffordable housing purpose HSG -c.3: The County or Kona non-profil should explore privatization options with the State housing agency ✓ I OHCD, Kona Non -Profit HSG - d.1: TOD(rND mixed affdble hsg regni TOOrrND preemption of ohana dwelling, Project District Supersedes HCC Chap. Affordable Hsg Floating Zone 25, Art. 6, Div. 3 (ohana ✓ dwellings); supplements Div. 4 (Project Districts) HSG - d.2: Additional Chap. 11 credits for workforce hsg; disabled, elderly, live/work units; 1:1 density Supplements HCC sec. 11 bonus; resale restrictions 5(c) (Credits), -8 (density bonus), -14 (resale restrictions) HSG - e: New private development are encouraged to creatively provide low cost/affordable housing and meet certain needs especially critical to Kona. The Design Center should help to increase awareness of ✓ DC/PD these policies and stimulate Creativity to meet PUB - 2.1a: Plan a new North Kona Police Station to be located within the Honokohau Village TOD and ✓ Police program for design and Construction funding. PUB - 2.1b: Coordinate with the State to relocate the circuit and district courts to the Honokohau Village ✓ Stale Judiciary, PD TOD. PUB - 2.1c: Design and Construct the relocated South Kona Police Station. The County is in the process of ✓ acquiring a site. Police PUB - 2.3a: Existing and proposed fire stations meet the level of service for the Urban Area. A new fire station is needed in South Kona in the vicinity of the Hookena. ✓ Fire PUB - 2.4a: Identify proposed lifeguard stations on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map ✓ Fire, PD PUB -2.6a: Identify additional disaster shelters and critical facilities where defsclent. ✓ Slate and County CD PUB - 3.2a: Plan, design, and construct information centerlactivity, center for the disabled and elderly. ✓ OA PUB - 3.4c: Continue to implement Curb ramp program for streets and sidewalks and parks and recreation ✓ program facilities. DPWPR , PUB - 4.1a: Update, as necessary, DWS's master plan for Kona to support future growth in the TODs WS Policy -4.2: South Kona Water SystemPUB - 4.3d: Update the Kona water system master plan to incorporate agricultural water Component.PUB i1v - 4.4b: Develop a sewer plan to service the Kahaluu area. DEM COMPLETION TIMELINE a @ @ ACTION $' $ IMPLEMENTOR(S) w o` PUB -44c: Update the sewerage master plan to service the entire Urban Area with priority to the TODs and ✓ DEM the areas within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline. PUB -4.5a: Master plan the expansion of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant ✓ DEM PUB - 4.5b: Master plan the development of a new wastewater treatment plant servicing north of Hina Lam ✓ DEM Street that considers the feasibility of natural treatments stems. PUB - 4.5c: Master plan a Comprehensive wastewater redamation system to maximize reuse ✓ DEM PUB4.6a: Future wastewater reuse areas shall be identified an Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and ✓ DEM, PD Servcies Map -Waste Management Pub -5.1b: Master plan concept and financing for new natural sysytem wastewater treatment facility and ✓ DEM relocated transfer stationlrac din center; obtain DLNR approval to use State land PUB - 6.2a: Identify deficiencies to the park system described in Policy PUB -6.2 ✓ PR, PD PUB - 6.2b: Establish a master plan for expansion and improvement of the Old Airport as a distnct park. ✓ PR, PD PUB -6.2c: Begin the process to find a location and funding for the Kona Civic Auditorium. Invite public ✓ PR, PD input regarding design reuirements and prefenences. PUB - 6.2d: Prepare master plan for Kealakehe Regional Park. I ✓ I IPR. PD PUB - 6.2e: Begin the process to find location, acquire site, prepare master plan and fund a South Kona ✓ I PR, PD District Park (including integrated community services center) PUB -7.1a: Use charrettes to the extent practicable in the design process of County facilities to involve the ✓ DPW, PD Community, broaden the design input with multidisciplinary, expertise, and stimulate creativity PUB -7.11b: Update the community at milestones in the design process such as the and of the schematic, ✓ DPW, PD desi n develo ent, and e -bid construction documents phases. PUB -2.1d: Support the addition of manpower for policing efforts ✓ Police PUB -2.2a: Support for the community policing program should continue. ✓ Police PUB - 2.2b: In villages, Consider reinstating the bicycle patrols. ✓ Police PUB -2.2c: Through a Business Improvement District or other organization, partner with downtown ✓ KVID businesses to enhance security and orderliness. PUB - 2.2d: Develop a public safety audit checklist and conduct neighborhood and downtown safety walks Police, KVBID, to identify potential crime spots or unsafe areas. ✓ Neighborhood Watch JOrganization PUB -2.5a: Identify motor vehicle related fatalities and injuries ✓ Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations PUB -2.5b: Improve data collection, assessment, and dissemination of information ✓ Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations PUB -2.5c: Encourage an integrated planning and design process for improvements in roads, emergency ✓ Police, DOT, DOH, traffic medical services, and public transportation safety organizations PUB - 3.1 a: Coordinate with the County of Hawaii Healthcare Crisis Plan. ✓ Mayors Office PUB - 3.4a: Continue to work with the police department to assist in accessible parking enforcement. ✓ Police PUB - 3.4b: Offer educational programs to sensitize residents to the chanllenges of the blind, deaf, or wheel One stop center chair bound persons. PUB - 4.3a: Develop policies and plans to provide water for agricultural use, and amend DWS Rules ✓DWS accordingly PUB .4.3b: Develop an imgation best practices certificetion program I ✓ I I JSWCD PUB - 4.3c: Develop an application form to facilitate vedfcetion of the agricultural dedication and inigatioin ✓ I DWS best practices certification PUB - 4.4a: Identify the violators and enfore the sewer hookup requirements. I IDEM PUB -4.7a: Hire a Consultant to develop Stormwater Management Program and Guidelines, incentives, and ✓ DPW, education/training program, such as LID PUB- 4.7b: Implement the education and training program; adopt and publicize the incentives; adopt and ✓ DPW enforce the Guildelines. PUB -5.1a: Find entreprenuer(s) for biohel crop. ✓ R&D PUB - 6.3a: Establish in cooperation with the Stale DOE, joint use of school facilities for recreatinal and ✓ PR, DOE, PD Community use Policy PUB- 6.4 Environment as Public Realm and Classroom. See Actions ENV -2.1 and CR -1.18 PUB - 6.5: Consider 1% of public facilities Construction budget to be allocated for public art at new County ✓ IC facilities Policy PUB - 6.6: Important Role of Schools in Creating a Sense of Community ✓ PR, DOE, PD PUB - 7.2a: Develop a maintenance level of service for parks and sbeetscapes to establish a baseline ✓ PR, DPW expectation. COMPLETION TIMELINE ACTION $ @ $� '' C IMPLEMENTOR(S) w o PUB-7.2b: Encourage adopt-a-park and adopt-a-street civic participation to meet the level of services PR, expectations. ✓ community/neighborhood associations PUB-7.2c: Provide for upgrading and maintenance to the public facilities in critical need of attention ✓I I IPR,DPW PUB-7.2d: Increase outside lighting at public restrooms. ✓I I 1PR,DPW PUB - 7.2e: Open existing pubic resVoorns thal are currently dosed, and provide for more public restrooms in strategic locations. ✓ PR, DPW PUB-7.2f. Imitate a process to establish a monthly, scheduled maintenance review of public restooms in Kona. ✓ PR, DPW Policy PUB-7.3: Recruitement Incentives ✓ PUB - 8.1a: The County shall work with the community to establish One-Stop Community Resource Center ✓ R&D, community PUB -8.tb: Increase funding for the Healing Our Island Program ✓ R&D PUB -8.1c: Increase transportation options, especially small vans, in order to reduce ravel isolation and increase access to programs, jobs and activities. ✓ R80, MT PUB-8.1d: Increase demand-response transportation through the use of small vans in order to increase accessibilityto drugand alcohol treatment and rams. ✓ RBD, MT PUB-8.1e: Increase the number oftherapeutic living programs and facilites. ✓ RBD, MT, OA PUB - 8.1f: Develop a de-lox program in Kona. ✓ I I 1communitymon-profit PUB -8.1g: Establish a youth intake center to provide more immediate intervention for youth in Kona. ✓ community/non-profit PUB -8.1h:Expand partnerships among substance abuse treatment providers and improve coordination and✓ integgration ofservices. communitymon-profit PUB - 8.2a: Provide demand-response transportation (e.g. small vans) for the elderly, youth, and disabled. ✓ R&D, MT PUB - 8.2b: Expand partnerships among providers and improve coordinatin and integration of services for residents with disabilities ors ectal needs. ✓ cemmunitylnon-profit, OA PUB - 8.2c: The County provide a new homeless shelter and opportunity for transitional living to low income rental hous' ✓ OA Policy PUB 1-1: Official Public Facilities and Services Map ✓ PUB -2.2e: Incorporate in the Village Design Guidelines crime prevention through enviommental design principles. ✓ PD Policy PUB-3.3: Preventive Health through Walkable Communities ✓ Incorporated in Village Design Guidelines PUB -4.1 b: Amend DWS Rules as necessary to support the Kona CDP land use policies ✓ DWS Policy PUB-6.1: Gathering Places ✓ Incorporated in Village Desi n Guidelines Policy PUB-6.2. Neighborhood park dedication requirements✓ Supersedes HCC Chap. 8 (Park Dedication) ENGY-1.4b: Install photovoltaic systems to power deepwell pumps for the County Kona wells. ✓ DWS ENGY-1.4c: Pilot installation of power generating-pressure reducing valves in Kona are in progress. ✓ DWS Policy ENGY-1.7: County Lead by Example ✓ County Departments ENGY-1.1a: Provide a standard logo label to stick onto the title page of building plans to alert the Kona pending agencies to expedite processing ✓ PD, DPW-BD Policy ENGY-1.2: Energy Saving Renovation for Existing Residences ✓ Kona non-profit ENGY-1.3a: Work with lenders to publicize available mortgage programs. ✓ Credit Unions and other lenders ENGY-1.4a: Finance a leak detection program for the Kona water systems ✓ DWS Policy ENGY-1.5: Distributed energy and Other Innovative Technology Support ✓ HELCO .8: Alternative Fuel for Keahole Power Plant ✓ HELCO 0ECON-1.1a: evelop RFP for new hospital, negotiate with candidates, and select new she. ✓ DOH, PD, private ECON-1.1 b: Develop medical ceNter TOD master plan and rezone as commercial TOD. ✓ DOH, PD,;Mate ECON-1.2a: Develop TOD master plan with the civic cneter as the heart of the town center and rezone as ✓ DPW, PD commercial TOD. COMPLETION TIMELINE ACTION a L11 IMPLEMENTOR(S) w` ✓ DBEDT, NELHA ECON-1.3a: Encourage DBEDT and NELHA BoD to reevaluate and publicly articulate NELHA's shoe -and tong -term business plan ECON-1.3b: Develop a master place for the commercial development of the mauka area and obtain ✓ DBEDT, NELHA entitlements. ECON-1.3c: Design and construct the frontage road to complement and implement the commercial master ✓ NELHA, private, DPW an. ECON-1.4a: Work with the State, University System, and the community to finalize decisions regarding the ✓ UH, private mission and sae of the new universby at West Hawaii. ECON-1.41b: Develop a master plan and program funds for the design and constructions of the campus. ✓ UH, private ECON-1.4c: Develop the TOD master plan for the surrounding areas of the university in coordination with ✓ UH, private the acliatning Palamanui Pr d. ECON-1.4d: Formalize the relationship between the Hawaii Community Collage and this Design Center, ✓ UH, NELHA, DC NELHA, and the healthcare industry. Policy ECON-1.5: Food Industry Catalysts ✓ DOA, UH, PD, community Policy ECON-1.6: Conservation as a viable business option ✓ 1private, government Policy ECON-13: Redevelopment as economic stimuli JPD, KVID ECON -1.8a: Establish a pool of expertise and information on the eco -industrial park concept. JR&D ECON -1.8b: Establish a reuse center to refurbish and sell used appliances and materials ✓ OHCD, Catholic Social Ministries EGON -1.8c: Establish a community recognition program for green businesses. ✓ COC ECON - 2.1a: The County will work with Kona's Agrimhural Community to make recommendations for ✓ R&D, ODA, community dorities. ECON-2.1b: Create and adopt a County Agricultural Tourism prograMpolicy. ✓I I JR&D, DOA, community ECON-2.1c: In partnership with the agricultural Community in Kona, the County will establish a'Local ✓ I R&D, DOA, community, Grown' OmQw for aaricultural Droducts. UH Pot ECONA.1: Establishes Medical Center Floating Zone Supplements HCC Chap. ✓ 25, Art, 6, Div.4 (Project Districts Policy ECON-1.8: Establishes Eco -Industrial Park Floating Zone Supplements HCC Chap. ✓ 25, Art. 6, Div. 4 (Project Districts ' MON/TORING EFFECT/vENESS ' AND PROGRESS CHAPTER 6 6. MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRESS ■ An "indicator" is something that helps you understand where you are, which way you are going, and how far you are from where you want to be. The Kona CDP Community Indicators will serve as an ' annual information resource to provide a snapshot of current community conditions and trends based on selected quantitative data gathered from a variety of sources. ' The indicators were selected based on the following factors: • They are relevant. They tell us something basic and fundamental to the long term cultural, ' environmental, economic or social health of our community. • They reflect community values. The crucial role of an indicator is to reflect the community's values that resonate with the citizens of Kona. ■ They are attractive to local media. The press publicizes them and uses them to analyze community trends and the implementation plan. • They are statistically measurable. Data exist or can be developed that is relevant to our geographic area. • They are reliable. You must be able to trust what the indicator shows and preferably indicators can be measured over time so that you have comparable data and can track trends. The report card will be published annually based on trends: Good trend or progress No change or holding steady Bad trend or no action General Demographic Indicators a "Snapshot" of who we are. The first are general trend indicators which will give us a demographic snapshot of our community. 1. Indicator: Population growth trend for North Kona, South Kona, and relative to the County • Data source: U.S. Census Bureau 2. Indicator: Ratio of full time residents to part time residents • Data source: State Department of Taxation 3. Indicator: Ethnic diversity ■ Data source: U.S. Census Bureau and County Research & Development. 4. Indicator: Median household income • Data source: U.S. Census Bureau and County Research & Development KONA CDP 6-1 CHAPTER 6 MON/TOR/NG EFFECT/VENESS AND PROGRESS The following indicators are organized to reflect the eight (8) Guiding Principles identified by the citizens of Kona throughout the planning process. Guiding Principle 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. Natural Resources Indicators: Areas of natural and cultural significance protected. 1. Indicator: Number of acres of federal, state, county, and privately -owned open space that are permanently protected for conservation. • Data source: State Department of Land & Natural Resources Land Division and Land Use Commission, State Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism, and County Planning Department 2. Indicator: 80% of Kona's residents have access to public Open Space within walking distance from their homes. • Data source: County Open Space Network Program Water quality monitoring guidelines are met or exceeded for Kona's nearshore waters. 1. Indicator: Measurement of nearshore water quality for fecal coliform, nutrients and coral reef health • Data source: County Water Quality Monitoring Program, Department of Health Clean Water Branch Indicator: Number of anchialine ponds inventoried and protected. Data source: County Planning Department, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Agricultural lands are maintained. Indicator: Acreage of Kona land zoned farmland. • Data source: Initiate GIS layer for ag use based on property tax and inventory system for permanent open space. State Department of Land & Natural Resources Land Division, State Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism, and County Planning Department, County Real Property Tax & Assessment Office 2. Indicator: Number of Kona farmers markets and average number of agricultural vendors. • Data source: Kona Farm Bureau New building is energy efficient. 1. Indicator: Annual number of EnergyStar, LEED or Hawaii BuiltGreen certified buildings. • Data source: Hawaii Electric and Light Company, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Industry Association of Hawaii (Hawaii BuiltGreen), State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism 2. Indicator: Number of existing homes retrofitted with solar heating. • Data source: Hawaii Electric and Light Company 6-2 KONA CDP MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRESS ' Recycling is maximized and solid waste is decreased. 1. Indicator: Measurement of solid waste generation per capita • Data source: County Department of Environmental Management ' 2. Indicator: Measurement of pounds recycled per capita • . Data source: County Department of Environmental Management ' Cultural Resources Indicators: CHAPTER 6 t Cultural resources and historic trails are mapped and protected. 1. Indicator: Number of archeological sites and number of linear miles of historic trails mapped and protected. ' Data source: State Historic Preservation Division, County Kona Cultural Resources Committee 2. Indicator: Number of cultural resources, including sites and trails protected by management ' plans/easements or other tools. • Data source: County Open Space Network, County Planning Department, State Historic Preservation Division, and County Kona Cultural Resources Committee 3. Indicator: Number of people enrolled in Hawaiian language classes • Data source: DOE & Kamehameha Schools Guiding Principle 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. Traffic congestion is decreased on major thoroughfares due to the creation of alternative routes and methods of transportation. 1. Indicator: Number of linear miles of new roadways. • Data source: County Planning Department and Data Management, Required Concurrency Roads (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3) or Kona CDP Implementation Committee, State Department of Transportation 2. Indicator: Number of shared -use paths and bike routes. • Data source: County Planning Department and Data Management, Required Concurrency Roads (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3) or Kona CDP Implementation Committee, State Department of Transportation 3. Indicator: Number of people riding the bus per day. • Data source: County Mass Transit Agency 4. Indicator: Number of Public Transit "Stations" and sheltered stops. • Data source: County Mass Transit Agency KONA CDP 6-3 MON/TOR/NG EFFECT/VENESS CHAPTER 6 AND PROGRESS Guiding Principle 3. Provide housing choices. There are a range of housing options available for Kona residents. 1. Indicator: Residents live within 30 minutes drive time from employment. • Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Research & Development 2. Indicator: Housing costs are no more than 30% of annual household income. • Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Research & Development 3, Indicator: Number of new affordable housing units built. • Data source: County Housing and Community Development, Public Housing Authority, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation Housing assistance is provided to our most vulnerable citizens; the elderly, disabled and homeless. 1. Indicator: Number of units directed to homeless, senior and disabled residents. • Data source: County Housing and Community Development, Hawaii Public Housing Authority, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation Guiding Principle 4. Provide recreation opportunities. A range of recreational opportunities are available to residents of Kona to foster a healthy lifestyle. 1. Indicator: The Number of regional, district, community and neighborhood parks established as outlined in the plan. • Data source: County Department of Parks & Recreation, County Department of Public Works, State Department of Land & Natural Resources State Parks Division, State Department of Land & Natural Resources Forestry & Wildlife Division, National Park Service 2. Indicator: Number of cultural and environmental festivals, programs, and community-based, volunteer projects. • Data source: County Department of Research & Development, State Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism, State Department of Agriculture, and Kona Farm Bureau 3. Indicator: Number of Hales or "gathering places" available for public use. • Data source: County Department of Parks & Recreation Indicator: Number of cultural sites open to the public. • Data source: County Department of Parks & Recreation, County Open Space Network Program, State Department of Land & Natural Resources, National Park Service 6-4 KONA CDP MON/TOR/NG EFFECT/VENESS AND PROGRESS Guiding Principle 5. Direct future growth patterns. CHAPTER 6 Growth is directed to mixed-use compact villages. 1. Indicator: Number of land -use proposals that meet Village Project District Standards. • Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) 2. Indicator: Number of new development projects that voluntarily adopt the plan guidelines. ■ Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) 3. Indicator: Number of land use approvals that meet Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. • Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) 4. Indicator: Number of approvals of "infill developments' connected to existing communities. • Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) Guiding Principle 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 1. Indicator: Number of sites selected for new public facilities. ' Data source: County Department of Public Works, County Department of Parks & Recreation, County Department of Planning ' 2. Indicator: Recommended minimum standards for public services, fire and police are met. • Data source: County Mayor's Office, County Fire Department, County Police Department ' Guiding Principle 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy. ' The agricultural character of Kona is maintained. 1. Indicator: GE Taxes paid on local agriculture production. • Data source: State Department of Agriculture Sustainable Industries Indicators Indicator: Number of local businesses able to pay a living wage (FTE median income) • Data source: State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, County Research and Development Indicator: Number of locally owned and operated businesses. • Data source: State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism KONA CDP 6-5 MON/TOR/NG EFFECT/VENESS CHAPTER 6 AND PROGRESS Guiding Principle S. Promote effective governance Kona has the local authority to guide implementation of the plan and it's components (i.e. Design Center, Kona Cultural Resources Committee, Kona Housing Non -Profit, Kona Housing Trust Fund, etc.). Indicator: Implementation of Policies and Actions included in the Kona CDP Implementation Matrix on schedule. Data source: County Planning Department and Kona CDP Implementation Committee 6-6 KONA CDP MON/TOR/NG EFFECT/VENESS AND PROGRESS This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 6 ' KONA CDP 6-7 GLOSSARY 7. G LOSSARY CHAPTER 7 Action — A specific requirement or recommendation, such as the creation of a project or program, intended to implement a policy or achieve an objective. Brownfield — Land previously used for industrial purposes or certain commercial uses that may be contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution and has the potential to be reused once it is cleaned up. Commercial Village — A village intended for mixed use, higher density residential, retail, commercial, employment, and/or regional one -of -a -kind facilities such as major civic, medical, education, and entertainment facilities. Density — The ratio of the dwelling units to the gross land area in which they are located. Density Transfer — The transfer of allowable dwelling units from one parcel of land to another, in exchange for open space. Development Agreement — A written agreement for specified periods of time between the County, any governmental entity or agency made a party thereto, and any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the purpose of vesting the right to develop such property in accordance with laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and policies of any governmental entity or agency made party to the agreement in effect at the time such agreement is executed, and for the purpose of delineating development requirements that may include, but are not limited to, affordable housing, design standards, water allocations, dedications of real or personal property, on-site and off-site infrastructure and other development related improvements and government services, which shall be approved by resolution of the County Council and executed by the Mayor on behalf of the County. Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — An informational document prepared in compliance with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that discloses the environmental and social impacts of a proposed action on the community and state, measures proposed to minimize adverse effects, and provides alternatives to the action. Extensive Agriculture — LUPAG designation for lands not classified as Important Agricultural Land. Includes lands that are not capable of producing sustained, high agricultural yields without the intensive application of modem farming methods and technologies due to certain physical constraints such as soil composition, slope, machine tillability and climate. Other, less intensive, agricultural uses such as grazing and pasture may be included in the Extensive Agriculture category. Flood Corridors — Includes FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 100 -year floodplains and planned flow ways. Flow Way — Proposed man-made drainage or designated channels. KONA CDP 7-1 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY Goal — A goal is a desired outcome expressed in simple terms. It should describe the desired end state. Greenbelt or Greenway — Areas of largely undeveloped, wild, agricultural land surrounding or neighboring urban areas. Greenfield — An area that is undeveloped or used for agriculture. Refers only to undeveloped open space within the Kona Urban Area between TODs, TNDs and infill. Important Agricultural Lands — LUPAG designation for lands with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type, climate, topography, or other factors. Important agricultural lands were determined by including the following lands: • Lands identified as "Intensive Agriculture" on the 1989 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps. • Lands identified in the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system as "Prime" or "Unique" • Lands classified by the Land Study Bureau's Soil Survey Report as Class B "Good" soils. There are no Class A lands on the Island of Hawaii. • Lands classified as at least "fair" for two or more crops, on an irrigated basis, by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service's study for suitability for various crops. • In North and South Kona, the "coffee belt," a continuous band defined by elevation, according to input from farmers. • State agricultural parks. Infill —Land development within the general boundaries of existing urban/suburban areas that were previously left undeveloped. Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) — The County of Hawaii General Plan LUPAG Map indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to each other. Makai — towards the sea. Mauka — inland, upland, towards the mountain. Mixed Use — A land use pattern that integrates compatible residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses. Neighborhood Village — A village intended for residential, public/civic uses, or small scale neighborhood oriented commercial uses. The commercial uses are of a small scale and are intended to serve the needs of the village residents. Objective — An objective is a desired endpoint that leads toward accomplishing a goal. KONA CDP GLOSSARY CHAPTER 7 Open Space — Undeveloped land or water body which is free of structures and equipment, except for those incidental to the land's open space uses. Open space may include the following: Flood protection, creating a sense of special separation fro incompatible land uses, areas for agricultural operations, passive recreation, active recreation, conservation uses, or historical site preservation. Pedestrian Way — A public right-of-way through a block between lots for pedestrian traffic, which may also be used as a utility easement, and which has a maximum width of twenty feet. Policy — A deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. ■ Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission — The Commission will be made up of nine members who are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the ' Council. The purpose of the Commission is to develop an island -wide prioritized list of qualifying lands worthy of preservation. The Commission will explore methods of funding land acquisition and make recommendations and will emphasize land acquisitions where the County's contribution can be ' leveraged to obtain State, Federal and/or private funds. Rural Area — Areas outside of the Kona Urban Area. Secondary Area — The area extending approximately % mile from the outer edger of the village core of the TOD. Lower density housing and other auto -oriented uses are located here. The secondary areas ' take advantage of the services within the core area through an interconnected street system with easy, access to transit by foot, bike, or car. Secondary areas will be primarily comprised of standard single- family and multi -family neighborhoods. ' Traditional Neighborhood District Floating Zone (TND) — A new type of Project District for areas zoned agriculture within the Kona Urban Area. Transit Oriented Development Floating Zone (TOD) — Mixed use developments located at strategic points along a regional transit system. TODs consist of moderate and high density housing, along with ' complementing public uses, jobs, retail and services. Urban Area — The Kona Urban Area spans from the Kona International Airport to Keauhou. The ' majority of future growth shall be directed within this area. ' Village Core — A concentration of development within a neighborhood that includes identified residential, retail, office, public spaces, and public/civic uses. The village core includes the Y. mile area from a transit station. ' KoNA CDP 7-3 CHAPTER 7 This page intentionally left blank. GLOSSARY 74 KONA CDP REFERENCES CHAPTER 8 & REFERENCES ACP -Visioning & Planning Ltd. and The Environmental Simulation Center. Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results. November 23, 2006 Allen, William. "Restoring Hawaii's Dry Forests." Bioscience, Dec. 2000, Volume 50. Number. 12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials. A Policy on Geometric Design of Highways and Streets. Fifth Edition, 2004. Bauer, Glenn. A Study of the Ground -Water Conditions in North and South Kona and South Kohala Districts 1991-2002. September 2003. County of Hawai'i. 2006 County of Hawaii Databook. 2007. County of Hawai'i Planning Department. County of Hawaii General Plan. February 2005. County of Hawai'i Planning Department. Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan: County Action Plan. August 14, 2006. County of Hawai'i Agriculture: Livestock" www.hawaii-county.com/bigislandag/livestock.html. 1997. ' Davies, Michael, Claire Gagne, Zenke Hausfather and Dawn Lippert. Analysis and Recommendations for the Hawaii County Energy Sustainability Plan. Prepared for the Hawai'i County Council. October 3, 2007. ' Ellis, William. Journal of William Ellis. Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu, Hawai'i. 1963. ' Green, Linda Wedel. A Cultural History of Three Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the West Coast of Hawaii Island. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Denver Service Center. September 1993. http://www.nps.gov/history/history/online books/kona/history.htm ' Hawaii Business Directory 2006, Directories USA, Omaha, NE. ' James, Sarah and Torbjrn Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to Sustainable Practices. 2004. ' Johnson, Jeremiah, Dan Leistra, Jules Opton-Himmel, and Masom Smith. Hawaii County Baseline Energy Analysis. May 10, 2006. ' Kamakau, Samuel M. Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii (Revised Edition). The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1961. ' KONA CDP 8-1 CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES Kelley, Jack. "Shifting Paradigms for West Hawaii" Hawai'i Island Journal, Dec. 4, 2004 www.hawaiisalandiournal.com/2004/12bO4b.html Kona Historical Society's Kona Historic Ranch and Store. Kona (Hawaii) Historical Society — Kona Historic Ranch and Greenwell Store. Undated. Leakey, Roger, "Agroforestry: Tree -based Polycultures," www.agroforestry.neYevents/afwkshp2006/virtualwkshps.html#Anchor-Agenda-11481) Leone, Diana. "Native Bat Forces Review of Timber Harvesting," Honolulu Star Bulletin, Dec. 12, 2002 Maly, Kepa. Malama Pono I Ka Aina — An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape. 2001. Oki, Delywn. Geohydrology and numerical simulation of the ground -water flow system of Kona, Island of Hawaii. U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 99-4073. U.S. Geological Survey, Honolulu, HI. 1999. Personal Communication. Chief Lawrence Mahuna, County Police Department, December 17, 2007. Personal Communication. Ruby McDonald, State Office of Hawaiian Affairs. April 28, 2008. Reinecke, J.E. Survey of Sites on West Hawaii. File Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1930. Smart Growth Network. Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, http://smartgrowth.org. State of Hawai'i, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Office of Planning. Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. http://hawaii.gov/dbedt/gisl State of Hawai'i, Department of Health. Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Recycle Water. May 15, 2002. State of Hawaii, Hawai'i 2050 Sustainability Task Force. Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan. January 2008. University of Hawai'i College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTHAR). "Characteristics of Hawaii's Retail Forest Industry in 200 1, " Economic Issues, Feb 2006. University of Hawaii, Department of Geography. Atlas of Hawaii. The University Press of Hawai'i, Honolulu. Third Edition 1998. U.S. Census Bureau, Hawai'i Census 2000. http://www,census.gov 8-2 KONA CDP REFERENCES CHAPTER 8 ' Zelinka, A. and D. Brennan, Safescape: Creating Safer, More Livable Communities Through Planning and Design. Chicago: Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2001. ' KONA CDP 8-3 CHAPTER 8 This page intentionally left blank. REFERENCES 8-4 KONA CDP 1 ATTACHMENT A Official Map Metadata Metadata for Official Maps Kona CDP Some of the GIS layers appear on several of the Official Maps. Usually, a layer is 'official' on only one of the Official Maps, and informational on other maps. To distinguish its status, the following table indicates on which map the layer is a "Policy Layer" (i.e., official) and which map the layer is just informational. • Policy Layer: Official information on the map that require an amendment to the plan to add, delete, or relocate records. Changes that improve the accuracy of the information are considered "updates" rather then amendments. • Information Layer: Background information that automatically update with any changes to the Policy Layers, or otherwise do not need a plan amendment to change the information. Layer Official Maps Transportation Network Concurrency Land Use Public Facilities and Services Proposed Roads Policy Policy Information Major Transit Line Policy Information Information Transit Stops/Stations/Hub Policy Information Pedestrian -Bike Paths Policy Urban Area, Rural Town TODs Information Information Policy Information TOD Type Information Information Policy Concurrency Zone Policy Public Facilities (separate layers by facility) Policy Financing Districts Polic Existing Roads (Street Centerline Information Information Information Information Parcels Information Information Information I Information Layer Name: Proposed Roads Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map and the Kona CDP Official Concurrency Map. This layer identifies major future roads proposed in the General Plan or Kona CDP process. Major roads include arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and other important connectors. The purposes to identify these future corridors are: 1) to preserve the corridor by incorporating the right-of-way in applicable permit approvals; 2) to provide notice to potentially affected owners; and 3) to plan these improvements, as appropriate, in the capital improvements program. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide. File Name: Proposed Roads Layer Type: Polyline Source: The General Plan polylines were copied from the County of Hawaii Planning Department's General Plan roads shapefile. The polylines for the Kona CDP roads were generally drawn connecting two points following background information (e.g., proposed developer's site plans) where available. Attributes: FID Internal software number Name Name of the road Source Whether the road is proposed from the General Plan (GP) or Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) Concurrency Area Identifies the concurrency zone in which the road is located for the Official Concurrency Map ID -1 Roadway segment identification number Class Roadway classification: Arterial Collector, major Collector, minor Connector, unclassified Status Status of the proposed roadway: A — Conceptual: The alignment is conceptual, just connecting two endpoints. For planning purposes, a study corridor of at least four times the right-of-way width is recommended within which to locate the actual alignment. B — Preliminary: Preliminary engineering and environmental surveys have been conducted (or are in process) to more definitively set the alignment. For planning purposes, a study corridor of at least two times the right-of-way width is recommended within which to locate the actual alignment. C — Final: Construction plans have been completed (or are in process) and the right-of-way has been subdivided or legally defined by metes and bounds (or is in the process of subdivision approval). Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I DateDescri tion of Modification Created Aril 2008 Layer Name: Transit Line Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map. This layer identifies major transit (bus) routes, proposed or existing. Major transit routes include trunk routes (the highest headways in the region) and secondary routes (connects major destinations but the headways may not be as high as trunk routes). The layer does not include feeder or commuter routes, although in the future all routes could be added. The purposes to identify these major transit routes are: 1) to integrate transportation and land use planning; 2) to factor transit service in prioritizing future roads; and 3) to plan and budget for the capital and operational resources to expand the transit system. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide, although it could be the basis for a Countywide transit routes database. File Name: Proposed Transit Lines Layer Type: Polylines Source: The polylines for the designated transit routes were either "traced" from the County of Hawaii street centerline shapefile (for existing roads) or the Proposed Roads shapefile. As changes are made to the alignments of the Proposed Roads, the transit routes should be updated to "trace" the modified alignment. Attributes: FID Internal software number Type Trunk or Secondary Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department, County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 La er Name: Transit Sto s►StationstHub Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map. This layer identifies major transit stops (pullout with shelter), stations (building), or hub (station that serves as central transfer point among routes that intersect at the hub). The layer only identifies those stations/stops/hub along the trunk or secondary routes; it does not include stops along feeder or commuter routes, although in the future all stops could be added. The purposes to identify these major transit stops/stations/hub are: 1) to integrate transportation and land use planning, especially in the planning of walkable villages that center the pedshed on a transit stop/station; and 2) to plan and budget for the capital and operational resources to build and maintain these facilities. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide, although it could be the basis for a Countywide transit routes database. File Name: Transit Stops_Stations_Hubs Layer Type: Point Source: The location of the points were based on the approximate locations of the TOD villages. These points will need to be updated as the actual type and locations of these transit facilities are determined. Attributes: FID Type Location Route Status Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Hub, Station, or Stop; Baseyard TOD or other descriptive location Trunk or Secondary Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department, County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 a er ame. Pe estrin-Bike Paths Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map. This layer identifies the bike and pedestrian network. It is intended to be updated as part of the Kona Open Space Network Program that will create a comprehensive hubs (destination areas) and links system. The purposes to identify these bike and pedestrian facilities as part of the overall transportation network system are: 1) to ensure the planning of new roads incorporate the appropriate type of bike and pedestrian facilities; 2) to facilitate the retrofitting of existing roads when the roads are repaved or otherwise improved; and 3) to plan these improvements, as appropriate, in the capital improvements program in terms ' of a network system rather than piecemeal. This layer is designed to serve as the ' Countywide database for bike and pedestrian facilities. File Name: Pedestrian Bike Paths Layer Type: Polyline ' Source: Kona CDP: The planning data was primarily based on input from PATH which modified the Bike Plan Hawaii (State of Hawaii, September 2003). Lines were digitized by the County of Hawaii Planning Department by using the "tracing" or "copy parallel lines" on the COH centerline feature or the Na Ala Hele trails feature. Where centerlines or trails features were absent, lines followed background USGS or flood hazard features. The location of the lines are conceptual. For example, some of the lines may fall outside of the right-of-way where, in fact, the actual facility is meant to be constructed within the right-of-way. The width between the lines were set arbitrarily at 30' from either side of the centerline. Attributes: FID Internal software number Name Name of the street or trail. If no name, the default is "Connector". Type Shoulder: Open section streets where stabilized shoulder ' is designed for non-exclusive use by bicycles and legal mopeds. Intersections have dedicated bicycle space marked. Shared: Streets shared by vehicles and bicycles (no bike lane striping) where lane is wide enough or route is signed. ' Lane: Bike lane for exclusive use of bicycles and legal mopeds. No motor scooters or motorcycles. No parking. Path: Multi -use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. Special path for steep topography labeled as Path -s (switchback). Ped -x: Routes for exclusive use by pedestrians. 'Y'= SW (sidewalk) or T (trail) Jurisdiction Ownership and maintenance by (S)tate, (C)ounty, (0)ther, or (U)ndetermined Cost Class Bike Plan Hawaii classification to distinguish magnitude orders of funding required. Cost Estimate Cost estimate ' Priority Level Priority established by Bike Plan Hawaii or to be determined by the Kona Open Space Network Program or other CDP process Status Existing: Existing conditions are adequate. For trails, needs to be open to the public. If a trail physically exists but access rights or improvements needed, then considered "Proposed". Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 La er Na e' Urban rea and Rural Towns Description: This layer Is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Land Use Map. This layer defines the geographical extent of the Urban Area and Rural Town TODs, as defined in the Kona CDP. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide. File Name: Urban—Rural Boundary Layer Type: Polygon Existing -repave: Street exists but shoulder stabilization and/or striping improvements need to be coordinated with future repaving. Existing -redevelopment: Street exists but substantial improvements needed (e.g., add sidewalk and curb). Existing -sign: Existing conditions adequate; just need signage. Proposed: Needs to be constructed or opened to the public. Underway: Under construction. Proposed in Bike Plan Hawaii, but may be duplicative, outdated, or otherwise unnecessary and should be evaluated through the Kona Open Space Network Program or other CDP process. Route No. Route identification number Length Miles CDP Name of CDP, if referenced in the CDP Source Hawaii Bike Plan (BP) PATH PATH>BP: PATH modified Bike Plan Hawaii NAH: Included in Na Ala Hele inventory Notes Miscellaneous comments ID Identification Number Official Yes (included as part of an Official Map); No (no official status) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 La er Na e' Urban rea and Rural Towns Description: This layer Is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Land Use Map. This layer defines the geographical extent of the Urban Area and Rural Town TODs, as defined in the Kona CDP. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide. File Name: Urban—Rural Boundary Layer Type: Polygon Source: The Urban Area polygon "traces" the LUPAG boundaries for an area spanning from Kona International Airport to Keauhou, makai of Mamalahoa Highway, designated urban expansion, high density, medium density, low density, resort note, resort area, and industrial area. It excludes the area designated resort node in Kaupulehu and the medium and low density area in Holualoa. The Rural Town TODs polygon traces the LUPAG boundaries for medium and low density areas from Honalo to Captain Cook. Attributes: FID Internal software number Type Urban Area or Rural Town TODs Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 1. La er Name: TOUT e ' Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Land Use Map. This layer approximately locates the TODs, as defined in the Kona CDP. ' File Name: TOD Type ' Layer Type: Polygon Source: The TOD polygons were created by "buffering" the Transit Hub/Station/Stop points at a radius distance of 0.5 mile at 0.25 mile intervals. This layer should be updated as each TOD is defined by metes and bounds through Project District rezoning approval. Attributes: FID TOD Name ' Type Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the TOD Village Type of TOD: Regional Center or Neighborhood County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Concurrency Map. This layer identifies the concurrency zones and works together with labeled road segments from the Proposed Roads layer that are subject to the concurrency requirements. An accompanying table relates the specific concurrency zones to the labeled road segments. Although concurrency requirements apply Countywide through the zoning code, this layer applies only to the Kona CDP planning area. File Name: Concurrency Zone Layer Type: Polygon Source: The extent of the polygons were developed through the CDP process based on judgements on the development area that would be served by particular road segments. The boundaries of the polygons "trace", where applicable, parcel boundaries or street centerlines. Attributes: FID Internal software number Concurrency Zone Concurrency Zone Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Descri tion of Modification Created A ri12008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Lifeguard Stations Layer Type: Point Source: The Department of Parks and Recreation provided the initial data for existing lifeguard stations. The Fire Department, who took over the lifeguards from the ' Attributes: Department of Parks and Recreation, will assess the need for lifeguard stations. This layer should be updated when the results of that study are available. FID Internal software number Facility_N Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location Status Existing, Proposed Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Fire Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 er Name: ire Stat n Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Fire Station Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps. Attributes: FID Station Na District TMK No_of_Emp Fire _Oper_ EMS _Oper HAZMAT_Op Rescue_Ope Aero Med Twenty—four Type No_of_vol Status Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Number of employees Fire operations Emergency Medical Service Operations Hazardous Material Operations Rescue operations Aero Medical Operations 24 -Hours Full -Time or Volunteer Facility Number of Volunteers Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Fire Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created A ri12008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. it is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Layer Type: Source: Attributes: Police Station Point County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Map FID Station—Na District TMK No of Man Comments Status Type Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Number of Manpower Miscellaneous comments Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Station or Sub -Station County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Police Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose 10 of this layer is to serve as a tool for healthcare planning and also land use planning since a hospital has the potential to serve as a catalyst for health-related businesses. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Hospital Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number Facility—Na Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location Acute beds ---- Long—term_ Long Term Care Total beds Total number of rooms Medical—SU Medical/Surgical Critical C Critical Care Obstetric Obstetrician Care Pediatric Pediatrician Neonatal_I ----- Psych Psychiatric Care Skilled _Nu Skilled Nursing Intermed Care Snf icf ----- Acute snf ----- Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for emergency response planning. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Emergency Shelters Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Civil Defense, Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Attributes: FID ID Facility District Location TMK Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Name of the facility Judicial district Street Address Tax Map Key Location County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Civil Defense Agency. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to track the various types of financing districts as they are created by ordinance. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Financing District Layer Type: Polygon Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Unique record number DistNo Official District Number assigned by ordinance Date Formed Effective date of ordinance forming the district OrdEst Ordinance Number for ordinance establishing the district OrdEnd Ordinance Number for ordinance terminating the district Purpose Types of improvements and/or services authorized to be funded Status Active (still collecting assessments or taxes), Closed (paid up), Default Name Name of the district or subdivision 12 ' Type ID (improvement district), CFD (community facilities ' district), BID (business improvement district), TIF (tax increment financing district), RD (redevelopment district) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Financing Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. 'Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 ' i Lwayermame:mcounty Park Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services ' Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: County Park Layer Type: Point Source: Attributes: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Map FID Facility_N District TMK Total Area Developed Facility_T Classification Status Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Total Area Developed Area Facility Type (Camping Site, Beach Park, Ballfields, Gym, Playground, Community Center, Courts) Regional, District, Community, Neighborhood, Beach, Facility (e.g., swimming pool), Passive Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department with Department of Parks and Recreation. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. 13 Update vs. Amendment I DateDescri tio77771 Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to coordinate services with the State. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Courthouse Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Name Name of the facility District Judicial district Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I DateDescri tion of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Civic Center Layer Type: Point 14 Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID ID Name District Status ' Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Name of the facility Judicial district Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 La er Name: School Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool to coordinate land use planning with the State, especially since schools are a primary community asset and affect transportation planning. This layer includes public, private, charter, and university. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: School Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number School—Nam Name of the facility District Judicial district University University Design_Enr Design Enrollment Grade Level Grade levels SY_98_99_E School Year Enrollment TMK Tax Map Key Location Comments Miscellaneous Comments Enrollment Enrollment Count FTE_Enroll Full -Time Equivalent Enrollment Type Public, Private, Charter 15 Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date =Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Layer Type: Point La er Name: Library Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to coordinate services with the State. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Library Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps Attributes: FID Internal software number Area Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Perimeter Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Library_ Arc ID (for Are/Info use) Library—ID Are Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Facility—Nam Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location Population Population Served Registered Registered Borrowers Size of Me Size of Material Collection Circula Circulation Intra-Libr Intra Library Loans Library—PR Library Programs/Attendance Reserves_ Reserves/Holds Public—S Comments Miscellaneous Comments Mobilecnt Size of Material Collection - Bookmobile Mobilecirc Circulation—Bookmobile Illt000ther ---- 16 Illfrmother ---- Avwkuse Usings During an Average Week Avwkrefqst Reference Questions in Average Week Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 ' Layer Name: Priority Sewer Area Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services ' Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to guide regulatory permit conditions as well as serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be specific to Kona. ' File Name: Priority Sewer Area Layer Type: Polygon Source: One mile zone from the shoreline determined by "buffering" using the shoreline of ' the County Planning Department's "Coastline" shapefile. Attributes: FID Internal software number ' ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Buff -Dist One -mile priority area Responsible agency to update County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Department of Environmental Management. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 'La er Name: Wastewater Reuse Area ' Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to coordinate streetscape and other 1 17 landscaping planning as well as serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be specific to Kona. File Name: Wastewater Re -use Area Layer Type: Polygon Source: Polygon created by "tracing" the Mid -Level Road (Proposed Roads layer), Palani Road (street centerline layer), and parcel layer boundaries. Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Are Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Layer Name: Wastewater Treatment Plants Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: WWTP Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Treatment Level Advanced Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Type Lagoon, Mechanical Effluent Disposal Outfall, Injection Wells, Reuse Design Capacity in mgd Status Existing -A (adequate capacity), Existing -B (need expansion or replacement in next 10 yrs), Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) IF Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with Department of Environmental Management. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Layer Name: Solid Waste Disposal Facilities Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Layer Type: Source: Attributes: Solid Waste Point County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps FID Facility—Nam District TMK Comments: Parcel Siz No—of—Chu Distance_T Type Status Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Miscellaneous Comments Parcel Size in acres Number of chutes Distance to landfill Landfill, Transfer Station, Composting Facility, Sort Station Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department with Department of Environmental Management. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 19 ' ATTACHMENT B Village Design Guidelines ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS AND TABLES...............................................................................26 ARTICLE7. DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................27 ATTACHMENT B ' VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARTICLE1. GENERAL.............................................................................................................2 ' 1.1. AUTHORITY...................................................................................................................2 1.2. INTERPRETATION........................................................................................................ 2 1.3. INTENT ........................................................................................................................... 2 ' 1.4. WARRANTS AND VARIANCES..................................................................................... 4 ARTICLE2. PROCESS............................................................................................................. 4 2.1. APPLICABILITY..............................................................................................................4 ' 2.2. ORGANIZATION OF THE CODE................................................................................... 5 ARTICLE 3. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS -NEW VILLAGES....................................................... 9 3.1. INSTRUCTIONS............................................................................................................. 9 ' 3.2. VILLAGE UNIT TYPES..................................................................................................10 3.3. TRANSECT ZONES......................................................................................................11 3.4. CIVIC ZONES................................................................................................................11 ' 3.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS....................................................................................................12 3.6. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STANDARDS..........................................................12 3.7. DENSITY CALCULATIONS...........................................................................................14 ' 3.8. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.........................................................15 ARTICLE 4. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS-- INFILL......................................................................17 4.1. MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS..............................................................................17 ' 4.2. VILLAGE UNIT TYPES..................................................................................................17 4.3. TRANSECTZONES......................................................................................................17 4.4. CIVIC ZONES................................................................................................................18 ' 4.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS....................................................................................................18 4.6. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.........................................................18 4.7. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS (PRE- ' EXISTINGCONDITIONS)......................................................................................................19 ARTICLE 5. BUILDING SCALE PLANS..................................................................................20 5.1. INSTRUCTIONS............................................................................................................20 5.2. BUILDING DISPOSITION..............................................................................................21 5.3. BUILDING CONFIGURATION.......................................................................................21 5.4. BUILDING CONFIGURATION.......................................................................................22 ' 5.5. BUILDING FUNCTION..................................................................................................23 5.6. PARKING AND DENSITY CALCULATIONS.................................................................24 5.7. PARKING LOCATION STANDARDS............................................................................25 ' 5.8. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS..........................................................................................26 ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS AND TABLES...............................................................................26 ARTICLE7. DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................27 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL ' 1.1. AUTHORITY , 1.1.1. These guidelines were adopted as one of the instruments of implementation of the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) to provide standards of development ' for Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and Transit -Oriented Design (TOD) villages. This is a form -based code, meaning it envisions and encourages a certain physical outcome at the community, BLOCK, or building level. This form is ' compact, walkable, and mixed-use, and is meant to be comfortable, safe, and ecologically sustainable. 1.1.2. The basis of these guidelines is the SmartCode version 9.0 published by the New ' Urban Publications Inc. It has been "calibrated" to fit with the Kona CDP. The SmartCode embodies the state of knowledge of regulating design to result in ' compact walkable villages, and the intent is to take advantage of the collective knowledge of other jurisdictions who use the SmartCode as well as future updates by the authors of the SmartCode. 1.1.3. The Planning Director may amend these guidelines with approval by the Kona Implementation Committee to improve calibration of these guidelines to the local conditions and update with advances in the state of knowledge. 1.2. INTERPRETATION 1.2.1. Provisions of this Code are activated by "shall' when required; "should" when recommended; and "may" when optional. 1.2.2. Capitalized and underline terms used throughout this Code are defined in Article 7 Definitions of Terms. Those terms not defined in Article 7 shall be accorded their commonly accepted meanings. 1.3. INTENT The intent and purpose of these guidelines are to enable, encourage, and qualify the implementation of the following policies: 1.3.1. THE REGION a. That the region retain its natural and visual character derived from topography, coastlines, and other natural features. b. That growth strategies encourage infill and redevelopment in parity with new communities. c. That development contiguous to urban areas be structured in the pattern of infill TND and be integrated with the existing urban pattern. d. That development non-contiguous to urban areas be organized in the pattern of TND or RCD. e. That AFFORDABLE HOUSING should be distributed throughout the region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty. ' f. That transportation corridors be planned and reserved in coordination with ' land use. g. That green corridors be used to define and connect the urbanized areas. h. That the region include a framework of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle ' systems that provide alternatives to the automobile. 1.3.2. THE VILLAGE t a. That Villages and REGIONAL CENTERS be compact, pedestrian -oriented and MIXED USE. b. That ordinary activities of daily living occur within walking distance of most ' dwellings, allowing independence to those who do not drive. c. That interconnected networks of transportation corridors be designed'to disperse traffic and reduce the length of automobile trips. ' d. That within neighborhoods, a range of housing types and price levels be provided to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. e. That appropriate building DENSITIES and land uses be provided within ' walking distance of transit stops. f. That CIVIC, institutional, and COMMERCIAL activity impart a focused town center and gathering place. ' g. That schools could be sized and located to enable children to walk or bicycle to them. h. That a range of OPEN SPACE including parks, squares, and playgrounds ' should be distributed within neighborhoods and villages. i. That the growth of the village stays within a defined edge and thereby helps to establish a compact sense of place. ' 1.3.3. THE BLOCK AND THE BUILDING a. That buildings and landscaping contribute to the physical definition of ' transportation corridors as CIVIC places. b. That development adequately accommodate automobiles while respecting the pedestrian and the spatial form of public areas. t c. That the design of streets and buildings reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility. d. That architecture and landscape design grow from local climate, topography, 1 building practice and fit with Kona's history and lifestyle. e. That buildings provide their inhabitants with a clear sense of geography and climate through energy efficient methods. ' f. That CIVIC BUILDINGS and public gathering places be provided as locations that reinforce community identity and support self-government. g. That CIVIC BUILDINGS be distinctive and appropriate to a role more ' important than the other buildings that constitute the fabric of the village. h. That the preservation and renewal of historic buildings be facilitated, to affirm the continuity and evolution of society. i. That the harmonious and orderly evolution of urban areas should be secured through form -based guidelines or codes. 1.4. WARRANTS AND VARIANCES 1.4.1. There shall be two types of deviation from the requirements of these guidelines: ' Warrants and Variances. Whether a deviation requires a WARRANT or VARIANCE shall be determined by the Planning Director. 1.4.2. A WARRANT is a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision of these guidelines but is justified by the provisions of Section 1.3 Intent. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve or disapprove ' administratively a request for a WARRANT. 1.4.3. A VARIANCE is any ruling on a deviation other than a WARRANT. VARIANCES ' shall be granted only in accordance with the procedures for zoning code variances. 1.4.4. The request for a VARIANCE shall not subject the entire application to public ' notice, but only that portion necessary to rule on the specific issue requiring the relief. ' 1.4.5. The following standards and requirements shall not be available for WARRANTS .or VARIANCES because they tend to seriously subvert the desired outcome of ' compact, walkable and diverse communities: a. The maximum dimensions of traffic lanes. (See Table 2A.) b. The required provision of REAR ALLEYS and REAR LANES. t c. The minimum BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES. (See Table 11b.) d. The permission to build ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. e. The minimum requirements for parking. (See Table 7.) ' ARTICLE 2. PROCESS 2.1. APPLICABILITY ' 2.1.1. Types of Applications. These guidelines apply to two levels of scale: a village , plan for a Project District rezoning application for the entire TNDITOD meeting the requirements of Article 3; and a site plan for a subdivision or building permit approval within an approved TNDITOD meeting the requirements of Article 5 and , Hawaii County Code section 25-6-46 (review and approval of Project District site plans). 2.1.2. Pre -Application. An applicant may discuss informally the intent of the proposed ' plan with the Design Center. No fees shall be collected for Pre -Application Conference, its purpose being to familiarize the Planning Department with the ' proposed Plan and the applicant with the development procedures in the KCDP planning area. The applicant should share sketch plans and data showing existing site conditions and the proposed layout and development of the plan. The purpose and intent of the Pre -Application Conference allows both parties to identify 1 potential challenges, opportunities and items that need to be addressed. ' 2.1.3. Charette. Where desired or required to have multi -disciplinary input from various ' agencies and/or the public to formulate the community or building scale site plan, the Design Center may assist the applicant to organize this meeting(s). 2.2. ORGANIZATION OF THE CODE ' 2.2.1. Determine Scale of the Plan. For an applicant preparing a rezoning application for a Project District, go to Article 3 for guidelines to prepare a village scale plan. For ' an applicant desiring to build within an approved TOD or TND Project District, go to Article 5 to prepare a building scale plan to submit for subdivision or site plan approval. ' 2.2.2. Steps to Prepare a Village Scale Plan. The village scale plan is adopted by ordinance as part of the Project District rezoning, and thereby becomes a ' Regulating Plan. The Planning Director may administratively approve minor adjustments to the plan. Major changes must be adopted legislatively as an amendment to the rezoning ordinance. ' a. Determine the VILLAGE UNIT Types. There are two village unit types: a TND and a RCD. Either type may qualify as a TOD. A TOD has a transit station at its center and allows for a higher density. The Kona CDP Land Use Map determines the VILLAGE UNIT type as follows: Intended Growth Areas. Future growth is directed to the TOD villages along the main and secondary transit routes. The Land Use Map identifies TODs that are intended as neighborhood villages (TND/TOD) and regional centers (RCD/TOD). For guidelines relating to the TODs, go to Article 3. ' ii. Infill Growth Areas. Most of the TODs are New Communities. However, the Land Use Map also identifies existing communities intended to be redeveloped—the Kailua Village Redevelopment TOD and the Rural Towns TODs. Additionally, smaller projects adjacent to existing development are encouraged—these types of New Communities are called Infill TNDs. For guidelines relating to INFILL Redevelopment or Infill New Communities, go to Article 4. iii. Controlled Growth Areas. Areas outside of the TODs identified on the Land Use Map but within the designated Urban Area may also be developed as TNDs. If this area is already urban -zoned (RS, RM, RD, CG, CV, CN, MCX), the applicant follows the PUD procedure to have the village scale plan approved. If the area requires rezoning, then the applicant follows the procedures for a Project District rezoning as set forth in the Kona CDP. If the project qualifies as an INFILL TND, then go to ' Article 4; otherwise, go to Article 3. iv. Open Areas. Village scale plans should identify open spaces when ' applicable. There are two types of open spaces: 1) Preserved Open Space. The Preserved Open Space consists of the Sensitive Resources identified on the Environmental Resources Map that are to be protected from development in perpetuity. 2) Reserved Open Space. The Reserved Open Space consists of the Greenbelt area surrounding TODs and TNDs established by transferring density (TDR). b. Allocate Transect Zones. TRANSECT ZONES (T -ZONES) organize the density, complexity, and intensity of the land use within the TND or RCD village. The operating principle is that there is an urban core with a main center focus such as a transit station and plaza. This urban core area, which is spatially defined based on walkable distances called PEDESTRIAN SHEDS, has the highest density, complexity, and intensity of uses. The land uses transition to less dense uses moving away from the center. Table 1 describes the TRANSECT ZONES. The TRANSECT ZONES that correspond to the urban core, secondary area, and greenbelt referred to in the Kona CDP are as follows: Urban Core 1) T-5 Urban Center 2) T-4 General Urban ii. Secondary Area: T-3 Suburban iii. Greenbelt: GB Greenbelt 2.2.3. Steps to Prepare a Building Scale Plan. An applicant would submit a preliminary plan, have that reviewed, then a final plan. The final plan would add landscaping details. a. Determine the Building Disposition (i.e., lot configuration and building placement relative to setbacks). Note that setbacks (Table 11 g and Table 11 h) are provided as ranges. They thus act as build -to lines, but with a degree of flexibility. In general, they become shallower as the TRANSECT ZONES become more urban. A zero lot line streetwall is often desirable in the most urban conditions, because it strongly defines the street space. However, these guidelines specify a 6 -foot minimum front setback in T4 so that private frontage can accommodate stoops, porches, private planters and gardens, sidewalk signs, outdoor seating, cafe tables, and other ENCROACHMENTS. The side setbacks in T4 and T5 are zero minimum to allow ROWHOUSES and TOWNHOUSES. b. Determine the Building CONFIGURATION (i.e., building form). The form of a building is determined by its height and type of PRIVATE FRONTAGE. The PRIVATE FRONTAGE occupies the front setback area or encroaches into the SIDEWALK area within the right-of-way. The range of depth of a LOT within which certain elements are permitted is called a LAYER (see Table 14). The design principle is to bring the buildings closer to the streets to create an inviting streetscape and put "eyes on the streets" to create a safer ambience. The maximum height of buildings should be proportional to the street width to avoid an enclosed "canyon" effect. c. Determine the Building Function. The permitted uses are flexible to encourage a mixing of uses horizontally (among buildings, lots, BLOCKS and vertically (within buildings). The range of uses become increasingly flexible from the T-3 to the T-5 Zones. The uses are grouped into the following categories: RESIDENTIAL, LODGING, OFFICE, RETAIL, CIVIC, and Other. The Other category includes certain types of uses that are discouraged within the TNDs or RCDs, such as automobile -dependent uses (e.g., automobile service, drive-through facilities, shopping centers), industrial uses, and agricultural uses. d. Calculate the Parking Requirements and Density Rights. The Buildable DENSITY is determined by the actual parking requirements. The parking requirements are determined by the Building FUNCTIONS and allows for shared parking among mixed Building FUNCTIONS. The provision for T5 that retail spaces under 1500 square feet are exempt from parking requirements is included as it encourages the kind of smaller independent shops that contribute to urban vitality. It also helps keep existing small -lot Main Street downtowns legal for rebuilding without the need for conjoining lots. And it maintains commercial sidewalks free of curb cuts for off-street parking. Once the parking requirements are calculated, then the density by Building FUNCTION can be determined. The EFFECTIVE PARKING may be increased in TODs to effectively increase the permitted density. ACCESSORY UNITS are not included in the density calculation to encourage this residential use. Develop the Landscaping Plan. The landscaping standards regulate the extent of paving, lawns, and trees. Note the requirement that in T4, trees in ' the private frontage are required to match trees in the public frontage (see Table 4 PUBLIC FRONTAGES). While this may seem like an unnecessary effort to control private choice, consider that trees in the private frontage are ' actually a major part of the viewshed of the public frontage, and contribute to the shade of the public realm. Many trees in older neighborhoods that contribute to their distinctive character are actually growing on the private ' frontage. While it may seem odd that lawn is permitted BY RIGHT in T4 but not in T3 where lawns have reigned in the past, the rationale is that a lawn is not a natural type of planting, and is not considered environmentally ' sustainable in large areas. (It requires fertilizers that run off into streams or the aquifer.) Therefore it is allowed in the more urban (less natural) Transect Zone where lots are smaller and yards more intensely used, which is where lawn outperforms other species. GROWTH POLICY I Articles 3 a 4: CommunityScale Plans Article 5: Building Scale Plans COMMUNITY TYPE TRANSECT ZONES STANDARDS OPEN SPACE Open Space, Preserved Sensitve Resources GB- Greenbelt Building Disposition Building Configuration Building Function Parking Standards Architectural Standards Environmental Standards Landscape Standards Open Space, Reserved Greenbelt NEW COMMUNITIES (Article 3) TOD TND- Neighborhood Village T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone RCD- Regional Center T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone Outside TOD TND- Neighborhood Village T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone EXISTING COMMUNITIES (Article 4) TOD- Redevelopment RCD- Regional Center T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone TND -Infill TND- Neighborhood Village T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone ARTICLE 3. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS—NEW VILLAGES 3.1. INSTRUCTIONS 3.1.1. Structure the site using one or several PEDESTRIAN SHEDS, which should be located according to existing conditions, such as traffic intersections, adjacent developments, and natural features. The site or any New VILLAGE UNIT (T� RCD/TOD) within it may be smaller or larger than its PEDESTRIAN SHED. Note: In Section 3, New Communities refer to stand-alone development, as compared to "Infill" connected to existing development, so no, don't replace with Villages. 3.1.2. Adjust the PEDESTRIAN SHEDS as necessary to include land falling between or outside them, but the extent of each shall not exceed the acreage limit specified in Section 3.3 for the applicable Village Unit type. An ADJUSTED PEDESTRIAN SHED becomes the boundary of a VILLAGE UNIT. 3.1.3. Allocate the areas of TRANSECT ZONES (T -Zones) (Section 3.4) within the boundaries of each VILLAGE UNIT as appropriate to its type. TND may vary in size. If the site is larger than a STANDARD PEDESTRIAN SHED, one TND may be adjoined by another. RCD may also vary greatly in size. This provision gives the planner leeway to structure any site up to 640 acres as either one large RCD or as a smaller RCD adjoined by one or more TNDs. Even though the entire planning area would be within the LONG PEDESTRIAN SHED of the transit stop, the market would dictate whether TND, with its lower density and T-3 housing types, would be more suitable to fill out the parcel than the higher density T -zones of the RCD pattern. See Sections 3.3 and 3.4 and Table 11a. lip Sample regulating plan relating to pedestrian sheds. Z 3.1.4. Assign CIVIC ZONES shall according to Section 3.5. 3.1.5. Assign SPECIAL DISTRICTS, if any, according to Section 3.6. 3.1.6. Layout the THOROUGHFARE network according to Section 3.7. 3.1.7. Calculate DENSITY and determine the greenbelt area according to Section 3.8. 3.1.8. Remnants of the site outside the ADJUSTED PEDESTRIAN SHED(s) shall be assigned to TRANSECT ZONES or CIVIC SPACE by WARRANT or SPECIAL DISTRICT by VARIANCE. 3.2. VILLAGE UNIT TYPES 3.2.1. TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (TND) a. A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (TND) shall be permitted within the TOD neighborhood, existing urban zoned areas, infill areas, or other remaining areas within the Urban Area. b. A TND shall be structured by one Standard or LINEAR PEDESTRIAN SHED and shall be no fewer than 80 acres and no more than 160 acres. c. A TND shall include TRANSECT ZONES as allocated on Table 11 a. d. Larger sites shall be designed and developed as multiple Communities, each subject to the individual TRANSECT ZONE requirements for its type as allocated on Table 11a. The simultaneous planning of adjacent parcels is encouraged. e. In the T-4 General Urban Zone, a minimum Residential mix of three Building Disposition types (none less than 20%) shall be required, selected from Table 6. 3.2.2. REGIONAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT (RCD) a. A REGIONAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT (RCD) shall be permitted within the TOD regional center. b. An RCD shall be structured by one LONG PEDESTRIAN SHED or LINEAR PEDESTRIAN SHED and shall consist of no fewer than 80 acres and no more than 640 acres. c. An RCD shall include TRANSECT ZONES as allocated on Table 11 a. d. For larger sites, an RCD may be adjoined without buffer by one or more TNDs, each subject to the individual TRANSECT ZONE requirements for TND as allocated on Table 11 a. The simultaneous planning of adjacent parcels is encouraged. 3.2.3. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) a. Any TND or RCD designated as TOD are permitted the higher DENSITY represented by the EFFECTIVE PARKING allowance in Section 5.9.2d. 10 3.3. TRANSECT ZONES 3.3.1. TRANSECT ZONES shall be assigned and mapped on each New Village Plan according to the percentages allocated on Tables 2 and 14a. ' 3.3.2. A Transect Zone may include any of the elements indicated for its T -zone number throughout this Code, in accordance with Intent described in Table 1 and the metric standards summarized in Table 11. ' 3.4. CIVIC ZONES ' 3.4.1. GENERAL a. CIVIC ZONES dedicated for public use shall be required for each VILLAGE ' UNIT and designated on the New Village Plan as CIVIC SPACE (CS) and CIVIC BUILDING (CB). b. CIVIC SPACE Zones are public sites permanently dedicated to Open Space. ' c. CIVIC BUILDING Zones are sites dedicated for buildings generally operated by not-for-profit organizations dedicated to culture, education, religion, government, transit and municipal parking, or for a use approved by the ' Legislative body. d. A CIVIC ZONE may be permitted by WARRANT if it does not occupy more than 20% of a PEDESTRIAN SHED, otherwise it is subject to the creation of a ' SPECIAL DISTRICT. See Section 3.6. e. Parking for CIVIC ZONES shall be determined by WARRANT. CIVIC parking lots may remain unpaved if graded, compacted and landscaped. ' 3.4.2. CIVIC SPACE (CS) a. Each PEDESTRIAN SHED shall assign at least 5% of its URBANIZED area to ' CIVIC SPACE. b. CIVIC SPACES shall be designed as generally described in Table 10, approved by WARRANT, and distributed throughout TRANSECT ZONES as described in Table 11e. c. Those portions of the GB Greenbelt that occur within a development parcel shall be part of the CIVIC SPACE allocation and should conform to the CIVIC ' SPACE types specified in Table 10a or 13b. d. Each PEDESTRIAN SHED shall contain at least one MAIN CIVIC SPACE. The MAIN CIVIC SPACE shall be within 800 feet of the geographic center of ' each PEDESTRIAN SHED, unless topographic conditions, pre-existing THOROUGHFARE alignments or other circumstances prevent such location. A MAIN CIVIC SPACE shall conform to one of the types specified in Table ' 10b, 13c, or 13d. e. Within 800 feet of every LOT in RESIDENTIAL use, a CIVIC SPACE designed and equipped as a playground shall be provided. A playground shall conform to Table 10e. f. Each CIVIC SPACE shall have a minimum of 50% of its perimeter enfronting a THOROUGHFARE, except for playgrounds. t g. CIVIC SPACES may be permitted within SPECIAL DISTRICTS by WARRANT. h. Parks maybe permitted in TRANSECT ZONES T4 and T5 by WARRANT. 3.4.3. CIVIC BUILDINGS (CB) a. The owner shall covenant to construct a MEETING HALL or a Third Place in proximity to the MAIN CIVIC SPACE of each PEDESTRIAN SHED. Its corresponding PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall be equipped with a shelter and bench for a transit stop. b. One CIVIC BUILDING LOT shall be reserved for an elementary school. Its area shall be one (1) acre for each increment of 100 dwelling units provided by the Village. c. Plan, with a minimum of three (3) acres. The school site may be within any TRANSECT ZONE. Any playing fields should be outside the PEDESTRIAN SHED. d. One CIVIC BUILDING LOT suitable for a childcare building shall be reserved within each Pedestrian Shed. The owner or a homeowners' association or other community council may organize, fund and construct an appropriate building as the need arises. e. CIVIC BUILDING sites shall not occupy more than 20% of the area of each PEDESTRIAN SHED. f. CIVIC BUILDING sites should be located within or adjacent to a CIVIC SPACE, or at the axial termination of a significant Thoroughfare. g. CIVIC BUILDINGS shall not be subject to the standards of Article 5. The particulars of their design shall be determined by WARRANT. h. CIVIC BUILDINGS may be permitted within SPECIAL DISTRICTS by WARRANT. 3.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3.5.1. SPECIAL DISTRICT designations shall be assigned to areas that, by their intrinsic size, FUNCTION, or CONFIGURATION, cannot conform to the requirements of any TRANSECT ZONE or combination of zones. Conditions of development for SPECIAL DISTRICTS shall be determined in public hearing of the Legislative Body and recorded on Table 13. 3.6. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STANDARDS 3.6.1. GENERAL a. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS are intended for use by vehicular and pedestrian traffic and to provide access to LOTS and OPEN SPACES. b. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall generally consist of vehicular lanes and PUBLIC FRONTAGES. c. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall be designed in context with the urban form and desired design speed of the TRANSECT ZONES through which they pass. The PUBLIC FRONTAGES of TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS that pass from one TRANSECT ZONE to another shall be 12 adjusted accordingly or, alternatively, the TRANSECT ZONE may follow the ' alignment of the THOROUGHFARE to the depth of one LOT, retaining a single PUBLIC FRONTAGE throughout its trajectory. d. Within the more urban TRANSECT ZONES (T3 through T5) pedestrian ' comfort shall be a primary consideration of the THOROUGHFARE. Design conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movement generally shall be decided in favor of the pedestrian. ' e. The THOROUGHFARE network shall be designed to define BLOCKS not exceeding the size prescribed in Table 11 c. The perimeter shall be measured as the sum of LOT FRONTAGE LINES. BLOCK perimeter at the edge of the ' development parcel shall be subject to approval by WARRANT. f. All TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall terminate at other TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, forming a network. Internal ' TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall connect wherever possible to those on adjacent sites. Cul-de-sacs shall be subject to approval by WARRANT to accommodate specific site conditions only. g. Each LOT shall ENFRONT a vehicular THOROUGHFARE, except that 20% of the LOTS within each TRANSECT ZONE may ENFRONT a PASSAGE. h. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS along a designated B -GRID may be t exempted by WARRANT from one or more of the specified PUBLIC FRONTAGE or PRIVATE FRONTAGE requirements. See Table 4 i. Standards for PATHS and BICYCLE TRAILS shall be approved by t WARRANT. j. The standards for TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS within SPECIAL DISTRICTS shall be determined by VARIANCE. ' 3.6.2. VEHICULAR LANES a. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS may include vehicular lanes in a variety of ' widths for parked and for moving vehicles, including bicycles. The standards for vehicular lanes shall be as shown in Table 2A. b. A bicycle network consisting of BICYCLE TRAILS, BICYCLE ROUTES and ' BICYCLE LANES should be provided throughout as defined in Article 7 Definitions of Terms and allocated as specified in Table 11d. BICYCLE ROUTES should be marked with Sharrows. The village bicycle network shall ' be connected to existing or proposed regional networks wherever possible. 3.6.3. PUBLIC FRONTAGES ' a. GENERAL TO ALL ZONES i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE contributes to the character of the TRANSECT ZONE, and includes the types of SIDEWALK, CURB, planter, bicycle ' facility, and street trees. ii. PUBLIC FRONTAGES shall be designed as shown in Table 3A and Table ' 3B and allocated within TRANSECT ZONES as specified in Table 11 d. b. SPECIFIC TO ZONES T3 i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall include trees of various species, tnaturalistically clustered, as well as understory. 1 13 ii. The introduced landscape shall consist primarily of native species requiring minimal irrigation, fertilization and maintenance. Lawn shall be permitted only by WARRANT. c. C. SPECIFIC TO ZONES T4, T5 i. The introduced landscape shall consist primarily of durable species tolerant of soil compaction. d. SPECIFIC TO ZONE T4 i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall include trees planted in a regularly -spaced ALLEE pattern of single or alternated species with shade canopies of a height that, at maturity, clears at least one STORY. e. SPECIFIC TO ZONE T5 i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall include trees planted in a regularly -spaced ALLEE pattern of single species with shade canopies of a height that, at maturity, clears at least one STORY. At RETAIL FRONTAGES, the spacing of the trees may be irregular, to avoid visually obscuring the shopfronts. ii. Streets with a Right -of -Way width of 40 feet or less shall be exempt from the tree requirement. 3.7. DENSITY CALCULATIONS 3.7.1. This section operates by referencing Table Ila and Table 1 l (Summary Table), and Table 7 and Table 8 (Building FUNCTION and Parking Calculations). The code requires a minimum amount of dwelling units to be exchanged for other FUNCTIONS (LODGING, OFFICE, or RETAIL). The exchange is subject to approval as a WARRANT, and cannot exceed in any event 50% of the total number of dwelling units permitted for the applicable TRANSECT ZONE. The density calculations, which are inherently complex, operate at the village scale, while a further determination of local density occurs at the building scale. These calculations allow adjustment according to the site and market conditions. The sequence of calculations is as follows: a. In the process of preparing the Village Plan, allocate an area of land to each TRANSECT ZONE as permitted by Table 1 la. The table shows a range of ratios for each VILLAGE UNIT type that, once the plan is complete, become fixed allocations appearing on the permitting documents, both graphically on the plan and also listed as the number of acres of each TRANSECT ZONE. b. Using the acreage of these TRANSECT ZONES, including the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS but not the CIVIC ZONES, calculate from Table 11b the BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. Note that the "BY RIGHT' density is much lower than the "By TDR" density. This encourages the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS from lands that should remain open, in order to achieve the higher allowable density. c. Establish the requisite degree of mixed use by translating a ratio of the overall BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY to "Other FUNCTIONS' as specified on Table 11 b and Section 3.8.5. These densities become part of the permit, appearing as fixed numbers and allocated by TRANSECT ZONES on the Village Plan. 14 ' d. When the lots and buildings are subsequently being designed according to Article 5, the localized density is determined. See Section 5.9 DENSITY and Parking Calculations. 3.7.2. All areas of the New Village Plan site that are not part of the T-1 Preserved Sector ' shall be considered cumulatively the NET SITE AREA. The NET SITE AREA shall be allocated to the various TRANSECT ZONES according to the parameters ' specified in Table 11a. 3.7.3. DENSITY shall be expressed in terms of housing units per acre as specified for the area of each TRANSECT ZONE by Table 11 b. For purposes of DENSITY calculation, the TRANSECT ZONES include the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS but not land assigned to CIVIC ZONES (CS and CB). Twenty ' percent (20%) shall be in the AFFORDABLE HOUSING range. 3.7.4. The BASE DENSITY of the VILLAGE UNIT may be increased by the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) up to the amount specified for each Zone by ' Table 11 b. An increase in housing units by TDR shall be factored in when meeting the AFFORDABLE HOUSING requirements. 3.7.5. Within the percentage range shown on Table 11 b for Other FUNCTIONS, the housing units specified on Table 11 b shall be exchanged at the following rates: ' a. For LODGING: 2 bedrooms for each unit of NET SITE AREA DENSITY. b. For OFFICE or RETAIL: 1000 square feet for each unit of NET SITE AREA DENSITY. ' 3.7.6. The number of units exchanged shall be subject to approval by WARRANT. ' 3.7.7. The housing and other FUNCTIONS for each TRANSECT ZONE shall be subject to further adjustment at the building scale as limited by Table 7, Table 8 and Section 5.9. ' 3.8. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 3.8.1. New and Redevelopment Village Plans shall include a REGULATING PLAN ' consisting of one or more maps showing the following for each VILLAGE UNIT in the plan area, in compliance with the standards described in this Article: ' a. TRANSECTZONES B. CIVIC ZONES c. THOROUGHFARE network ' d. SPECIAL DISTRICTS, if any e. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS, if any f. Numbers of WARRANTS or VARIANCES, if any. 3.8.2. A New or Community Village Plan may designate any of the following SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 15 C. 03 L Q h. A differentiation of the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS as A -GRID and B - GRID. Buildings along the A -GRID shall be held to the highest standard of this Code in support of pedestrian activity. Buildings along the B -GRID may be more readily considered for WARRANTS allowing automobile -oriented standards. The FRONTAGES assigned to the B -GRID shall not exceed 30% of the total length of FRONTAGES within a PEDESTRIAN SHED. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended RETAIL FRONTAGE requiring or advising that a building provide a SHOPFRONT at SIDEWALK level along the entire length of its PRIVATE FRONTAGE. The SHOPFRONT shall be no less than 70% glazed in clear glass and shaded by an awning overlapping the SIDEWALK as generally illustrated in Table 4 and specified in Article 5. The first floor shall be confined to RETAIL use through the depth of the second LAYER. (Table 14d) Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended GALLERY FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building provide a permanent cover over the SIDEWALK, either cantilevered or supported by columns. The GALLERY FRONTAGE designation may be combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended ARCADE FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building overlap the SIDEWALK such that the first floor FACADE is a colonnade. The ARCADE FRONTAGE designation may be combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. A designation for Coordinated FRONTAGE, requiring that the PUBLIC FRONTAGE (Table 3A) and PRIVATE FRONTAGE (Table 4) be coordinated as a single, coherent landscape and paving design. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended Terminated Vista locations, requiring or advising that the building be provided with architectural articulation of a type and character that responds visually to the location, as approved by the Design Center. A designation for Cross BLOCK Passages, requiring that a minimum 8 -foot - wide pedestrian access be reserved between buildings. A designation for Buildings of Value, requiring that such buildings and structures may be altered or demolished only in accordance with Municipal Preservation Standards and Protocols. Sample regulating plan for new orcommunfty village plan. 16 ' ARTICLE 4. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS-- INFILL ' 4.1. MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS 4.1.1. The owner of a parcel, or abutting parcels, consisting of 20 acres or more of ' contiguous lots abutting existing development within the Urban Area as approved by the Design Center shall prepare a village plan to regulate, at minimum, an area the size of the Pedestrian Shed commensurate with its Village Unit type as listed t in Section 4.2, even if it overlaps adjacent parcels. Both the site and plan area should connect and blend with surrounding urbanism. ' 4.2. VILLAGE UNIT TYPES 4.2.1. Infill Regulating Plans shall encompass the Village Unit types below. The allocation percentages of Table 11 a do not apply. a. TND. An INFILL TND should be assigned to neighborhood areas that are predominantly residential with one or more MIXED USE CORRIDORS or centers. An INFILL TND shall be mapped as at least one complete Standard Pedestrian Shed, which may be adjusted as a NETWORK PEDESTRIAN ' SHED, oriented around one or more existing or planned Common Destinations. The edges of an INFILL TND should blend into adjacent neighborhoods and/or a downtown without buffers. ' b. RCD. The INFILL RCDs consist of the Redevelopment areas identified on the Land Use Map—Kailua Village TOD and the Rural Towns TODs. These areas include significant OFFICE and RETAIL uses as well as government and other ' CIVIC institutions of regional importance. These INFILL RCD may be mapped as at least one complete LONG or LINEAR PEDESTRIAN SHED, which may be adjusted as a NETWORK PEDESTRIAN SHED, oriented around an ' important MIXED USE CORRIDOR or center. The edges of these INFILL RCDs should blend into adjacent neighborhoods without buffers. As TODs, the higher DENSITY represented by the EFFECTIVE PARKING allowance in ' Section 5.9.2d apply. 4.3. TRANSECT ZONES ' 4.3.1. TRANSECT ZONE standards for INFILL REGULATING PLANS should be calibrated by means of a survey of exemplary existing and intended conditions, as ' identified in a process of public consultation and subject to the approval of the Design Center. Metrics shall be recorded on Table 11 and Tables 12A -C. ' 4.3.2. A TRANSECT ZONE shall include elements indicated by Article 3, Article 5, and Article 6. 17 4.4. CIVIC ZONES 4.4.1. GENERAL a. Infill Plans should designate CIVIC SPACE Zones (CS) and CIVIC BUILDING Zones (CB). b. A CIVIC ZONE may be permitted by WARRANT if it does not occupy more than 20% of a PEDESTRIAN SHED, otherwise it is subject to the creation of a SPECIAL DISTRICT. See Section 4.5. c. Parking provisions for CIVIC ZONES shall be determined by WARRANT. 4.4.2. CIVIC SPACE ZONES (CS) a. CIVIC SPACES shall be generally designed as described in Table 10, their type determined by the surrounding or adjacent TRANSECT ZONE in a process of public consultation subject to the approval of the Design Center. 4.4.3. CIVIC BUILDING ZONES (CB) a. CIVIC BUILDINGS shall be permitted by WARRANT in any TRANSECT ZONE. b. CIVIC BUILDINGS shall not be subject to the Requirements of Article 5. The particulars of their design shall be determined by WARRANT. 4.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS 4.5.1. Areas that, by their intrinsic size, FUNCTION, or CONFIGURATION, cannot conform to the requirements of any TRANSECT ZONE or combination of zones shall be designated as SPECIAL DISTRICTS by the Planning Director in the process of preparing an Infill Plan. Conditions of development for SPECIAL DISTRICTS shall be determined by the Design Center and recorded on Table 13. 4.6. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 4.6.1. Infill Regulating Plans shall consist of one or more maps showing the following: a. The outline(s) of the PEDESTRIAN SHED(s) and the boundaries of the Village Unit(s) b. TRANSECT ZONES and any CIVIC ZONES within each PEDESTRIAN SHED, assigned according to an analysis of existing conditions and future needs c. a Thoroughfare network, existing or planned (Table 2A, Table 2B, Table 3A, and Table 3B) d. any SPECIAL DISTRICTS (Section 4.5) e. any Special Requirements (Section 4.7) f. a record of any WARRANTS or VARIANCES. 4.6.2. An Infill Village Plan may designate any of the following Special Requirements: a. A differentiation of the transportation corridors as A -GRID and B -GRID. Buildings along the A -GRID shall be held to the highest standard of this Code m ' in support of pedestrian activity. Buildings along the B -GRID may be more readily considered for Warrants allowing automobile -oriented standards. The ' FRONTAGES assigned to the B -GRID shall not exceed 30% of the total length of FRONTAGES within a PEDESTRIAN SHED. ' b. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended RETAIL FRONTAGE requiring or advising that a building provide a SHOPFRONT at SIDEWALK level along the entire length of its PRIVATE FRONTAGE. The SHOPFRONT shall be no less than 70% glazed in clear glass and shaded by an awning overlapping the SIDEWALK as generally illustrated in Table 4 and specified in Article 5. The first floor shall be confined to Retail use through the depth of the t second LAYER. (Table 14d.) c. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended GALLERY FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building provide a permanent cover over the ' SIDEWALK, either cantilevered or supported by columns. The GALLERY FRONTAGE designation may be combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. d. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended ARCADE FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building overlap the SIDEWALK such that the first floor Facade is a colonnade. The ARCADE FRONTAGE designation may be ' combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. e. A designation for Coordinated FRONTAGE, requiring that the PUBLIC FRONTAGE (Table 3A) and PRIVATE FRONTAGE (Table 4) be coordinated ' as a single, coherent landscape and paving design. f. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended Terminated Vista locations, requiring or advising that the building be provided with architectural articulation of a type and character that responds visually to the location, as approved by the Design Center. g. A designation for Cross BLOCK Passages, requiring that a minimum 8 -foot - wide pedestrian access be reserved between buildings. h. A designation for Buildings of Value, requiring that such buildings and structures may be altered or demolished only in accordance with Design ' Center approval. 4.7. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS (PRE- EXISTING CONDITIONS) 4.7.1. Existing buildings and appurtenances that do not conform to the provisions of this Code may continue in the same use and form until a Substantial Modification occurs or is requested, at which time the Design Center shall determine the provisions of this Section that shall apply. 4.7.2. Existing buildings that have at any time received a certificate of occupancy shall not require upgrade to the current Building Code and when renovated may meet ' the standards of the code under which they were originally permitted (to be negotiated by the Design Center with the Building Division). 19 4.7.3. The modification of existing buildings is permitted BY RIGHT if such changes result in greater conformance with the specifications of this Code (to be negotiated by the Design Center with the Building Division). 4.7.4. Where buildings exist on adjacent LOTS, the Design Center may require that a proposed building match one or the other of the adjacent Setbacks and heights rather than the provisions of this Code. 4.7.5. Any addition to or modification of a Building of Value that has been designated as such by the Local Preservation Organization or to a building actually or potentially eligible for inclusion on a state, local or national historic register, shall be subject to approval by the Local Preservation Organization. 4.7.6. The restoration or rehabilitation of an existing building shall not require the provision of (a) parking in addition to that existing or (b) on-site stormwater retention/detention in addition to that existing. Existing parking requirements that exceed those for this Code may be reduced as provided by Tables 10 and 11. In�.11 Ilan -Lia \I ap tr � MEMO � C Y''=s ARTICLE 5. BUILDING SCALE PLANS 5.1. INSTRUCTIONS 5.1.1. LOTS and buildings located within a New, Redevelopment, or Infill Village Plan governed by this Code and previously approved shall be subject to the requirements of this Article. 5.1.2. Building and site plans submitted under this Article shall show the following, in compliance with the standards described in this Article: a. For preliminary site and building approval: 20 — Building Disposition — Building CONFIGURATION — Building FUNCTION — Parking Location Standards b. For final approval, in addition to the above: — Landscape Standards — Signage Standards — Special Requirements, if any 5.1.3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS that do not have provisions within this Code shall be governed by the standards of the pre-existing zoning. 5.2. BUILDING DISPOSITION 5.2.1. SPECIFIC TO ZONES T3, T4, T5 a. Newly platted LOTS shall be dimensioned according to Table 11f and Tables 12A -C. b. Building DISPOSITION types shall be as shown in Table 6 and Table 11i. c. Buildings shall be disposed in relation to the boundaries of their Lots according to Table 11g, Table 11h, and Tables 12A -C. d. One Principal Building at the FRONTAGE, and one Outbuilding to the rear of the Principal Building, may be built on each LOT as shown in Table 14c. e. LOT coverage by building shall not exceed that recorded in Table 11f and Tables 12A -C. f. Facades shall be built parallel to a rectilinear PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE or to the tangent of a curved PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE, and along a minimum percentage of the FRONTAGE width at the SETBACK, as specified as FRONTAGE Buildout on Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. g. Setbacks for Principal Buildings shall be as shown in Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. In the case of an Infill LOT, Setbacks shall match one of the existing adjacent SETBACKS. SETBACKS may otherwise be adjusted by WARRANT. h. Rear SETBACKS for Outbuildings shall be a minimum of 12 feet measured from the centerline of the REAR ALLEY or REAR LANE easement. In the absence of REAR ALLEY or REAR LANE. the rear SETBACK shall be as shown in Table 11 h and Tables 12A -C. i. To accommodate slopes over ten percent, relief from front Setback requirements is available by WARRANT. 5.3. BUILDING CONFIGURATION 5.3.1. Specific to zones T3, T4, T5 a. Newly platted LOTS shall be dimensioned according to Table 11f and Tables 12A -C. b. Building Disposition types shall be as shown in Table 6. c. Buildings shall be disposed in relation to the boundaries of their LOTS according to Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. 21 d. One PRINCIPAL BUILDING at the FRONTAGE, and one ACCESSORY UNIT to the rear of the PRINCIPAL BUILDING, may be built on each LOT as shown in Table 14c. e. LOT coverage by building shall not exceed that recorded in Table 11f and Tables 12A -C. f. Facades shall be built parallel to a rectilinear PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE or to the tangent of a curved PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE, and along a minimum percentage of the FRONTAGE length at the SETBACK, as specified on Table 11g and Tables 12A -C. g. SETBACKS for PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS shall be as shown in Table 11g and Tables 12A -C. In the case of an INFILL LOT, Setbacks shall match one of the existing adjacent SETBACKS. SETBACKS may otherwise be adjusted by the Final Site Plan. h. Rear SETBACKS for ACCESSORY UNITS shall be a minimum of 12 feet measured from the centerline of the REAR ALLEY easement. In the absence of REAR ALLEY, the rear SETBACK shall be as shown in Table 11h and Tables 12A -C. i. To accommodate slopes over ten percent, relief from front SETBACK requirements may be considered as a Special Condition. 5.4. BUILDING CONFIGURATION 5.4.1. General to zones T3, T4, T5 a. The PRIVATE FRONTAGE of buildings shall conform to and be allocated in accordance with Table 4 and Table 11j. b. Buildings on corner LOTS shall have two PRIVATE FRONTAGES as shown in Table 14. Prescriptions for the second and third LAYERS pertain only to the PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE. Prescriptions for the first LAYER pertain to both FRONTAGES. c. The first STORY of all FACADES should be glazed with clear glass no less than 30%. d. Building Heights, SETBACKS, EXPRESSION LINES, and EXTENSION LINES shall conform to Table 5 and Table 11j. e. Stories may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first floor COMMERCIAL FUNCTION, which shall be a minimum of 11 feet and may be a maximum of 25 feet. A single floor level exceeding 14 feet, or 25 feet at ground level, shall be counted as two (2) stories. Mezzanines extending beyond 33% of the floor area shall be counted as an additional STORY. f. In a PARKING STRUCTURE or garage, each level counts as a single STORY regardless of its relationship to habitable Stories. g. Height limits do not apply to ATTICS or raised basements, masts, belfries, clock towers, chimney flues, water tanks, or elevator bulkheads. 5.4.2. Specific to zones T3, T4, T5 22 a. The minimum size of a dwelling within a PRINCIPAL BUILDING shall be 300 sq ft in interior space. ACCESSORY UNITS may be any size, not to exceed 900 sq ft. 5.4.3. Specific to zone T3 a. No portion of the PRIVATE FRONTAGE may encroach the SIDEWALK. b. Open lanais may encroach the first LAYER 50% of its depth. (Table 14d) c. Lanais and bay windows may encroach the First LAYER 25% of its depth. 5.4.4. Specific to zone T4 a. Lanais and bay windows may encroach the first LAYER 50% of its depth. (Table 14d) 5.4.5. Specific to zones T5 a. Awnings, ARCADES, and GALLERIES may encroach the SIDEWALK to within two feet of the CURB but must clear the SIDEWALK vertically by at least 8 feet. b. Maximum Encroachment heights (EXTENSION LINES) for ARCADES shall be as shown on Table 5. c. Entryway steps, lanais, and bay windows may encroach the first LAYER 100% of its depth. (Table 14d) d. Loading docks and service areas shall be permitted on FRONTAGES only as a Special Condition. e. In the absence of a building FACADE along any part of a FRONTAGE LINE, a STREETSCREEN shall be built co -planar with the Facade. f. STREETSCREENS should be between 3.5 and 8 feet in height. The STREETSCREEN may be replaced by a hedge or fence by WARRANT. STREETSCREENS shall have openings no larger than necessary to allow automobile and pedestrian access. g. A first level RESIDENTIAL or LODGING FUNCTION shall be raised a minimum of 2 feet from average SIDEWALK grade. 5.5. BUILDING FUNCTION 5.5.1. General to zones T3, T4, T5 a. Buildings in each TRANSECT ZONE shall conform to the FUNCTIONS on Table 7 and Table 9 and Table 11 k. FUNCTIONS that do not conform shall require approval by Warrant or Variance as specified on Table 9. 5.5.2. Specific to zone T3 a. Accessory FUNCTIONS of Restricted LODGING or Restricted OFFICE shall be permitted within an ACCESSORY UNIT. See Table 7. 5.5.3. Specific to zones T4, T5 a. Accessory FUNCTIONS of Limited LODGING or Limited OFFICE shall be permitted within an ACCESSORY UNIT. See Table 7. 23 5.5.4. Specific to zones T5 a. First STORY COMMERCIAL FUNCTIONS shall be permitted. b. Manufacturing FUNCTIONS within the first Story may be permitted by Variance. 5.6. PARKING AND DENSITY CALCULATIONS 5.6.1. Specific to zone T3 a. Buildable DENSITY on a LOT shall be determined by the actual parking provided within the LOT as applied to the FUNCTIONS permitted in Table 7. 5.6.2. Specific to zones T4, T5 a. Buildable DENSITY on a LOT shall be determined by the sum of the actual parking calculated as that provided (1) within the LOT (2) along the parking lane corresponding to the LOT FRONTAGE, and (3) by purchase or lease from a CIVIC PARKING RESERVE within the PEDESTRIAN SHED, if available. b. The actual parking may be adjusted upward according to the SHARED PARKING FACTOR of Table 8 to determine the EFFECTIVE PARKING. The SHARED PARKING FACTOR is available for any two FUNCTIONS within any pair of adjacent BLOCKS. c. Based on the EFFECTIVE PARKING available, the DENSITY of the projected FUNCTION may be determined according to Table 7. d. Within the overlay area of a TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) the EFFECTIVE PARKING may be further adjusted upward by 30%. e. The total DENSITY within each TRANSECT ZONE shall not exceed that specified by an approved Regulating Maps based on Article 3 or Article 4. f. ACCESSORY UNITS do not count toward DENSITY calculations. g. Liner Buildings less than 30 feet deep and no more than two STORIES shall be exempt from parking requirements. 5.6.3. Parking Calculations. The calculations work as follows: a. The required parking for each category of function appears on Table 7. These requirements also apply to the subcategories of Table 9. For those functions that are not covered, the parking is calculated by WARRANT. b. Table 8a (Required Parking) summarizes the parking requirements of Table 7, which determines the amount of parking required for each site or, conversely, the amount of buildings allowed on each site given the parking available. c. In the event of mixed use, the actual parking required is calculated by adding the total number of spaces required by each separate function and dividing the total by the appropriate factor from Table 8b (SHARED PARKING FACTOR). An example of this calculation: The RESIDENTIAL FUNCTION requires 10 spaces while the office portion requires 12 spaces. Independently they would require 22 spaces, but when divided by the sharing factor of 1.4, they would 24 require only 16 spaces. A second way to calculate: If there are 22 spaces available for RESIDENTIAL and OFFICE, multiplying this by the factor 1.4 gives the equivalent of 30 spaces. Thus buildings are allowed corresponding to 30 parking spaces. When three functions share parking, use the lowest factor so that enough parking is assured. 5.7. PARKING LOCATION STANDARDS 5.7.1. General to zones T3, T4, T5 a. Parking shall be accessed by REAR ALLEYS when such are available on the REGULATING MAPS. b. Open parking areas shall be masked from the FRONTAGE by a Building or STREETSCREEN. c. For buildings on B -GRIDS, open parking areas may be allowed unmasked on the FRONTAGE, except for corner lots at intersections with the A -GRID. 5.7.2. Specific to zones T3 a. Open parking areas shall be located at the second and third LOT LAYERS, except that DRIVEWAYS, drop-offs and unpaved parking areas may be located at the first LOT LAYER. (Table 14d) b. Garages shall be located at the third LAYER except that side- or rear -entry types may be allowed in the first or second LAYER. 5.7.3. Specific to zones T3, T4 a. DRIVEWAYS at FRONTAGES shall be no wider than 10 feet in the first LAYER. (Table 2B -f) 5.7.4. Specific to zone T4 a. All parking areas and garages shall be located at the second or third LAYER. 5.7.5. Specific to zones T5 a. All parking lots, garages, and PARKING STRUCTURES shall be located at the second or third LAYER. (Table 14d) b. Vehicular entrances to parking lots, garages, and PARKING STRUCTURES shall be no wider than 24 feet at the FRONTAGE. (Table 2B -f) c. Pedestrian exits from all parking lots, garages, and PARKING STRUCTURES shall be directly to a FRONTAGE LINE (i.e., not directly into a building) except underground levels which may be exited by pedestrians directly into a building. d. PARKING STRUCTURES on the A -GRID shall have LINER BUILDINGS lining the first and second STORIES. e. A minimum of one bicycle rack place should be provided within the PUBLIC or PRIVATE FRONTAGE for every ten vehicular parking spaces. 25 5.8. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 5.8.1. General to zones T4, T5 (Table 11) a. Impermeable surface shall be confined to the ratio of LOT coverage specified in Table 11f. 5.8.2. Specific to zones T3, T4 a. The first LAYER may not be paved, with the exception of DRIVEWAYS as specified in Section 5.10.2 and Section 5.10.3. (Table 14d) 5.8.3. Specific to zone T4 a. A minimum of one tree shall be planted within the first LAYER for each 30 feet of FRONTAGE LINE or portion thereof. (Table 14d) b. Trees shall be a single species to match the species of Street Trees on the PUBLIC FRONTAGE, or as shown on Table 5. c. Lawn shall be permitted BY RIGHT. 5.8.4. Specific to zones T5 a. Trees shall not be required in the first LAYER. b. The first LAYER may be paved to match the pavement of the PUBLIC FRONTAGE. ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS AND TABLES 26 ' ARTICLE 7. DEFINITIONS This Article provides definitions for terms in this Code that are technical in nature or that otherwise may not reflect a common usage of the term. If a term is not defined in this Article, then the Planning Director shall determine the correct definition. Items in italics refer to Articles, Sections, or Tables in the SmartCode. A -Grid: cumulatively, those transportation corridors that by virtue of their pre-existing pedestrian - supportive qualities, or their future importance to pedestrian connectivity, are held to the highest standards prescribed by this Code. See B -Grid. (Syn: primary grid.) Accessory Building: an Outbuilding with an ACCESSORY UNIT. ' Accessory Unit: an Apartment not greater than 440 square feet sharing ownership and utility connections with a Principal Building; it may or may not be within an Outbuilding. See Table 7 and Table 14. (Syn: ancillary unit) ' Adjusted Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed that has been adjusted according to Section 3.2, creating the regulatory boundary of a Village Unit. ' Affordable Housing: dwellings consisting of rental or for -sale units that have a rent (including utilities) or sales price meeting the requirements of HCC chapter 11 or the Kona CDP. Allee: a regularly spaced and aligned now of trees usually planted along a Thoroughfare or Path. ' Apartment: a Residential unit sharing a building and a Lot with other units and/or uses; may be for rent, or for sale as a condominium. ' Arcade: a Private Frontage conventional for Retail use wherein the Facade is a colonnade supporting habitable space that overlaps the Sidewalk, while the Facade at Sidewalk level remains at the FRONTAGE LINE. ' Attic: the interior part of a building contained within a pitched roof structure. Avenue (AV): a Thoroughfare of high vehicular capacity and low to moderate speed, acting as a ' short distance connector between urban centers, and usually equipped with a landscaped median. B -Grid: cumulatively, those transportation corridors that by virtue of their use, location, or absence ' of pre-existing pedestrian -supportive qualities, may meet a standard lower than that of the A -GRID. See A -GRID. (Syn: secondary grid.) BRT: see Bus Rapid Transit. ' Backbuilding: a single -Story structure connecting a Principal Building to an Outbuilding. See Table 14. ' Base Density: the number of dwelling units per acre before adjustment for other Functions and/or TDR. See Density. ' Bed and Breakfast: an owner -occupied Lodging type offering 1 to 5 bedrooms, permitted to serve breakfast in the mornings to guests. Bicycle Lane (BL): a dedicated lane for cycling within a moderate -speed vehicular Thoroughfare, ' demarcated by striping. 27 Bicycle Route (BR): a Thoroughfare suitable for the shared use of bicycles and automobiles moving at low speeds. Bicycle Trail (BT): a bicycle way running independently of a vehicular Thoroughfare. Block: the aggregate of private Lots, Passages, Rear Alleys and Rear Lanes, circumscribed by transportation corridors. Block Face: the aggregate of all the building Facades on one side of a Block. Boulevard (BV): a Thoroughfare designed for high vehicular capacity and moderate speed, traversing an Urbanized area. Boulevards are usually equipped with Slip Roads buffering Sidewalks and buildings. Brownfield: an area previously used primarily as an industrial site. Bus Rapid Transit: a rubber tire system with its own right-of-way or dedicated lane along at least 70% of its route, providing transit service that is faster than a regular bus. By Right: characterizing a proposal or component of a proposal for a Village Plan or Building Scale Plan (Article 3, Article 4, orArticle 5) that complies with the SmartCode and is permitted and processed administratively, without public hearing. See Warrant and Variance. Civic: the term defining not-for-profit organizations dedicated to arts, culture, education, recreation, government, transit, and municipal parking. Civic Building: a building operated by not-for-profit organizations dedicated to arts, culture, education, recreation, government, transit, and municipal parking, or for use approved by the legislative body. Civic Parking Reserve: Parking Structure or parking lot within a quarter -mile of the site that it serves. See Section 5.9.2. Civic Space: an outdoor area dedicated for public use. Civic Space types are defined by the combination of certain physical constants including the relationships among their intended use, their size, their landscaping and their Enfronting buildings. See Table 10. Civic Zone: designation for public sites dedicated for Civic Buildings and Civic Space. Commercial: the term collectively defining workplace, Office, Retail, and Lodging Functions. Common Destination: An area of focused community activity, usually defining the approximate center of a Pedestrian Shed. It may include without limitation one or more of the following: a Civic Space, a Civic Building, a Commercial center, or a transit station, and may act as the social center of a neighborhood. Common Yard: a planted Private Frontage wherein the Facade is set back from the Frontage line. It is visually continuous with adjacent yards. See Table 4. Configuration: the form of a building, based on its massing, Private Frontage, and height. Corridor: a lineal geographic system incorporating transportation and/or Greenway trajectories. A transportation corridor may be a lineal Transect Zone. Cottage: an Edgeyard building type. A single-family dwelling, on a regular Lot, often shared with an ACCESSORY BUILDING in the back yard. tCourtyard Building: a building that occupies the boundaries of its Lot while internally defining one ' or more private patios. See Table 6. Curb: the edge of the vehicular pavement that may be raised or flush to a Swale. It usually incorporates the drainage system. See Table 3A and Table 3B. 1 DDC: Development and Design Center. Density: the number of dwelling units within a standard measure of land area. ' Design Speed: is the velocity at which a Thoroughfare tends to be driven without the constraints of signage or enforcement. There are four ranges of speed: Very Low: (below 20 MPH); Low: (20-25 MPH); Moderate: (25-35 MPH); High: (above 35 MPH). Lane width is determined by desired Design Speed. See Table 2A. Developable Areas: lands other than those in the T-1 Preserved Open Sector. Development and ' Design Center (DDC): A component of the Planning Office assigned to advise on the use of this Code and to aid in the design of the Communities and buildings based on it. ' Disposition: the placement of a building on its Lot. See Table 6 and Table 14. Dooryard: a Private Frontage type with a shallow Setback and front garden or patio, usually with a low wall at the Frontage Line. See Table 4. (Variant: Lightwell, light court.) ' Drive: a Thoroughfare along the boundary between an Urbanized and a natural condition, usually along a waterfront, Park, or promontory. One side has the urban character of a Thoroughfare, with ' Sidewalk and building, while the other has the qualities of a Road or parkway, with naturalistic planting and rural details. Driveway: a vehicular lane within a Lot, often leading to a garage. See Section 5.10 and Table 213- f. Edgeyard Building: a building that occupies the center of its Lot with Setbacks on all sides. See Table 6. ' Effective Parking: the amount of parking required for Mixed Use after adjustment by the Shared Parking Factor. See Table 8. Effective Turning Radius: the measurement of the inside Turning Radius taking parked cars into account. See Table 14. Elevation: an exterior wall of a building not along a Frontage Line. See Table 14. See: Facade. Encroach: to break the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit with a structural element, so that it extends into a Setback, into the Public Frontage, or above a height limit. Encroachment: any structural element that breaks the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit, extending into a Setback, into the Public Frontage, or above a height limit. ' Enfront: to place an element along a Frontage, as in "porches Enfront the street." Estate House: an Edgeyard building type. A single-family dwelling on a very large Lot of rural ' character, often shared by one or more ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. (Syn: country house, villa) Expression Line: a line prescribed at a certain level of a building for the major part of the width of a Facade, expressed by a variation in material or by a limited projection such as a molding or ' balcony. See Table 5. (Syn: transition line.) 1 29 Extension Line: a line prescribed at a certain level of a building for the major part of the width of a Facade, regulating the maximum height for an Encroachment by an ARCADE Frontage. See Table 5. Facade: the exterior wall of a building that is set along a Frontage Line. See Elevation. Forecourt: a Private Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to the Frontage Line and the central portion is set back. See Table 4. Frontage: the area between a building Facade and the vehicular lanes, inclusive of its built and planted components. Frontage is divided into Private Frontage and Public Frontage. See Table 3A and Table 4. Frontage Line: a Lot line bordering a Public Frontage. Facades facing Frontage Lines define the public realm and are therefore more regulated than the Elevations facing other Lot Lines. See Table 14. Function: the use or uses accommodated by a building and its Lot, categorized as Restricted, Limited, or Open, according to the intensity of the use. See Table 7 and Table 9. Gallery: a Private Frontage conventional for Retail use wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with an attached cantilevered shed or lightweight colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk. See Table 4. Green: a Civic Space type for unstructured recreation, spatially defined by landscaping rather than building Frontages. See Table 10. Greenfield: an area that consists of open or wooded land or farmland that has not been previously developed. Greenway: an Open Space Corridor in largely natural conditions which may include trails for bicycles and pedestrians. Greyfield: an area previously used primarily as a parking lot. Shopping centers and shopping malls are typical Greyfield sites. (Variant: Grayfield.) Highway: a rural and suburban Thoroughfare of high vehicular speed and capacity. This type is allocated to the more rural TRANSECT ZONES (T-1, T-2, and T-3). Home Occupation: non -Retail Commercial enterprises. The work quarters should be invisible from the Frontage, located either within the house or in an Outbuilding. Permitted activities are defined by the Restricted Office category. See Table 7. House: an Edgeyard building type, usually a single-family dwelling on a large Lot, often shared with an ACCESSORY BUILDING in the back yard. (Syn: single.) Infill: noun - new development on land that had been previously developed, including most Greyfield and Brownfield sites and cleared land within Urbanized areas. verb- to develop such areas. Infill RCD: a Village Unit type within an Urbanized, Greyfield, or Brownfield area based on a Long or Linear Pedestrian Shed and consisting of T4 and/or T-5 Zones. An Infill RCD is permitted BY RIGHT in the Kailua Village TOD and the Rural Towns TODs and is regulated by Article 4. See Section 4.2.3. (Var: downtown.) 30 ' Infill TND: a Village Unit type within an Urbanized, Greyfield, or Brownfield area based on a ' Standard Pedestrian Shed and consisting of T-3, T-4, and/or T-5 Zones. An Infill TND is permitted By Right (with PUD approval) in the Urban Area outside of TODs with existing urban zoning and is regulated by Article 4. See Section 4.2.2. (Var: neighborhood.) ' Inn: a Lodging type, owner -occupied, offering 9 to 12 bedrooms, permitted to serve breakfast in the mornings to guests. See Table 7. ' Layer: a range of depth of a Lot within which certain elements are permitted. See Table 14. Lightwell: A Private Frontage type that is a below -grade entrance or recess designed to allow light into basements. See Table 4. (Syn: light court.) Linear Pedestrian Shed: A Pedestrian Shed that is elongated along an important Mixed Use Corridor such as a main street. A Linear Pedestrian Shed extends approximately 114 mile from ' each side of the Corridor for the length of its Mixed Use portion. The resulting area is shaped like a lozenge. It may be used to structure a TND, RCD, Infill TND, or Infill RCD. (Syn: elongated pedestrian shed.) Liner Building: a building specifically designed to mask a parking lot or a Parking Structure from a Frontage. ' Live -Work: a Mixed Use unit consisting of a Commercial and Residential Function. The Commercial Function may be anywhere in the unit. It is intended to be occupied by a business operator who lives in the same structure that contains the Commercial activity or industry. See ' Work -Live. (Syn.: flexhouse.) Lodging: premises available for daily and weekly renting of bedrooms. See Table 7 and Table 9. Long Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed that is an average 1/2 mile radius or 2640 feet, used when a transit stop (bus or rail) is present or proposed as the Common Destination. A Long Pedestrian Shed represents approximately a ten-minute walk at a leisurely pace. It is applied to structure an RCD Village Unit type. See Pedestrian Shed. Lot: a parcel of land accommodating a building or buildings of unified design. The size of a Lot is controlled by its width in order to determine the grain (i.e., fine grain or coarse grain) of the urban fabric. Lot Line: the boundary that legally and geometrically demarcates a Lot. Lot Width: the length of the Principal Frontage Line of a Lot Main Civic Space: the primary outdoor gathering place for a community. The Main Civic Space is often, but not always, associated with an important Civic Building. Manufacturing: premises available for the creation, assemblage and/or repair of artifacts, using table -mounted electrical machinery or artisanal equipment, and including their Retail sale. ' Meeting Hall: a building available for gatherings, including conferences, that accommodates at least one room equivalent to a minimum of 10 square feet per projected dwelling unit within the Pedestrian Shed in which it is located. ' Mixed Use: multiple Functions within the same building through superimposition or adjacency, or in multiple buildings by adjacency, or at a proximity determined by Warrant. 31 Net Site Area: all developable land within a site including transportation corridors but excluding land allocated as Civic Zones. Network Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed adjusted for average walk times along transportation corridors. This type may be used to structure Infill Village Plans. See Table 14. Office: premises available for the transaction of general business but excluding Retail, artisanal and Manufacturing uses. See Table 7. Open Space: land intended to remain undeveloped; it may be for Civic Space. Outbuilding: an ACCESSORY BUILDING, usually located toward the rear of the same Lot as a Principal Building, and sometimes connected to the Principal Building by a BACKBUILDING. See Table 14. Park: a Civic Space type that is a natural preserve available for unstructured recreation. See Table 10. Parking Structure: a building containing one or more Stories of parking above grade. Passage (PS): a pedestrian connector, open or roofed, that passes between buildings to provide shortcuts through long Blocks and connect rear parking areas to Frontages. Path (PT): a pedestrian way traversing a Park or rural area, with landscape matching the contiguous Open Space, ideally connecting directly with the urban Sidewalk network. Pedestrian Shed: An area that is centered on a Common Destination. Its size is related to average walking distances for the applicable Village Unit type. Pedestrian Sheds are applied to structure Communities. See Standard, Long, Linear or Network Pedestrian Shed. (Syn: walkshed, walkable catchment) Planter: the element of the Public Frontage which accommodates street trees, whether continuous or individual. Plaza: a Civic Space type designed for Civic purposes and Commercial activities in the more urban Transect Zones, generally paved and spatially defined by building Frontages. Principal Building: the main building on a Lot, usually located toward the Frontage. See Table 14. Principal Entrance: the main point of access for pedestrians into a building. Principal Frontage: On corner Lots, the Private Frontage designated to bear the address and Principal Entrance to the building, and the measure of minimum Lot width. Prescriptions for the parking Layers pertain only to the Principal Frontage. Prescriptions for the first Layer pertain to both Frontages of a corner Lot. See Frontage. Private Frontage: the privately held Layer between the Frontage Line and the Principal Building Facade. See Table 4 and Table 14. Public Frontage: the area between the Curb of the vehicular lanes and the Frontage Line. See Table 3A and Table 3B. RCD: see Regional Center Development. Rear Alley (RA): a vehicular way located to the rear of Lots providing access to service areas, parking, and Outbuildings and containing utility easements. Rear Alleys should be paved from building face to building face, with drainage by inverted crown at the center or with roll Curbs at the edges. 32 Rear Lane (RL): a vehicular way located to the rear of Lots providing access to service areas, ' parking, and Outbuildings and containing utility easements. Rear Lanes may be paved lightly to Driveway standards. The streetscape consists of gravel or landscaped edges, has no raised Curb, and is drained by percolation. ' Rearyard Building: a building that occupies the full Frontage Line, leaving the rear of the Lot as the sole yard. See Table 6. (Var: Rowhouse, Townhouse, APARTMENT House) ' Recess Line: a line prescribed for the full width of a Facade, above which there is a Stepback of a minimum distance, such that the height to this line (not the overall building height) effectively defines the enclosure of the Enfronting public space. Var: Extension Line. See Table 5. Regional Center: Regional Center Development or RCD Regional Center Development (RCD): a Village Unit type structured by a Long Pedestrian Shed or Linear Pedestrian Shed, which may be adjoined without buffers by one or several Standard Pedestrian Sheds, each with the individual Transect Zone requirements of a TND. RCD takes the form of a high -Density Mixed Use center connected to other centers by transit. See Infill RCD, Table 11 a. (Var: town center, downtown. Syn: Regional Center) Regulating Plan: a Zoning Map or set of maps that shows the Transect Zones, Civic Zones, Special Districts if any, and Special Requirements if any, of areas subject to, or potentially subject ' to, regulation by these Guidelines. Residential: characterizing premises available for long-term human dwelling. ' Retail: characterizing premises available for the sale of merchandise and food service. See Table 7 and Table 9. Retail Frontage: Frontage designated on a Regulating Plan that requires or recommends the provision of a Shopfront, encouraging the ground level to be available for Retail use. See Special Requirements. Road (RD): a local, rural and suburban Thoroughfare of low -to -moderate vehicular speed and capacity. This type is allocated to the more rural Transect Zones (GB -T3). See Table 2A. Rowhouse: a single-family dwelling that shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full Frontage Line. See Rearyard Building. (Syn: Townhouse) Secondary Frontage: on corner Lots, the Private Frontage that is not the Principal Frontage. As it affects the public realm, its First Layer is regulated. See Table 14. Setback: the area of a Lot measured from the Lot line to a building Facade or Elevation that is maintained clear of permanent structures, with the exception of Encroachments listed in Section 5.7. See Table 11 g. (Var: build -to -line.) Shared Parking Factor: an accounting for parking spaces that are available to more than one Function. See Table 8. Shopfront: a Private Frontage conventional for Retail use, with substantial glazing and an awning, wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the building entrance at Sidewalk grade. See Table 4. Sidewalk: the paved section of the Public Frontage dedicated exclusively to pedestrian activity. 33 Sideyard Building: a building that occupies one side of the Lot with a Setback on the other side. This type can be a Single or Twin depending on whether it abuts the neighboring house. See Table 6. Slip Road: an outer vehicular lane or lanes of a Thoroughfare, designed for slow speeds while inner lanes carry higher speed traffic, and separated from them by a planted median. (Syn: access lane, service lane, frontage road) Specialized Building: a building that is not subject to Residential, Commercial, or Lodging classification. See Table 6. Special District (SD): an area that, by its intrinsic Function, Disposition, or Configuration, cannot or should not conform to one or more of the normative Village Unit types or Transect Zones specified by these Guidelines. Special Districts may be mapped and regulated at the regional scale or the village scale. Special Flood Hazard Area: a designation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that may include the V (Velocity) Zones and A Zones where building construction is forbidden, restricted, or contingent upon raising to the Base Flood Elevation. Special Requirements: provisions of Section 3.9, Section 4.7, and Section 5.3 of this Code and/or the associated designations on a Regulating Plan or other map for those provisions. Square: a Civic Space type designed for unstructured recreation and Civic purposes, spatially defined by building Frontages and consisting of Paths, lawns and trees, formally disposed. See Table 10. Standard Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed that is an average 1/4 mile radius or 1320 feet, about the distance of a five-minute walk at a leisurely pace. See Pedestrian Shed. Stepback: a building Setback of a specified distance that occurs at a prescribed number of Stories above the ground. See Table 5. Stoop: a Private Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the first Story elevated from the Sidewalk for privacy, with an exterior stair and landing at the entrance. See Table 4. Story: a habitable level within a building, excluding an ATTIC or raised basement. See Table 5. Street (ST): a local urban Thoroughfare of low speed and capacity. See Table 2B and Table 3B. Streetscreen: a freestanding wall built along the Frontage Line, or coplanar with the Facade. It may mask a parking lot from the Thoroughfare, provide privacy to a side yard, and/or strengthen the spatial definition of the public realm. (Syn: streetwall.) See Section 5.7.5f. Substantial Modification: alteration to a building that is valued at more than 50% of the replacement cost of the entire building, if new. Swale: a low or slightly depressed natural area for drainage. T -zone: Transect Zone. TDR: Transfer of Development Rights, a method of relocating existing zoning rights from areas to be preserved as Open Space to areas to be more densely urbanized. 34 TDR Receiving Area: an area intended for development that may be made more dense by the ' transfer of development rights from TDR Sending Areas. TDR Sending Area: an area previously zoned for development within a designated Reserved Open Sector (0-2), from which development rights may be transferred to T-4 or T-5 Zones. ' Terminated Vista: a location at the axial conclusion of a Thoroughfare. A building located at a Terminated Vista designated on a Regulating Plan is required or recommended to be designed in ' response to the axis. TND: Traditional Neighborhood Development, a Village Unit type structured by a Standard Pedestrian Shed oriented toward a Common Destination consisting of a Mixed Use center or ' Corridor, and in the form of a medium-sized settlement near a transportation route. See Table 11 a. (Syn: village. Variant: Infill TND, neighborhood.) TOD: Transit Oriented Development. TOD is created by an overlay on all or part of a TND or RCD, or by designation on a Regional Plan, permitting increased Density to support rail or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as set forth in Section 5.9.2d. ' Townhouse: See Rearyard Building. (Syn: Rowhouse) Transect: a cross-section of the environment showing a range of different habitats. The rural -urban ' Transect of the human environment used in the SmartCode template is divided into six Transect Zones. These zones describe the physical form and character of a place, according to the Density and intensity of its land use and Urbanism. ' Transect Zone (T -zone): One of several areas on a Zoning Map regulated by these Guidelines. Transect Zones are administratively similar to the land use zones in conventional codes, except that in addition to the usual building use, Density, height, and Setback requirements, other ' elements of the intended habitat are integrated, including those of the private Lot and building and Public Frontage. See Table 1. ' Transportation Corridor: a way for use by vehicular and pedestrian traffic and to provide access to Lots and Open Spaces, consisting of Vehicular Lanes and the Public Frontage. See Table 2A, Table 2B and Table 14a. Turning Radius: the curved edge of a Thoroughfare at an intersection, measured at the inside edge of the vehicular tracking. The smaller the Turning Radius, the smaller the pedestrian crossing distance and the more slowly the vehicle is forced to make the turn. See Table 2B and Table 14. Urban Boundary Line: the extent of potential urban growth as determined by the projected demographic needs of a region. The Urban Boundary Line may be adjusted from time to time. ' Urbanism: collective term for the condition of a compact, Mixed Use settlement, including the physical form of its development and its environmental, functional, economic, and sociocultural aspects. ' Urbanized: generally, developed. Specific to the SmartCode, developed at T-3 (Sub -Urban) Density or higher. ' Variance: a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with either a specific provision or the Intent of this Code (Section 1.3). Variances are granted pursuant to the procedures of the zoning code. See Section 1.5. 1 35 Village Unit: a regulatory category defining the physical form, Density, and extent of a settlement. ' The two Village Unit types addressed in this Code are TND and RCD. Variants of TND and RCD for Infill (Article 4) are called Infill TND and Infill RCD. The TOD Village Unit type may be created , by an overlay on TND or RCD. Warrant: a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision of this ' Code, but that is justified by its Intent (Section 1.3). Warrants are granted administratively by the Planning Director. See Section 1.5. Work -Live: a Mixed Use unit consisting of a Commercial and Residential Function. It typically has ' a substantial Commercial component that may accommodate employees and walk-in trade. The unit is intended to function predominantly as work space with incidental Residential accommodations that meet basic habitability requirements. See Live -Work. (Syn: Live -With.) ' Yield: characterizing a Thoroughfare that has two-way traffic but only one effective travel lane because of parked cars, necessitating slow movement and driver negotiation. Also, characterizing ' parking on such a Thoroughfare. Zoning Map: the official map or maps that are part of the zoning ordinance and delineate the boundaries of individual zones and districts. See Regulating Plan. ' 36 ' SMARTCODE TABLE 1. TRANSECT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS TABLE 1: Transect Zone Descriptions. This table describes of the Intent of each Transect Zone. GB GREENBELT General Character: Building Placement: Frontage Types: Typical Building Height: Type of Civic Space: Natural landscape with some agricultural use Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Parks, Greenways m.. T-4 GENERAL URBAN __._......_ T-3 SUB -URBAN (SECONDARY AREA) General Character: General Character: Lawns, and landscaped yards surrounding detached single-family • houses; pedestrians occasionally buildings; presence of pedestrians • W • Building Placement: Large and variable front and side yard Setbacks L • Frontage Types: Porches, fences, naturalistic tree planting Typical Building Height: • Typical Building Height: 1- to 2 -Story with some 3 -Story i " * • Type of Civic Space: Parks, Greenways T-5 URBAN CENTER WUTCOR VERS 9.0 s`+ T-4 GENERAL URBAN General Character: Mix of Houses, Townhouses & small Apartment buildings, with 2 2: scattered Commercial activity; balance between landscape and buildings; presence of pedestrians • W • Building Placement: Shallow to medium front and side yard Setbacks '� �• Frontage Types: Porches, fences, Dooryards Typical Building Height: 2- to 3 -Story with a few taller Mixed Use buildings Type of Civic Space: Squares, Greens M W T-5 URBAN CENTER General Character: Shopsmixedwith Townhouses, IargerApadmenthouses, Offices, - workplace, and Civic buildings; predominantly attached build- ings; trees within the public right-of-way; substantial pedestrian activity Building Placement: Shallow Setbacks or none; buildings oriented to street defining a street wall Frontage Types: Typical Building Height: Stoops, Shopfmnts, Galleries 3 -toy -Story with some variation t_till Type of Civic Space: Parks, Plazas and Squares, median landscaping WUTCOR VERS 9.0 s`+ TABLE 2A. VEHICULAR LANE DIMENSIONS SMARTCODE ' Kona TABLE 2A: Vehicular Lane Dimensions. This table assigns lane widths to Transect Zones. The Design ADT (Average Daily Traffic) is the determinant for each of these sections. The most typical assemblies are shown in Table 2B. Specific requirements for truck and transit bus routes and truck loading shall be decided by Warrant. DESIGN SPEED TRAVEL LANE WIDTH Below 20 mph 8 feet a a 20-25 mph 9 feet a a a 25-35 mph 10 feet a a a a 25-35 mph 11 feet -o--o Above 35 mph 12 feet I aI I Ia DESIGN SPEED PARKING LANE WIDTH 20-25 mph (Angle) 18 feet a 20-25 mph (Parallel) 7 feel a 25-35 mph (Parallel) 8 feet a a a Above 35 mph DESIGN SPEED (Parallel) 9 feel EFFECTIVE TURNING RADIUS a (See Table 17b) Below 20 mph 5.10 feet a a a 20-25 mph 10-15 feet a a a a 25.35 mph 15-20 feel a a a a Above 35 mph 20-30 feet a SC2 a BY RIGHT IN BY WARRANT Swxrcm VE o 9.0 1 SMARTCODE TABLE 2B. VEHICULAR LANE & PARKING ASSEMBLIES Kona TABLE 2B: Vehicular Lane & Parking Assemblies. The projected design speeds determine the dimensions of the vehicular lanes and turning radii assembled for Transportation Corridors. ONE WAY MOVEMENTS TWO WAY MOVEMENT oil a. NO PARKING I I I I I I I I I I I I I I Design ADT 300 VPD IV, 2,500 VPD 22.000 VPD 36,000 VPo Petlesblan Cmssing 3Sewnds ISeconds 5Samos 9Semnds 13Seconds Design Speed 730MPH Bebw20MPH 20.25 MPH 35 MPH and above b. YIELD PARKING PEI Iti b 9I 1 DesignaDT tggD VPD tooD VPe 7 SemMs Em e IFi °Yi I i Kim 411 I M + 1Y Pedestrian Cmssing — 5 Seconds c. PARKING ONE SIDE PARALLEL rt°i a im r I i Fit I4;4 b;4 b 4I Ib;b P 4I I � � II Design ADT 5,000 VPD 18,000 VPO 16,000 VPD 15,000 VPD 32,000 VPD Pedestrian Cmssing 5 SeroMs B Seconds 8 Seconds 11 Seconds 13 Seconds Design Spell 2P30 MPH 2530MPH 2530 MPH d. PARKING BOTH SIDES PARALLEL 10YVF71 IUM 'trt °I10Fei WW 19'litti'o-Iy--'�Pj In +: 1 I III III IIII 111.1 fI I414 V 1 VI: 11 Idlb 4 4I Desgn ADT 8, 000 VPD low[ VPO 15,000 VPD U,MDVPD 32,000 VPD Pedeeiban Cmssing 75emMs 1DSeconds 105ecpds 13 Seconds 15 Seconds Design Speed Below 20 MPH 2530 MPH 25-30 MPH 25-30 MPH 35 MPH and above e. PARKING BOTH SIDES DIAGONAL mt d i V la�ay � 16 matey it I:r- '�°y it I:r--F--Fy1°t'taa �P4;4 F`4 b;$;4 4 bIb14:4 P 4 Design ADT 18,000 WO 20,000 VPO 15, 000 VPO 22,050 VPD 31,000 VPD Pedestrian Cmssing 15 Seconds 17 Seconds 17 Seconds 20 Seconds 23 S.M. Design Speed Below 20MPH 20-25 MPH 20-25 MPH 2530 MPH 2530 MPH f, PARKING ACCESS d d4 Oesgn ADT Pedestrian Cmssing 3 Seconds 6 Seconds Desyn Speed ' SMASTCeDE VEe51eN 9.0 SC3 TABLE 3A. PUBLIC FRONTAGES - GENERAL SMARTCODE , Kona TABLE BA: Public Frontages - General. The Public Frontage is the area between the private Lot line and the edge of the vehicular lanes. Dimensions are given in Table 3B. a. (HW) For Highway: This Frontage has open Swales drained by percolation, Bicycle Trails and no parking. The landscaping consists of the natural condition or multiple species arrayed in naturalistic clusters. Buildings are buffered by distance or berms. b. (RD) For Road: This Frontage has open Swales drained by percolation and a walk- ing Path or Bicycle Trail along one or both sides and Yield parking. The landscaping consists of multiple species arrayed in naturalistic clusters. c. (ST) For Street: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and Sidewalks separated from the vehicular lanes by individual or continuous Planters, with parking on one or both sides. The landscaping consists of street trees of a single or alternat- ing species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee. d. (DR) For Drive: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inletsand a wide Sidewalk or paved Path along one side, related to a Greenway or waterfront. It is separated from the vehicular lanes by individual or continuous Planters. The landscaping consists of street trees of a single or alternating species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee. e. (AV) For Avenue: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and wide Sidewalks separated from the vehicular lanes by a narrow continuous Planter with parking on both sides. The landscaping consists of a single tree species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee. f. (CS) (AV) For Commercial Street or Avenue: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and very wide Sidewalks along both sides separated from the vehicular lanes by separate tree wells with grates and parking on both sides. The landscaping consists of a single tree species aligned with regular spacing where possible but clears the storefront entrances. g. (BV) For Boulevard: This Frontage has Slip Roads on both sides. It consists of raised Curbs drained by inlets and Sidewalks along both sides, separated from the vehicular lanes by Planters. The landscaping consists of double rows of a single tree species aligned In a regularly spaced Allee. PLAN LOT 4 R.O.W. PRIVATE FRONTAGES 14 PUBLIC FRONTAGE S^4 SMAPTC.O VlP.0 90 1 SMARTCODE TABLE 3B. PUBLIC FRONTAGES - SPECIFIC 1 Kona TABLE 3B: Public Frontages - Specific. This table assembles prescriptions and dimensions for the Public Frontage elements - Curbs, walkways and Planters - relative to specific Transportation Corridors within Transect Zones. Table 3B -a assembles all of the elements for the 1 various street types. Locally appropriate planting species should be filled in to the calibrated Code. R U R A L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T R A N S E C T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U R B A N 1 TRANSECT Type Public Frontage T FHW S. RD FRD 8 ST Fff— T•DR•AV FW DR•AV•BV CS•DR•AV•BV CS -DR -AV -BV 1 a. Assembly: The prin- - cipal variables are the type and dimension of -� Curbs, walkways, Plant- ers lant- _. ers and landscape. Tnlai Width 1124 feet 1224 feet 12-18 feel 12-18 feet 18-24 feet 1130 feet ib. Curb: The detailing of the edge of the vehicular 1 pavement, incorporating drainage. 1 Type OpanSwek Open Swale RaisedCurb Raisetl Cur, RaisedCurb Raisetl Cur, Radius 1MGfeet 10-Mfeet 5-20 feet 120 feet 520feet S20 feet 1 c. Walkway:Thepavement dedicated exclusively to pedestrian activity. 1 Type Path 0PtMal Pall sidewalk Sdewalk Sidm alk Sdewalk Width do b8fee1 4-8 feet 0.8 feet 1220 feet 1230feet 1 d. Planter: The layer i, Q which accommodates r street trees and other O 1 landscape. /18ft-12 Ff _ Arrangement Clustered Cluskred Re ular Regular OOM1unistic 1 species MulfiDle Mul4Dle — Single SIn�Ie Single Planter Type Continuous Swale Continuous Se alenter Cootinuoua plan@r CAnenuous Planter Tree Well Planter Width 8feeblfi feet 8feet 16 featt 8feet-12 feet 4feet-6 feet 4feetd feet 1 e. Landscape: The recom- mended plant species. (See Table 6) 1 f. Lighting: The recom- mended Public Lighting. (See Table 5) 1 S."Tc..VFalON9.0 SC5 TABLE 4. PRIVATE FRONTAGES TABLE 4: Private Frontages. The Private Frontage is the area between the building Facades and the Lot lines. a. Common Yard: a planted Frontage wherein the Facade is set back substantially from the Frontage Line. The front yard created remains unfenced and is visually continuous with adjacent yards, supporting a common landscape. The deep Setback provides a buffer from the higher speed Transportation Corridor. b. Porch & Fence: a planted Frontage wherein the Facade is set back from the Frontage Line with an attached porch permitted to Encroach. A fence at the Frontage Line maintains street spatial definition. Porches shall be no less than 8 feet deep. SECTION LOT ► I A R.O.W. PRIVATE ► I i PUBLIC SMARTCIDDE 1 T-.17—M in 1 c. Terrace or Lightwell: a Frontage wherein the Facade is set back from the Frontage line by an elevated Terrace or a sunken Light- 7 m well. This type buffers Residential use from urban Sidewalks and removes the private yard from public Encroachment. Terraces are suitable for conversion to outdoor cafes. Syn: Dooryard. i I d. Forecourt: a Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to the Frontage Line and the central portion is set back. The Forecourt created is suitable for vehicular drop-offs. This type should be allocated in conjunction with other Frontage types. Large trees within the Forecourts may overhang the Sidewalks. e. Stoop: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the first Story elevated from the Sidewalk sufficiently to secure privacy for the windows. The entrance is usually an exterior stair and landing. This type is recommended for ground -floor Residential use. f. Shopfront: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the building entrance at Sidewalk grade. This type is conventional for Retail use. It has a substantial glazing on the Sidewalk level and an awning that should ovedap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb. Syn: Retail Frontage. g. Gallery: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage line with an attached canfilevered shed or a lightweight colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk. This type is conventional for Retail use. The Gallery shall be no less than 10 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb. h. Arcade: a Frontage wherein the Facade is a colonnade that ovedaps the Sidewalk, while the Facade at Sidewalk level remains at the Frontage Line. This type is conventional for Retail use. The Arcade shall be no less than 12 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb. SC6'sWwxMv�,e.o LOT ► R.O.W. ' PRIVATE ► PUBUC ONTAGE FRONTAGE I T-.17—M in 1 c. Terrace or Lightwell: a Frontage wherein the Facade is set back from the Frontage line by an elevated Terrace or a sunken Light- 7 m well. This type buffers Residential use from urban Sidewalks and removes the private yard from public Encroachment. Terraces are suitable for conversion to outdoor cafes. Syn: Dooryard. i I d. Forecourt: a Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to the Frontage Line and the central portion is set back. The Forecourt created is suitable for vehicular drop-offs. This type should be allocated in conjunction with other Frontage types. Large trees within the Forecourts may overhang the Sidewalks. e. Stoop: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the first Story elevated from the Sidewalk sufficiently to secure privacy for the windows. The entrance is usually an exterior stair and landing. This type is recommended for ground -floor Residential use. f. Shopfront: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the building entrance at Sidewalk grade. This type is conventional for Retail use. It has a substantial glazing on the Sidewalk level and an awning that should ovedap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb. Syn: Retail Frontage. g. Gallery: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage line with an attached canfilevered shed or a lightweight colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk. This type is conventional for Retail use. The Gallery shall be no less than 10 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb. h. Arcade: a Frontage wherein the Facade is a colonnade that ovedaps the Sidewalk, while the Facade at Sidewalk level remains at the Frontage Line. This type is conventional for Retail use. The Arcade shall be no less than 12 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb. SC6'sWwxMv�,e.o SMARTCODE TABLE 5. BUILDING CONFIGURATION Kona TABLE 5: Building Configuration. This table shows the Configurations for different building heights for each Transect Zone. It must be modi- fied to show actual calibrated heights for local conditions. Recess Lines and Expression Lines shall occur on higher buildings as shown. N = maximum height as specified in Table 11 k. 1. Building height shall be measured in number of Stories, excluding Attics and raised basements. Height limits also do not apply to masts, bel- fries, clock towers, chimney flues, water tanks, elevator bulkheads and similar structures. 2. Stories may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished floor, except for a first floor Commercial Func- tion, which shall be a minimum of 11 feet and may be a maximum of 25 feet. 3. Height shall be measured from the average Enfronting Sidewalk grade to the upper- most eave of a main pitched roof (not of a dormer), or to the uppermost roof deck (not the top of parapet) of a flat roof. SMARPCo VEAWa 9.0 SCT TABLE 6. BUILDING DISPOSITION SMARTCODE , Kona ' TABLE 6: Building Disposition. This table approximates the location of the structure relative to the boundaries of each individual Lot, estab- lishing suitable basic building types for each Transect Zone. a. Edgeyard: Specific Types - single family House, cottage, villa, estate house, urban villa. A building that occupies the center of its Lot with Setbacks on all sides. This is the least urban of types as the front yard sets it back from the Frontage, while the side yards weaken the spatial definition of the public Transportation Corridor space. The front yard is intended to be visually continuous with the yards of adjacent buildings. The rear yard can be secured for privacy by fences and a well-placed Backbuilding and/or Outbuilding. b. Sideyard: Specific Types -Charleston single House, double house, zero -lot -line house, twin. A building that occupies one side of the Lot with the Setback to the other side. A shallow Frontage Setback defines a more urban condition. If the adjacent building is similar with a blank party wall, the yard can be quite private. This type permits systematic climatic orientation in response to the sun or the breeze. If a Sideyard House abuts a neighboring Sideyard House, the type is known as a twin or double House. Energy costs, and sometimes noise, are reduced by sharing a party wall In this Disposition. c. Rearyard: Specific Types - Townhouse, Rowhouse, Live -Work unit, loft building, Apartment House, Mixed Use block, Flex Building, perimeter block. A building that occupies the full Frontage, leaving the rear of the Lot as the sole yard. This is a very urban type as the continuous Facade steadily defines the public Thoroughfare. The rear Elevations may be articulated for functional purposes. In its Residential form, this type is the Rowhouse. For its Commercial form, the rear yard can accommodate substantial parking. d. Courtyard: Specific Types - patio house. A building that occupies the boundaries of its Lot while internally defining one or more private patios. This is the most urban of types, as it is able to shield the private realm from all sides while strongly defining the public Transportation Corridor. Because of its ability to accommodate incompatible activities, masking them from all sides, it is recommended for workshops, Lodging and schools. The high security provided by the continuous enclosure is useful for crime -prone areas. e. Specialized: A building that is not subject to categorization. Buildings dedicated to manufacturing and transportation are often distorted by the trajectories of machinery. Civic buildings, which may express the aspirations of institutions, may be included. WT4T3 SC8 SWRTCMvMN9.0 SMARTCODE TABLES 7 & 8. BUILDING FUNCTION & PARKING CALCULATIONS Kona TABLE 9: Building Function - General. This table categorizes Building Functions within Transect Zones. Parking requirements are correlated to functional intensity. For Specific Function and Use permitted By Right or by Warrant, see Table 9. TABLE 8: Parking Calculations. The Required Parking table summarizes the parking requirements of Table 7 for each site or, conversely, the amount of building allowed on each site given the parking available. REQUIRED PARKING (See Table 8) RESIDENTIAL 20 /dwelling 1.51 devilling 1.0/ dwelling LODGING 1.0 /bedroom To/ bedroom F 1.01 bedroom OFFICE F3.011000 sq. ft. 3.0 / 1000 sq. ft. 2.011000 sq. ft. RETAIL F 4.011000 sq. ft. 4.011000 sq. ft. 3.011000 sq. ft. CIVIC FTo be determined by Warrant OTHER I To be determined by Warrant SHARED PARKING FACTOR Function with Function RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTUIL a. RESIDENTIAL Restricted Residential: The number of Limited Residential:The number of Open Residenlial:The number of dwellings on each Lot is restricted to one dwellings on each Lot is limited by the dwellings on each Lot is limited by the within a Principal Building and one within requirementof 1.5 parking placesforeach requirementof 1.0 parking placesforeach an Accessory Building, with 2.0 parking dwelling, a ratio which may be reduced dwelling, a ratio which may be reduced places for each. Both dwellings shall be according to the shared parking standards according to the shared parking standards under single ownership. The habitable (See Table 8). (See Table 8). area of the Accessory dwelling shall not exceed 500 square feet. b. LODGING Restricted Lodging:The numberofbed- Limited Lodging: The number of bed- Open Lodging:The numberof bedrooms rooms available on each Lotforlodging is rooms available on each Lot for lodging is available on each Lot for lodging is limited limited by the requirement of 1.0 assigned limited by the requirement of 1.0 assigned by the requirement of 1.0 assigned parking parlung place for each bedroom, up to five, parking places for each bedroom, up to places for each bedroom. Food service in addition to the parking requirement for twelve, in addition to the parking require- may be provided at all times. The area the dwelling. The Lodging must be owner ment for the dwelling. The Lodging must allocated for food service shall be calcu- occupied. Food service may be provided be owner occupied.Food service may be lated and provided with parking according in the a.m. The maximum length of stay provided in the a.m. The maximum length to Retail Function. shall rat exceed ten days. of stay shall not exceed ten days. c. OFFICE Restricted Office: The building area LimitedOffice:Thebuildingareaavailable Open Office: The building area available available for office use on each Lot is for office use on each Lot is limited to the for once use on each Lot is limited by the restricted to the first Story of the Principal first Story of the principal building and/ requirementof 2.0 assigned parking places or the Accessory Building and by the or to the Accessory building, and by the per 1000 square feet of net once space. requirementof3.0assigned parking places requirementof 3.0 assigned parking places per 1000 square feet of net office space per 1000 square feet of net office space in addition to the parking requirement for in addition to the parking requirement for each dwelling. each dwelling. d. RETAIL Restricted Retail: The building area avail- Limited Retail: The buildingareaavailable Open Retail: The building area available able for Retail use is restricted to one Block for Retail use is limited to the first Story for Retail use is limited by the requirement comer location at the first Story for each of buildings at comer locations, not more of 3.0 assigned parking places per 1000 300 dwelling units and by the requirement than one per Block, and bythe requirement square feel of net Retail space. Retail of 4.0 assigned parking places per 1000 of 4.0 assigned parking places per 1000 spaces under 1500squarefeet are exempt squarefeelofnet Retail space in addition to squarefeetof net Retail space in addition from parking requirements. the parking requirement of each dwelling. to the parking requirementof each dwelling. Thespecifc use shall befurther limited to The specific use shall be further limited to neighborhood store, orfoodserviceseafing neighborhood store, orfood service seating no more than 20. no more than 40. ICIVIC See Table 9 See Table 9 See Table 9 I . OTHER I See Table 9 See Table 9 See Table 9 TABLE 8: Parking Calculations. The Required Parking table summarizes the parking requirements of Table 7 for each site or, conversely, the amount of building allowed on each site given the parking available. REQUIRED PARKING (See Table 8) RESIDENTIAL 20 /dwelling 1.51 devilling 1.0/ dwelling LODGING 1.0 /bedroom To/ bedroom F 1.01 bedroom OFFICE F3.011000 sq. ft. 3.0 / 1000 sq. ft. 2.011000 sq. ft. RETAIL F 4.011000 sq. ft. 4.011000 sq. ft. 3.011000 sq. ft. CIVIC FTo be determined by Warrant OTHER I To be determined by Warrant SHARED PARKING FACTOR Function with Function RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTUIL LODGING LODGING OFFICE 1 OFFICE 1.1 1.1 RETAIL 1A 1 1A RETAIL Sxncw ikw 9.0 SC9 TABLE 9. SPECIFIC FUNCTION & USE SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 9: Specific Function & Use. This table expands the categories of Table 7 to delegate specific Functions and uses within Transect Zones. Table 9 should be customized for local character and requirements. 1 i 1 a. RESIDENTIAL I I I. OTHER: AGRICULTURE Mixed Use Block Inn (up to 12 rooms) N Flex Building ® N Apartment Building ® N LiveMork Unit N N N Row House N N Duplex House N N Courtyard House N N Sideyard House N N N Cottage N N House Adult Entertainment N Villa Accessory Unit N Movie Theater b. LODGING Hotel (no room limit) ® I Inn (up to 12 rooms) 'e Bed BBreald'-I(up b 5 moms) ® N N SRO. hostel ® ® ® I School Dormitory N N c. OFFICE Office Building N N Live -Work Unit N N N d. RETAIL Open -Market Building F W N 'e FT Retail Building N N I ® I Display Gallery N N ® Restaurant N N Exhibition Center Kiosk N 1 N N Push Can N Bp I Liquor Selling Establishment Library N Adult Entertainment N Live Theater chic Bus Shelter ® N N N Convention Center ® I ® I I I I N Conference Center ® I ® N Exhibition Center I ® I I I I N Fountain or Public Art N N N N Library N N N Live Theater N N Movie Theater N N Museum ® N Outdoor Auditorium ® ® N Parking Structure N N Passenger Terminal I N Playground ® N N N Sports Stadium N Surface Parking Lot I I N Religious Assembly N N N N Grain Storage ® I Livestock Pen ® I I I 1 I Greenhouse ® I ® I I I I Stable ®-1 ® I Kennel ® 1 ® I I I ® I I f. OTHER: AUTOMOTIVE Gasoline N N Automobile Service I N Truck Maintenance ® Drive -Through Facility I N Rest Stop N I I Roadside Stand N illboardI Billboard-Fm- N Shopping Shopping Center N Shopping Mall I I. OTHER: CIVIL SUPPORT Fire Station N N ® I N Police Station ® N N Cemetery I I Other- Childcare Center N Funeral Home N N N Hospital N I T N Medical Clinic IF 'TT N I. OTHER: EDUCATION College ® N High School ® M N Trade School ® N Elementary School ® N N N Other- Childcare Center N N N I f. OTHER: INDUSTRIAL Heavy Industrial Facility N Light Industrial Facility N Truck Depot N Laboratory Facility N Water Supply Facility N Sewer and Waste Facility N Electric Substation I ® N Wireless Transmitter ®I 1N Cremation Facility N Warehouse Produce Storage N Mini -Storage N N BY RIGHT BY WARRANT MID SxaerCou VEASKK19.0 SMARTCODE Kong, a. Park: A natural preserve available for unstructured recreation. A Park may be independent of surrounding building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist of Paths and trails, meadows, waterbodies, woodland and open shelters, all naturalistically disposed. Parks may be lineal, following the trajectories of natural Corridors. The minimum size shall be 8 acres. Larger Parks may be approved by Warrant as Special Districts in all zones. b. Green: An Open Space, available for unstructured recreation. A Green may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist of lawn and trees, naturalistically disposed. The minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 8 acres. c. Square: An Open Space available for unstructured recreation and Civic purposes. A Square is spatially defined by building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist of Paths, lawns and trees, formally disposed. Squares shall be located at the inter- section of important Thoroughfares. The minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 5 acres. d. Plaza: An Open Space available for Civic purposes and Commercial activities. A Plaza shall be spatially defined by building Frontages. Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement. Trees are optional. Plazas should be located at the intersec- tion of important streets. The minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 2 acres. e. Playground: An Open Space designed and equipped for the recreation of children. A playground should be fenced and may include an open shelter. Playgrounds shall be interspersed within Residential areas and may be placed within a Block. Playgrounds may be included within parks and greens. There shall be no minimum or maximum size. LE 10. CIVIC SPACE Vp T3 5-MTCM VEOM 9.0 SC11 LE I� 5-MTCM VEOM 9.0 SC11 TABLE 11. SMARTCODE SUMMARY SMARTCODE k' -! Note: All ments in are subje bration for text. SC1n soucWf VFFSIOF 9.0 SMARTCODE TABLE 12A. FORM -BASED CODE GRAPHICS - T3 (see Table 1) BUILDING FUNCTION Nee Table 7 8 Table 9 a. Residential restricted use b. Lodging restricted use c. Office restricted use d. Retail restricted use BUILDING CONFIGURATION seetable5 a. Principal Building 2 stares maz. b. Outbuilding LOT OCCUPATION 2 stories max. a. Lot Width 72 N. min 120 ft maz. b. Lot Coverage 60%max. BUILD INGDISPOSITION see Tables a. Edgeyarcl permitted b. Sideyard not permitted c. Rearyard not permitted d. Courtyard not permitted SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BUILDING a. Front Setback (P) 24 R. min b. Front Setback (S) 12 R. min c. Side Setback 12 ft. min. d. Rear Setback 12 ft min. Frontage Buildout SETBACKS -OUTBUILDING 40% min. at setback a. Front Setback I 20#mn+tAtgse6edc b. Side Setback 3 w ft. min. c. Rear Setback 13 ft. min. PRIVATE FRONTAGES ase TaGe4 a. Common Law permitted b. Porch S Fence permitted c. Terrace w L.C. not permitted d. Forecourt not permitted e. Stoop not permitted L Shopfmnt & Awning not permitted g. Gallery not permitted h. Arcade not permitted PARKING REQUIREMENTS Refer to Summary Tale 11 See Table 7 S Table 8 ' or 15 flfrom center line of alley Graphics are illustrative only. Refer to metrics for Setback and height information. V stands for any Stories above those shown, up to the maximum, Refer to metrics for exact minimums and maximums. BUILDING CONFIGURATION 1. Building height shall be mea- sured in number of Stones, exclud- ing Attics and raised basements. 2. Stores may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first=_rI7 floor Commercial function whichmust be a minumum of 11 ft withno maximum. 3. Height shall be measured to the save or roof deck as specified on Table 5. SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BLDG. 1. The Facades and Elevations ,-- _._._._._ _ _ _— Z._._._._._._. --- .- of Principal Buildings shall be i Pmxlsl distanced from the Lot lines as I AI Canty d 2 Facades shall be built along the i Final(P) a Rear r Coxftn Principal Frontage to the minimum I r specified width in the table. -- --------_--------- i ----------„------------------------- I ►' Fmnfli) ► Rear L M1,143ka Comms SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING 1. The Elevation of the Outbuilding shall be distanced from the Lot lines as shown. PARKING PLACEMENT 1. Uncovered parking spaces may be provided within the 2nd and 3rd Layer as shown in the diagram (see Table 14d). 2. Covered parking shall be pro- vided within the 3rd Layeras shown in the diagram (see Table 14d). 3. Trash containers shall be stored within the 3rd Layer. — 3 I —— -—r — — — — —— — - a l 20e. ; I I I La,, Laren Lase, Caromw CatlRon SMAIICOLe wasps 9.0 SC1 3 TABLE 12B. FORM -BASED CODE GRAPHICS - T4 BUILDING FUNCTION (see Table 7 S Table 9 a. Residential limited use b. Lodging limited use c. Office limited use d. Retail limited use BUILDING CONFIGURATION see Tables a. Principal Building 3 stories maz, 2 min. b. Outbuilding L07 OCCUPATION 2stories max. a. Lot Width 18 ft. min 96 ft. max. It. Lot Coverage 70% max. BUILDING DISPOSITION see Tabfe6 a. Edgeyarit permitted b. Sideyard permitted c. Rearyard permitted d. Courtyard not permitted SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BUILDING a. Front Setback (P) 1 6 ft. min. 18 ft. max. b. Front Setback (S) 6 R min. 18 ft. max. c. Side Setback 0 ft. min. d. Rear Setback 3 ft. min.• Frontage Buildout 60% min. at setback SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING a. Front Setback 24ItmkL+bklg93badk b. Side Setback 0 ft. a 3 ft. min. c. Rear Setback PRIVATE FRONTAGESsee 3 ft. min. Tabled a. Common Law not permitted to. Porch & Fence permitted c. Terrace a L.C. penitted d. Forecourt permitted e. Stoop permitted t Shopfront& Awning permitted g. Gallery permitted h. Arcade not permitted PARKING REQUIREMENTS Refer b Summary Table 14 See Table 7 & Table 8 or 15 ft. from center line of alley Graphics are illustrative only. Refer to metrics for Setback and height information. 'N" stands for any Stories above those shown, up to the maximum. Refer to metrics for exact minimums and maximums. BUILDING CONFIGURATION 1. Building height shall be mea- sured in numberof Stories, exclud- ing Attics and raised basements. 2. Stories may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished Boor to finished ceiling, except for a first floor Commercial function which must be a minumum of 11 ft with no maximum. 3. Height shall be measured to the save or roof deck as specified on Table 5. SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BLDG. 1. The Facades and Elevations of Principal Buildings shall be distanced from the Lot lines as shown. 2. Facades shall be built along the Principal Frontage to the minimum specified width in the table. SETBACKS- OUTBUILDING 1. The Elevations of the Outbuikling shall be distanced from the Lot lines as shown. SMARTCODE ' 1 1 ♦ ' r ___ ____ __ Fron1FS) __ _ _ I 1 ConyrLd I � � � Carream r IMMdbck candies I 1 J Layer PARKING PLACEMENT 1. Uncovered parking spaces may be provided within the 3rd Layer as shown in the diagram (see r — —r — — — —r ---- Table 14d). I 2. Covered parking shall be pro- 1 vided LNthin the 3rd Layeras shown I in the diagram (see Table 14d). ,.. ton. h 3. Trash containers shall be stored I' I w the 3rd Layer I � L _ _ La, Layer layer SC14 SwR,caa vnaox 9.0 SMARTCODE TABLE 12C. FORM -BASED CODE GRAPHICS - T5 K „-. (see Table 1) BUILDING FUNCTION see Table 7 & Table 9 a. Residential open use It. Lodging open use c. Office open use d. Retail open use BUILDING CONFIGURATION see TaNe5 a. Principal Building distanced from the Lot lines as 5 stades max, 2 min. Is. Outbuilding LOT OCCUPATION 2stories max. a. Lot Width 18 ft. min 180 k. max. It. Lot Coverage 80% max. BUILDING DISPOSITION see Table fi a. Edgeyard not permitted b. Sideyard permitted c. Rearyard permitted d. Courtyard permitted SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BUILDING a. Front Setback (P) 0 ft. min. 12 k. max. It. Front Setback (S) 0 k. min. 12 ft. max. c. Side Setback 0 ft. min. 24 k. max. d. Rear Setback 3 ft. min.' Frontage Buildout 80% min. at setback SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING a. Front Setback 4OA.mex.kornrearprop. b. Side Setback 0 ft. c. Rear Setback aft. max. PRIVATE FRONTAGES see Tabled a. Common Law not permitted b. Porch & Fence not permitted c. Terrace or L.C. not permitted it. Foreccurt permitted e. Stoop permitted f. Shopfront & Awning permitted g. Gallery permitted h. Arcade permitted PARKING REQUIREMENTS Refer N SummaryTaba 11 See Table 7 & Table 8 . or 15 ftfrom center line of alley Graphics are illustrative only. Refer to metrics for Setback and height information. "N" stands for any Stories above those shown, up to the maximum. Refer to mattes for exact minimums and maximums. ' S•.urCc,,,V a9.0 BUILDING CONFIGURATION 1. Building height shall be mea- sured in number of Stories, excud- ing Attics and raised basements. 2. Stories may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first floor Commercial function which must be a minumum of 11 ft with W maximum. 3. Height shall be measured to the eave or roof deck as speed on Table 5. 4. Expression Lines shall be as shown on Table 5. SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BLDG. 1. The Facades and Elevations L Li of Principal Buildings shall be _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ L _ _,_ _ _ _ _._,_._ f distanced from the Lot lines as From (S) shown. 2. Facades shall be built along the s I Comer Lot Principal Frontage to the minimum Condition specified specified width in the table. --- ....1 ... .... ----------------------- • ........................ l� Mid -Block I r.1 • Condition L SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING 1. The Elevation of the Outbuilding front (52 shall be distanced from the Lot lines —L------ --- --- —IL----- as shown. f I I Cxibmr ConMam ............................. ;' ---------------------------- I I.— 3k. nvu b I I Goch:. �1. sea J PARKING PLACEMENT 1. Uncovered parking spaces may be provided within the 2nd and 3rd Li Li Li Li Layer as shown in the diagram (see SewNary Fmn29e Table 14d). I j 2. Covered parking shall be pro- I vided within the 3rd Layer as shown epi j j in the diagram (see Table 14d). 3. Trash containers shall be stored • $ r I I within the 3rd Layer. S I I •�I � 1 r I 1 L J N tel 2M 3m Layer Layer Layer SC15 TABLE 13. SPECIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 13: Special District Standards. The metrics for each column of this table (SDI, SD2, etc.) are to be filled in for each Special District as they currently exist, or as they are permitted. More pages can be added. Special Districts that do not have provisions within this Code shall be governed by the standards of the ®pre-existing zoning. I I I I I I I S. ALLOCATION OF ZONES _ CLD % TND % By TOR I X 1 1 1 1 1 1 Nbr hinlbnKI X c. BLOCK SIZE BbcVSEnNtr I X I. LOT OCCUPATION LKI MIN X S. SETBACK&. PRINCIPAL BUILDING F.A NINNN % SIN NMN X M. SNIP % X SC16 SWATCH VER 9.0 SMARTCODE TABLE 14. DEFINITIONS ILLUSTRATED Kona a. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS &FRONTAGES Building Private Public Vehicular Public Private Frontage Frontage Lanes Frontage Frontage Private Lot Transportation Corridor IR.O.IA Private Lot b. TURNING RADIUS c. BUILDING DISPOSITION I © I i I I I I j I I 1 j I I I I I I 2\ I m I J 1 I J � I I � I I 1- Principal Building 2-Backbuilding F -- d. LOT LAYERS Building / 1 -Radius at the Curb 2 -Effective Turning Radius (t 8 ft) t. SETBACK DESIGNATIONS _._. 3 3_._._. i ._._._._._. ) IJ 2 2'! 1 1 t -Front Setback 2 -Side Setback 3 -Rear Setback e. FRONTAGE & LOT LINES ............. i I I 4 14 4 1 3 3 g. NETWORK PEDESTRIAN SHED 3- Outbuilding 1 -Frontage Line 2 -Lot Line 3 -Facades 4 -Elevations SMANIC..VEKv 90 S^17 _._._._._._..._._._._._... i t j I I 1 el j zl g i I Pnnapall=ran�2ge I ._._._._._.l._._._._._. .J 3b layer 2nd layer w iSl layer E m Xp3 T � C � N t. SETBACK DESIGNATIONS _._. 3 3_._._. i ._._._._._. ) IJ 2 2'! 1 1 t -Front Setback 2 -Side Setback 3 -Rear Setback e. FRONTAGE & LOT LINES ............. i I I 4 14 4 1 3 3 g. NETWORK PEDESTRIAN SHED 3- Outbuilding 1 -Frontage Line 2 -Lot Line 3 -Facades 4 -Elevations SMANIC..VEKv 90 S^17 ' ATTACHMENT C Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines ATTACHMENT C CLUSTERED RURAL SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of these guidelines to provide a flexible procedure to identify and preserve open space while maintaining the existing density of residential units for the overall site area. "Neutral density" is achieved by allowing smaller individual owned residential lots that include or are adjacent to aesthetically and ecologically important areas. Individually owned residential lots and the importance of preserving rural open space is as follows: A. Protection of significant ecological, cultural, scenic, recreational, and agricultural areas in perpetuity; B. Prevention of flooding, erosion, and water pollution, and protecting the quality and quantity of drinking water; C. Promoting a more compact form of development. 2. Applicability. These guidelines apply to a special type of "Planned Unit Development' (PUD) for North and South Kona for lands outside the Urban Area zoned Agricultural, Intensive Agricultural, Family Agricultural, or Rural -Agricultural. The guidelines supplement the requirements and procedures for PUDs and subdivisions set forth in the Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, and Planning Department Rules. 3. Review Procedure. The following procedures specify the role of the Design Center, and integrate the PUD and subdivision review procedures. A. Pre -Application Meeting at the Design Center. i. Submittals. Be prepared to discuss the following 4 -step process: a) Step 1: Delineation of Open Space Lands. Prepare an Existing Resources and Site Analysis Map (Exhibit 1), prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer, that contains at a minimum the following: 1) Base information i. Property boundaries ii. All watercourses and other hydrologic features iii. Topographic contours of no less than 10 -foot intervals iv. Vegetation characteristics (e.g. Land Cover) v. Existing infrastructure (road, water, sewer, etc.) vi. Existing structures vii. Identification of surrounding zoning, existing land use, and ownership 2) Primary Resource Areas. The lands listed below are considered to constitute lands that serve important ecological purposes and possess beneficial environmental qualities contributing to the health of the local community and shall be conserved and protected to the maximum amount and extent physically possible: i. The 100 -year floodplain and setback buffer as defined in Chapter 27 Floodplain Management, Section 27-18(d)(5) (Ordinance 07-169). ii. Slopes above 35% of at least 5000 square feet contiguous area iii. Populations of endangered or threatened species, or habitat for such species. iv. Important historic sites. 3) Secondary Resource Areas. The following lands are considered to have other intrinsic qualities of value to the community to be protected to the maximum extent possible after all identified Primary Resource Areas have been protected (Primary and Secondary Areas collectively are referred to as "Open Space"): i. Existing healthy, native forests of at least one contiguous acre. ii. Individual existing healthy trees greater than 14 inches caliper measured at diameter at breast height (dbh) iii. Other significant natural features and scenic viewsheds such as ridge lines, peaks and rock outcroppings, particularly those that can be seen from public roads E iv. Prime agricultural lands of at least five acres contiguous area v. Existing trails that connect the tract to neighboring areas vi. Buffer around the perimeter of the tract a minimum of 25' wide designed at a minimum to provide protection against wildfires. b) Step 2: Location of House Sites. Using Exhibit #1 Existing Resources and Site Analysis Map as a base, show preliminary site plan (Exhibit #2). House sites should generally be setback from Primary Resources and Secondary Resources, taking into consideration the potential negative impacts of residential development on such areas as well as the potential positive benefits of such locations to provide attractive views and visual settings for residences. Exhibits #24 do not have to be prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer. c) Step 3: Alignment of Streets and Trails. Using Exhibit #2 as a base, show proposed street plan designed to provide vehicular access to each house, complying with the minimum standards for road design set forth in these guidelines (see Section 4), and bearing a logical relationship to topographic conditions (Exhibit #3). Impacts of the street plan on proposed Open Space lands shall be minimized, particularly with respect to crossing environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and traversing steep slopes. Street connections shall generally be encouraged to minimize the number of cul-de-sacs and to facilitate access to and from homes in different parts of the tract and adjoining parcels. d) Step 4: Drawing in the Lot Lines. Using Exhibit #4 as a base, show lot lines to delineate the boundaries of individual residential lots. ii. Site Inspection. Before or after the pre -application meeting, the staff may request that the applicant arrange for a site inspection of the property by the Planning staff and other County officials. The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize local officials with the property's existing conditions and special features, to identify potential site design issues, and to provide an informal opportunity to discuss site 3 design concepts, including the general layout of the designated Open Space lands and potential locations for proposed buildings and street alignments. Comments made by local officials or staff and consultants shall be interpreted as being only suggestive. It shall be understood by all parties that no formal recommendations can be offered, and no official decisions can be made at the site inspection. iii. Meeting Outcomes. As a result of the pre -application meeting, the applicant should have an understanding of the following: a) Whether the Primary and Secondary Resources as shown are complete, accurate,.and acceptable; b) Whether the disposition of the Secondary Resources are acceptable; c) Whether the location of the house sites and street layout are acceptable; d) Whether the lot sizes and number of lots are acceptable. B. Site Plan. i. Submittal to the Design Center. a) Site Plan. The applicant shall incorporate any comments from the pre - application meeting, and submit to the Design Center a Site Plan, prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer. The Site Plan shall be a refinement of Exhibit #4 and meet all the requirements of a Preliminary Plat Map set forth in the Subdivision Code. b) Engineer's Report. Submit a brief report, prepared by a licensed engineer, that discusses the following: 1) Access. Intersection requirements and sight distance for any proposed roads that intersect a County or State road. 2) Water. Proposed water system serving the subdivision (source, storage, transmission, distribution). 3) Wastewater. Proposed wastewater disposal system that meets the minimum requirements set forth in these guidelines. 4) Utilities. Proposed power and communication system. If connecting to grid, confirm adequate capacity. Address whether any existing poles interfere with access or lot layout. 5) Drainage. Estimated stormwater flow generated by the project N ' and method of handling the flow. c) Agency Review. The Design Center shall circulate the Site Plan and Engineers Report to pertinent agencies and receive comments within 30 ' days. d) Draft legal instrument for open space preservation. Submit an instrument ' in draft form meeting the requirements in Section 5(a) below. C. PUD Report. The Design Center shall prepare a report recommending approval or denial ' of the PUD application, and set forth any conditions of approval. The report shall reference and attach the Site Plan, Engineer's Report, and draft legal instrument for open ' space preservation. If recommending approval, the Design Center shall instruct the applicant to prepare a preliminary plat map consistent with the approved Site Plan and ' meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Code. D. Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Upon receipt of the preliminary Site Plan, the Design ' Center shall transmit the PUD Report and preliminary Site Plan to the proper section of the Planning Department that reviews subdivisions. The Planning Director shall make a ' decision to issue preliminary subdivision approval within 30 days of receipt of this package from the Design Center. The Design Center staff shall monitor the status of review to ensure timely processing. t4. Standards A. Density and Minimum Lot Size Standards. Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 205 shall ' govern the minimum lot size. The permitted density shall be calculated based on gross density of the existing zoning. ' B. Open Space Standards. At least 40% of the tract shall be protected as Primary or Secondary Resource Areas. Of this protected area, at least 75% should be a contiguous ' area, and to the extent possible adjoin protected areas or candidate future protected areas on neighboring property. ' C. Road Standards. The design of private streets within the rural subdivision should seek to: i. Provide an all-weather pervious surface or semi -pervious with a roadway minimum ' width of 16' and 4' graded shoulder to enable pull -offs. ii. Minimize the number of cul-de-sacs. Where provided, minimize the amount of _ 5 5. impervious surface by limiting the internal turning radius to 35 feet. Use -grass and vegetation for the inner circle of turn-arounds, rather than paving the entire area. Declare the Home Owner's Association (HOA) responsible for the maintenance of the grassy area by covenant. iii. Provide more than one entrance to the development and interconnect streets. iv. Omit curbs wherever appropriate. V. As an alternative to curbs and gutters, allow runoff from roofs and pavements to pass immediately through grass swales or infiltration basins. Use plant material that will absorb rainwater and act as a natural filter for oil and pollution. vi. Provide marked, pervious paths for non -vehicular traffic within the development and connecting to neighboring residential and commercial areas. D. Wastewater Disposal Standards. The State Department of Health rules, policies, and standards will govern wastewater disposal. Where onsite septic systems are permitted, a septic system draining into a common leach field is permitted provided that a backup leach field area of comparable size is provided should one leach field fail. The common leach fields may be incorporated into the Secondary Resource Areas. Ownership, Preservation, and Maintenance of Open Space. Open Space land shall be preserved and maintained solely for the purposes as specified. A. Legal Instrument. The method for effectuating such preservation and maintenance may be one or a combination of the following: Deed of conveyance to a Home Owners Association (HOA). If Open Space is deeded to a HOA, the applicant shall record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: a) They shall provide that the HOA will maintain and pay taxes on the Open Space. The HOA shall develop a long-term rural plan for maintenance of common areas. This plan should include examples of environmentally friendly landscaping techniques for homeowners, recommend that at least one member of the HOA receive training in or be conversant in, wildlife habitat rural, enhancement, and maintenance, and assist homeowners ' with site-specific information about indigenous habitat and diversity of . species. ' b) They shall govern the use of the Open Space and restrict its uses to those ' consistent with the intent of the Open Space as specified in the development plan. ' c) They shall run with the land in perpetuity. d) They shall provide for a lien on the assessed property to secure ' collections of assessments levied by the HOA. e) They shall require mandatory membership in the HOA for all homeowners in the subdivision. ii. Deed of conveyance to a government entity, which shall state the restrictions ' governing the use, improvement, maintenance, and preservation of the Open Space as conditions to the deed of conveyance. ' iii. Deed of conveyance with restrictive covenant or a permanent conservation easement in favor of a bona fide land trust (or other nonprofit) for conservation purposes and restricting development B. Approval and Recordation. All legal instruments used to permanently protect open areas ' platted within the subdivision shall be executed by the developer and approved by the County prior to approval of the final plat for the development. Upon approval of the final ' plan and the legal instruments for permanent protection of the rural areas, the County will record said documents with the Bureau of Conveyances or Land Court, as appropriate. All ' fees associated with the recordation of plats and legal instruments will be furnished by the developer of the rural subdivision or their agent. 7 21 i paw" .,.o kL fA KONA Community Development Plan LLaaupahoehoe „ Hakalau w IIL'O: i Pepeekeo Hilo � v p��• �`�Ceaa ahoa, PUNAM,,, ' Kalapana Kona Community Development Plan Figure 1-1 Kona CDP Planning Area I INTRODUCTION CHAPTER 1 1.3 PLANNING PROCESS The Hawaii County Planning Department recognized that only ' with broad public input can the Kona residents take ownership of this plan, by which they may embrace the vision and commit to a better future. Initiated in September 2005, this plan is the result of an extensive public process discussed below. 1. Steering Committee. The Hawaii County Mayor and the Hawaii County Council appointed 15 citizens to serve on the Kona CDP Steering Committee, ' representing a cross-section of the Kona community. The Committee was given the responsibilities of ' helping guide the process and representing public priorities. ' 2. Public Meetings. Several large community meetings were held: a. Kick -Off Meetings. Two public meetings, one in ' North Kona and the other in South Kona, were held in September 2005 to introduce the consultant team and explain the planning process. b. Small Group Meetings. In recognition that the process needs to go to the people, meetings were ' held at people's homes, churches, and community centers. More intimate settings and smaller groups allowed freer interaction for people not inclined to speak before large groups. One hundred and nine meetings were held throughout Kona from November 2005 through January 2006. All these meetings received input from a balanced demographic and geographic representation of the North and South Kona Districts. Over 800 residents participated in the individual meetings generating 3,496 ideas. These Ideas were sorted into 18 categories, ' shown at right. c. Mapping the Future Workshop. On February 18, 2006, 350 people attended this workshop to brainstorm where future growth should occur. Breakout groups also addressed critical questions such as housing choice and affordability, I agriculture, transportation and land use, Number of Ideas and Percentages Transportation 511 146% Alternative 118 34% Public 141 40% Vehicular 252 72% Government and Governance 354 101% Planning 332 95% Social Issues 327 94% Environment & Culture 358 102% Infrastructure 242 69% Economic Prosperity 191 55% Public Facilities 188 54% Housing 186 53% Land Use 178 51% Community Character 178 51% Education 152 43% Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 126 36% Agriculture 98 28 Energy 69 200 I KONA CDP 13 CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION congestion, parks/recreation/open space, protection of the environment, hazard mitigation, protection of ancestral and historic sites, community character, retail, and tourism. d. Charrettes. A charrette is a "working" public meeting where technical experts sit with the public and work together on maps and images. There were two charrettes, the first held in March 2006 and the other in June 2006. In the first charrette, the public identified alternative growth scenarios and selected a preferred scenario. In the second charrette, the public articulated desired principles to provide details for a preferred scenario. e. Working Groups. Eleven working groups made up of citizens and community stakeholders met monthly, from May 2006 — September 2006, to focus in more detail on specific issue areas. The working group developed goals, objectives, and policies for agriculture, cultural resources, energy, environment, flooding and natural hazards, government, housing, land use, public facilities and programs, recreation, and transportation. Each of the working groups focused on one of the above topics. For a more detailed documentation of the planning process, see Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results in Volume ll. 1-4 KONA CDP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 KONA TODA Y i, f 2. KONA TODAY 2.1 UNIQUE OR VALUED CHARACTERISTICS Pu'uhonua o Honaunau' NaUo'nal`Hist©nc Park When people say "Keep Kona, Kona", they mean many things: CHAPTER 2 Preserving rich cultural features. In ancient Hawai'i, Kona was the most densely populated area in the Hawaiian Islands (about 20,000 inhabitants at its peak) Kona was also a favorite area of residence for Hawai`i's chiefs. Ancient Hawaiian life was based around the ahupua'a, a section of the land that extended from the mountain to the sea. Settlement generally occurred in three main zones: the narrow and coastal strip consisting of small fishing villages near the shore, particularly around fishponds and bays; the barren middle zone comprised of lava fields, which supported temporary use, including natural caves used by travelers between the coast and uplands; and the agricultural uplands, which supported scattered settlements where dryland taro and sweet potatoes were extensively cultivated, along with other crops. Today's challenge is to respect and appreciate this past while learning the ancestor's lessons of living sustainably with the land. Preserving Kona coffee, rural villages, and lifestyle. World renowned "Kona Coffee" is the signature product of Kona. Initially introduced to Hawai'i in the early 1800's, coffee thrives in the rich volcanic soils and unique climate of Kona on the sheltered leeward slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai, roughly between the elevations of 700 to 2,000 feet, along a 15 -mile long "coffee belt" extending from Kailua to Honaunau. The history of Kona coffee has been preserved with efforts such as the Kona Heritage Corridor. Historically, rural villages evolved in support of the agricultural lifestyle, and they are valued by the residents of Kona today as a link with their past and path to their future. This lifestyle persists through today's thriving coffee industry and is valued by visitors to the Kona area who help to support the growth of diversified agriculture. KONA CDP 2-T CHAPTER 2 KONA TODA Y Preserving the diverse coastlines, protected nearshore waters, open space, and vast untouched upland landscapes. Kona includes astonishing contrasts, ranging from near -barren lava fields, to coastal coconut groves, to dense native 'ohi`a forests. The sunny, leeward climate has fostered an outdoor lifestyle epitomized by well-known events held in Kona – such as the International Ironman Triathalon, Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament, and numerous canoe regattas. In order to plan for a sustainable future, the following unique characteristics of Kona's ecosystem need to be considered: Rainfall pattern. The massive domes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai shelter the Kona Coast from the predominant tradewinds. In the absence of tradewinds, light sea -land breezes prevail—the heating of the land during the day causes light winds to blow in from the sea, and the cooling of the land at night causes light winds to flow from the land to the sea. The seabreezes converge with tradewinds that have passed through the Humu'ula Saddle and around the upper slopes of Mauna Loa, producing frequent afternoon showers over the island's interior sections and mountain slopes. This afternoon rainfall contrasts with the weather of the windward side of the island where rain most often falls near midnight. The rainfall pattern in Kona is common during the summer tradewind season, making Kona unique in the State in having its highest annual rainfall during the summer. The rainfall map reflects the sea -land breeze pattern (see Figure 2-1). Rainfall increases from the shoreline going mauka, reaching a peak between about 2,000 feet and 2,500 feet in elevation, where 60 – 80 inches can fall annually in some areas. Above this band, annual rainfall progressively declines to approximately 20 inches near the summits of Hualalai and Mauna Loa. 2-2 KONA CDP Mahukona Kawaihae Kaltua \ Keauhou 1 Kealakekua „ Milolli Pahoa Legend Rainfall 0 60" to 80" (approx ) Up to 10" (approx) 80" + (approx ) 10" to 20" (approx) ® 80" to 120" (approx ) Up to 20" (approx) 120" + (approx ) 20" to 30" (approx) j 120" to 160" (approx ) Up to 30" (approx) 160"+ (approx ) 30" to 40" (approx ) 160" to 200" (approx ) 40" to 60" (approx ) 200" to 240" (approx ) Up to 60" (approx ) 240" + (approx ) Source Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Kona Community Development Plan Figure 2-1 Rainfall Map CHAPTER 2 KONA TODA Y Groundwater. On the Island of Hawaii, groundwater is the primary source of drinking water. In Kona, groundwater occurs as both basal groundwater' and high-level groundwater2. The basal lens in Kona is relatively thin and inconsistent due to the low rainfall input and the lack of a geological "plug" that could slow the leakage of the groundwater at the coastline.3 Consequently, wells drawing from basal groundwater in Kona are susceptible to salinity if they are drilled too deep or if they are over -pumped. In the 1990's, exploratory wells drilled above the 1,600 -foot elevation encountered high-level groundwater 25 to 460 feet above sea level. Better understanding and protection of the high-level groundwater is important, since it has a significant potential for serving Kona. Three possible geologic structures that could impound high-level water (A) buried dike complex, (B) buried fault system, (C) buried, massive lava flows Oki, Delywn,1999 • .,�,. ., KIKOIO e,,ta • .'TM\''\\ \� KEAUNOU 1 � 1 1 t KEAIAKEKUA Water level contours in the high-level aquifer Bauer, Glenn, September 2003 1 Basal groundwater is freshwater "floating" atop deeper seawater The freshwater forms a "lens" that extends below sea level in a phenomenon described by the Ghyben-Herzberg Principle For every foot of fresh water above sea level there are 40 feet below sea level 2 High -Level ground water refers to potable water sources that are Impounded by a relatively impermeable geologic structure such as dikes or clay soils 3 For example, on Oahu, eroded sediment that has accumulated at the coastline is relatively impermeable and holds back the groundwater, enabling a larger lens of water to form. 2-4 KONA CDP KONA TODAY Native ecosystems. Native forest habitats in Kona still exist as a wet forest band at the mid -slope elevation corresponding to the area of higher rainfall, as well as in pockets of dryland forest. Although all ecosystems have been affected to some degree by human activity and the introduction of alien species, the greatest impact by far has been on the lowland areas. Modification of these ecosystems began with the Native Hawaiians, along with the introduction of non-native species such as feral ungulates, and was accelerated by cattle ranching, agriculture, and urbanization. Where remnants of native dryland forest still exist, they are a rare and precious legacy. The native wet forest remains today as a band of forest providing essential habitat and watershed functions. CHAPTER 2 ' Anchialine ponds. Anchialine ponds are landlocked brackish bodies of water near the shoreline which rise and fall with the tides, and are federally protected. In the U.S., this habitat exists only in the Hawaiian Islands. Of the 700 known ponds in the Hawaiian Islands, most are on the Island of ' Hawai`i, where anchialine ponds on the west side of the island have a higher diversity of native species than those on the east side. These ponds are home to a unique assemblage of invertebrate and algal species, some of which are known to exist only in this habitat. These unique species migrate through the cracks and crevices in the groundwater table. The anchialine ponds are vulnerable to filling, introduction of exotic species (e.g., guppies, mollies and tilapia), siltation ' from ground grading activity, from imported soils used for landscaping, as well as groundwater pollution from cesspools, septic systems, fertilizers and pesticides. Some of these same activities also threaten the nearshore coastal waters. Nearshore coastal waters The leeward coastal waters of Kona, ideal for coral growth and recreational activities, do not have as much flushing action as rougher coastal areas. While some pollutants mixed with the groundwater are filtered by the lava or soil, dissolved nutrients such a nitrates and phosphates from cesspools and septic systems as well as infectious microorganisms may be difficult to remove. Moreover, in Kona, due to the complex and poorly understood geology of lava tubes and porous rock formations, unfiltered to the ocean. there is concern that groundwater can flow The coastal waters along the Kona coast are classified as "AA" marine waters by State Department of Health (DOH) Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 54 "Water Quality Standards." The DOH objective for Class "AA" marine waters is that "these waters remain in their natural pristine state as nearly as possible with an absolute minimum of pollution or alteration of water quality from human- KONA CDP 2-5 CHAPTER 2 KONA TODAY caused source or actions. To the extent practicable, the wilderness character of these areas shall be protected". Rare, Threatened, Endangered Species. The vast majority of native Hawaiian plants and animals are found nowhere else on Earth. Some of these plants and animals are on the brink of extinction. Kona is home to rare, threatened, and/or endangered plant and animal species such as, but not limited to Hawaiian Creeper, Hawaiian Crow (`Alala), Hawaii Hawk (`lo), anchialine pool shrimp, `ahakea, kauila, halapepe, lo`ulu, `aiea, ma`aloa. Some of these species do not live in protected areas. It is important to identify which species inhabit Kona and where they are located. Open Space and Natural Areas. Kona is blessed with open space and natural areas that have the potential for active and passive recreational opportunities, as well as to preserve and conserve sensitive natural systems (native forests, anchialine ponds, floodways, beaches, etc.). Natural Hazards. The coastal areas along Kona are vulnerable to major storms, with the most significant of these being hurricanes. While hurricanes and storm events present the most likely risks, Kona is also vulnerable to earthquakes, tsunamis, flooding, droughts, and wildfires. Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2005), which identified natural and vulnerability analysis, and addressed mitigation measures. The County prepared the hazards, conducted a risk 2.2 GROWTH PATTERNS AND TRENDS Population growth and composition. There are different ways to show the population growth in Kona (see Table 2-1): Percentage Change. Resident population grew in North Kona by 62% from 1980 to 1990 (3rd in percentage increase behind Puna and South Kohala) and tapered to 28% growth from 1990 to 2000 (4th among the nine districts). This percentage growth increase was nearly twice that of South Kona. Absolute Numerical Change. In terms of absolute numbers, only Puna (19,584) added more residents than North Kona (14,795) in the two decades. Countywide Proportion. In the year 2000, North Kona (19%) ranked second to South Hilo (37%) in terms of percent of population countywide. However, the trend is that North Kona and Puna are increasing their share of the countywide population, while the South Hilo share is declining. 2-6 KONA CDP KONA TODA Y CHAPTER 2 Table 2-1 Population Growth Percent change Numerical Change % of Total 1 -Apr -80 1 -Apr -90 1 -Apr -00 District 1980 to 1990 to 1980 to 1990 to 1980 1990 Chang 1990 2000 1990 2000 Ito 2to e State 964,691 1,108,229 1,211,537 149 93 143,538 103,308 Hawaii County 92,053 120,317 148,677 30.7 23.6 28,264 28,360 Puna 11,751 20,781 31,335 768 508 9,030 10,554 13% 17% 5% South HIl0 42,278 44,639 47,386 56 62 2,361 2,747 46% 37% 9% NorthHilo 1,679 1,541 1,720 -82 116 -138 179 2% 1% -1% Hamakua 5,128 5,545 6,108 81 102 417 563 6% 1 5% -1% rt 3,249 4,291 6,038 321 407 1,042 1,747 4% 4% 0% Ko a 4,607 9,140 13,131 984 437 4,533 3,991 5% 8% 3% Kohaa North 13,748 22,284 28,543 621 281 8,536 6,259 15% 19% 4% Kona South 5,914 7,658 8,589 295 122 1,744 931 6% 6% 0% Kona Kau 3,699 4,438 5,827 20 313 739 1,389 4% 4% 0% Source County of Hawaii General Plan, February 2005 and 2006 County of Hawaii Data Book KONA CDP 2-7 CHAPTER 2 KONA TODAY These census figures, available every ten (10) years do not fully capture the exponential growth Kona experienced from 2000 to today. Based on a 2005 estimated population of 31,900 for North Kona and 10,700 for South Kona (totaling 42,600)4, the average annual growth rate from 2000 has been 6% comparable to 6% in the rapid expansion period of 1980 to 19905. Using the middle forecast (Series B), as suggested by the County General Plan (2005), the projected total population for the Kona districts for the year 2020 is 56,367, or 13,800 more residents than the estimated population in 2005 (see Chart 2-1) The population growth in Kona is closely associated with continuing growth of the visitor and agricultural industries. Housing production. Growth in housing units provides a more realistic picture of growth in Kona. In the period of 1990 and 2000 the number of new housing units increased at a rate more than twice the population increase, from 7,947 housing units in 1990 to 13,330 in 2000 (ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd. and ESC, November 2006) of which only a small portion was affordable housing for residents. This uneven increase creates greater, disproportionate land consumption and infrastructure needs than reflected by population growth statistics. Source County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005 4 The General Plan, Table 2-2, provides population projections at 5 -year intervals by district The 2005 projections for North and South Kona were adjusted by the Census population estimate dated July 2005. The Census estimate for the island was 186,836 (2005 Hawaii County Data Book, Table 12, which was higher than the islandwide GP projections of 159,907, resulting in an adjustment factor of 1 168 (186,836/159,907) 5 Average annual growth rate computed by taking the difference of the end year and the start year, divide by number of years, and divide the quotient by the value of the start year (e.g. for North Kona [(22,284-13,748)/10]/13,748 = 0 06 = 6%) 2-8 KONA CDP I VISUAL /ZING KONA TOMORROW CHAPTER 3 3.VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW 3.1 VISION STATEMENT KONA'S FUTURE SHALL BE: A more sustainable Kona characterized by a deep respect for the culture and the environment and residents that responsively and responsibly accommodate change through an active and collaborative community. 3.2 GUIDING PRINCIPLES In order to achieve this vision, the following principles, derived from public meetings and working groups, are the foundation for the goals, objectives, policies, and implementation actions. 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. a. Natural resources. The watershed, including coastline, flood plains, important agricultural land, open space, and areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway shall be protected. Guided by a principle of respect for the land, environment and natural resources shall be preserved and protected to ensure clean air and water, thriving native species, conservation of shorelines and open space, improvements in watershed management and flood control, and reductions in solid waste. "For the benefit of present and future generations, the State and its political subdivisions shall conserve and protect Hawaii's natural beauty and all natural resources, including land, water, air, minerals and energy sources, and shall promote the development and utilization of these resources in a manner consistent with their conservation and in furtherance of the self-sufficiency of the State All public natural resources are held in trust by the state for the benefit of the people The Constitution of the State of Hawaii Article XI IKONA CDP 3-1 CHAPTER 3 VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW Culture. The multi-ethnic culture is preserved, protected, and restored in a manner that perpetuates all aspects of the aloha spirit 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. Future growth should connect communities with movement alternatives such as sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes. We need an efficient public transportation system for moving people. It should have comfortable and frequent service to key destinations, along prominent commuter routes, and at transfer points that offer connections to alternative modes of transportation. 3. Provide housing choices. Future growth should offer a broad range of mixed housing choices with a variety of types and price ranges that are affordable and available in close proximity to places of work. They should also accommodate populations with special needs, including seniors, disabled persons, and the homeless. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. Future growth should provide a diversity of recreational opportunities that are well-maintained, attractive, and easily accessible to the entire community. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. a. Compact villages. The majority of future growth should be directed north of Kailua, with some future growth in the Kailua to Keauhou area, in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and mixture of homes, shops, and places to work. b. Rural character of Kona. Density in South Kona should be kept low, and its character should remain rural, with most future growth directed around existing villages and towns. C. Community character. Diversity, history, and the host culture are celebrated in neighborhoods and communities that incorporate beautification, architectural continuity, and respect for the natural environment, in order to maintain Kona's character and its Hawaii Island style. 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. Future growth should occur where infrastructure (roads and utilities) and essential facilities (i.e. police, fire, and schools) are already in place. These facilities should be maintained at a level that will enhance the quality of life for Kona residents. 1. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. a. Agriculture. Agricultural lands should be preserved in a manner that supports family farms, ecotourism, and a self-sufficient agricultural economy that encourages the local use of Hawaii products. 3-2 1 KONA CDP V/SUAL/Z/NG KONA TOMORROW CHAPTER 3 b Sustainable industries. Diverse and sustainable industries such as ecotourism, agriculture, aquaculture, technology, and health should be enhanced, expanded and marketed to take full advantage of Kona's unique environmental assets and reduce ' dependence on food and fossil fuel imports. Community collaborations supported in order to meet the needs of businesses, residents and visitors. 8. Promote effective governance: An effective and accountable regional government structure that improves the quality of life for Kona residents should manage the impacts of growth and meet the needs of the Kona community by encouraging cooperation among public, private, and civic partners, ensuring equitable distribution of resources, and instituting policies and regulations in a predictable and consistent manner. "We the people of Hawa► ►, grateful for Divine Guidance, and mindful of our Hawaiian heritage and uniqueness as an island State, dedicate our efforts to fulfill the philosophy decreed by the Hawa►`► State motto, Va mau ke ea o ka `a►na 1 ka pono " We reserve the right to control our destiny, to nurture the ►ntegnty of our people and culture, and to preserve the quality of life that we desire We reaffirm our belief in a government of the people, by the people and for the people, and with an understanding and compassionate heart toward all the peoples of the earth, do hereby ordain and establish this constitution for the State of Hawaii' The Constitution of the State of Hawaii Preamble 3.3 CONSISTENCY WITH SUSTAINABLE AND SMART GROWTH PRINCIPLES These foregoing eight Guiding Principles are consistent with the principles of "smart growth" and "sustainability." 3.3.1 Smart Growth Smart growth refers to the management of growth to make it possible "for communities to grow in ways that support economic development and jobs; create strong neighborhood with a range of housing, commercial, and transportation options; and achieve healthy communities that provide families with a clean environment." 6 The following 10 smart growth principles are incorporated into the Kona CDP's Guiding Principles: 1. Protect and preserve open space, natural beauty, agricultural lands, cultural and environmental resources; 2. Utilize compact building design; 3. Create a range of housing opportunities and choices; 4. Create walkable communities; ' 6 Smart Growth Network, Getting to Smart Growth 100 Policies for Implementation, http //smartgrowth om I KONA CDP 3-3 CHAPTER 3 VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW 5. Foster distinctive, attractive communities with a strong sense of place; 6. Mix land uses; 7. Strengthen and direct development towards existing communities; 8. Provide a variety of transportation choices; 9. Make development decisions predictable, fair and cost effective; and 10. Foster community and stakeholder collaboration in development decisions. 3.3.2 Sustainability The term "sustainability" has special meaning in an island context, where our resources are limited and the consequences of our actions have a more immediate impact. Sustainability in Hawaii means achieving a quality of life that achieves the following goals: It emphasizes respect for the culture, character, beauty and history of our state's island communities. It strikes a balance between economic prosperity, social and community well-being, and environmental stewardship. It meets the needs of the present community without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs. 7 The eight Guiding Principles are consistent with this definition and provide the basis for Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions that set forth a sustainable path for Kona. To become a sustainable community requires commitment on all levels—as individuals, households, businesses, communities, and government. We need to do our part in as many ways as we can. The following elaborates the eight Guiding Principles specifically in terms of sustainability principles: 1. Sense of Community. The manner in which we meet our human needs determines the quality of our existence and ability to adapt. Pertinent initiatives include the following: a. Cultural emphasis. The vision emphasizes the importance of mutually appreciating our respective cultural traditions. b. Affordable housing. The vision affirms that decent affordable housing is needed in Kona. c. Participatory governance. The vision is to create a structure through which Kona residents may meaningfully engage in decision making. Engagement breeds caring and learning, which, in turn, creates the energy and expertise needed to better the community. d. Innovation. The Design Center proposed in the Section 4.2 Land Use will hopefully stimulate the exposure of and willingness to try new ideas, thus enabling Kona to become a cutting edge sustainable community. 7 Hawai'i 2050 Sustainability Plan, January 2008 See also, The Natural Step for Communities by S James and T Lahti which explains the four conditions of a sustainable society 3-4 KONA CDP I VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW CHAPTER 3 2. Interaction with Nature. Only through opportunities to interact with nature can we develop knowledge and respect for natural ' environment. The vision is to establish an Open Space Network Program (see Section 4.3 Environmental Resources) to guide the provision of such opportunities through ' subsistence activities (e.g., fishing, diving, hunting, gathering), recreational activities (e.g., swimming, surfing, hiking, camping, biking), and educational activities (e.g., interpretive signage ' and printed material). 3. Building Standards. The Leadership in Energy and ' Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System is the nationally recognized standard for green buildings (see Sidebar). The vision supports LEED design of buildings and ' neighborhoods. LEED embraces all the aforementioned principles—waste reduction, toxics reduction, conservation of resources, and energy efficiency-- by recognizing performance ' in five key areas of human and environmental health - sustainable site development, water savings, energy efficiency, ' materials selection, and indoor environmental quality. LEED certification provides independent, third -party verification that a development's location and design meet accepted high ' standards for environmentally responsible, sustainable, development. LEED certification recognizes and rewards builders for meeting the highest performance standards, and ' gives users confidence that their building is durable, healthy, and environmentally friendly. ' 4. Energy. The energy policies aim at reducing greenhouse gas emissions (i.e., conservation measures, renewable energy conversion), reducing energy costs to the consumer (e.g., net Specific LEED programs include • Homes • Neighborhood Development • New Commercial Construction and Major Renovation projects ■ Existing Budding Operations and Maintenance ■ Commercial Interiors projects About LEED for Homes LEED for Homes is a voluntary rating system that promotes the design and construction of high performance "green" homes A green home uses less energy, water, and natural resources, creates less waste, and is healthier and more comfortable for the occupants About LEED for Neighborhood Development LEED for Neighborhood Development is a collaboration between the U S Green Budding Council, the Congress for the New Urbanism, and the Natural Resources Defense Council The LEED for Neighborhood Development Rating System integrates the pnnaples of smart growth and green building into the first national standard for neighborhood design LEED for Neighborhood Development recognizes development projects that successfully protect and enhance the overall health, natural environment, and quality of life of our communities The rating system encourages urban smart growth best practices, promoting the design of neighborhoods that reduce vehicle miles traveled and communities where jobs and services are accessible by foot or public transit This framework can serve as the means of measuring the sustainability of the Kona CDP's Village Design Master Plans metering, alternatives to driving), and developing a more resilient system, such as reduced dependence on fossil fuel imports, decentralized distributed energy systems. Although most changes require action by the State, County, or utility company, the vision expresses Kona community's aspirations to do its part. The largest consumer of electricity on the island is the County Department of Water Supply, to pump and distribute water. Therefore, water conservation and leak detection, besides conserving water resources, is also a significant energy conservation measure. 5. Non -degradation. Whether intentionally or inadvertently, we degrade our resources by clearing, introducing Invasive species, Introducing sediments or chemicals to our water resources through non -point or point sources and depleting our water, soil, fisheries, and other resource consumption activities. To prevent degradation, the vision is to support biodiversity through protection of native KONA CDP 3-5 CHAPTER 3 VISUALIZING KONA TOMORROW and endangered habitats, controlling pollution at the source and pathways, and rewarding "best practices" of managed resources. 6. Toxic materials reductiontsubstitution. Through awareness and innovation, the vision is to encourage reducing (or substituting) toxic substances. 7. Zero waste. The concept of zero waste attempts to emulate nature where the "waste" of one thing becomes the food or shelter of another thing in an efficient flow of materials and energy. This means not just recycling and reusing, but also redesigning products and packaging to reduce toxicity and increase recoverability. The vision is to increase the awareness of businesses and households, thus helping them to modify their modes of operation, encourage innovation, and discourage waste. 8. Climate change (global warming). The emission of greenhouse gases, primarily carbon dioxide, prevents heat from escaping and contributes to global warming. The primary source of carbon dioxide is the burning of fossil fuels (oil, natural gas, and coal). Carbon dioxide is also removed from the atmosphere (or "sequestered") when it is absorbed by plants as part of the biological carbon cycle. The vision is to reduce energy use and convert to renewable sources, as well as to preserve and restore the mauka forests, which are the most significant actions Kona can take to do its part to stem global warming. 3-6 KONA CDP G 0 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES & ACT/ONS CHAPTER 4 4. GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Chapter 4 presents the goals, objectives, policies, and actions of the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) They are presented as eight elements, including: 1. Transportation 2 Land Use 3. Environmental Resources 4. Cultural Resources 5. Housing 6. Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services 7. Energy 8. Economic Development These elements generally correspond with the thirteen elements of the County of Hawaii General Plan (GP) except that five elements of the GP have been combined in two of the Kona CDP elements. Specifically, the Kona CDP element for Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services combines the GP elements for Public Facilities, Public Utilities and Recreation; and, the Kona CDP element for Environmental Resources combines the GP elements for Environmental Quality, Flooding and Other Natural Hazards, Natural Beauty and Natural Resources and Shoreline. The GP element for Historic Sites is referred to in the Kona CDP as Cultural Resources and the GP element for Economic is referred to as Economic Development. The concepts of sustainability variously addressed in the GP element for Environmental Quality form a part of the overall vision for the Kona CDP, as presented in Chapter 3 Visualizing Kona Tomorrow. Each of the eight Elements in this chapter has seven components, described as follows. 1. Introduction to the Element, discussing its scope, purpose and/or guiding principle(s). A table shows which of the eight guiding principles the Element supports. 2. Existing Conditions, describing the issues, concerns, and/or state of knowledge that are addressed in the Element. 3. Overall Strategy, explaining the major approaches by which the issues and concerns described in Existing Conditions will be addressed. 4. Goal, stating the intended outcome for the Element, as derived from the community outreach phase of the Kona CDP process. 5. Objectives, corresponding to each of the major approaches identified in the Overall Strategy. Each of the objectives in an Element is identified by an alphabetical prefix identifying the element and a sequential numeral. For example, "Objective LU -1" is the first objective in the Land Use Element. KONA CDP 4-1 CHAPTER 4 6 Policies, that prescribe how each objective will be achieved. The policies that use the word "shall" are mandatory directives legally binding on County agencies. Among the most significant legally binding policies are those presented in Section 4.2 Land Use. These policies must be implemented through land use decisions and development permits issued after the Kona CDP is adopted. Such policies, however, would not be retroactive to prior decision-making and existing zoning. Some mandatory policies require balancing with other policies, particularly those that require County funding. Some policies create special provisions that differ from the County Code; these Code -amending policies are summarized and noted as "enacted by plan" in Section 5.3. Other policies that use the word "should" are not legally binding as they recommend desired actions especially those affecting agencies over which the plan does not have authority (e.g. State agencies, utilities, non -profits). Each policy is identified by the alpha -numeric code for its corresponding objective, followed by a decimal and its numeric sequence. For example, "Policy TRAN-3.2" is the second policy of the third objective in the Transportation Element. 7. Actions, that specify how the policy will be implemented. An action may be a precursor to implementing a policy or may specify what is required or recommended to implement it. The list of actions are meant to be refined during the process of implementation in consideration of available resources, more detailed analysis, feasibility, and other factors. Thus, these actions are not legally binding but are meant to be implemented in good faith. The Implementation Committee (IC) shall have the authority to revise the action and report any such revision in the Committee's annual report (See Section 5.2.1). Each action identifies, by acronym (See sidebar), the specific agencies or organizations that GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Acronyms/Abbreviations App Applicant BUS Businesses CD Civil Defense COE US Army Corps of Engineers COMM Community-based Organization DATA County Data Systems DBEDT State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism DEM County Department of Environmental Management DC Design Center DOA State Department of Agriculture DOE State Department of Education DOH Department of Health DOT State Department of Transportation DHHL State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DLNR State Department of Land & Natural Resources DPW County Department of Public Works DWS County Department of Water Supply Fin County Finance Department HCCRC Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission HELCO Hawaii Electric and Light Company HHFDC Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation KCC Kona Chamber of Commerce KCRC Kona Cultural Resources Committee KVBID Kailua Village Business Improvement District KVDC Kailua Village Design Commission Mayor's County Mayor's Office MT County Mass Transit Agency NELHA Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii NPS National Park Service OA County Office of Aging OHCD County Office of Housing and Community Development OSC County Open Space Commission OSP Office of State Planning PATH People's Advocacy for Trails Hawaii PC County Planning Commission PD County Planning Department PR County Department of Parks & Recreation QLT Queen Lili'uokalam Trust R&D County Research & Development SHPD State Historic Preservation Division State State agency SWCD Soil Water Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy UH University of Hawaii will implement or participate in implementing the action. County agencies identified have a particular responsibility for implementation. Each action also specifies when the action should be implemented, whether it is enacted by the plan, on-going, within one to two years, within two to three years, within three to five years or within five to ten years. Each Action is identified by the alpha -numeric code for its corresponding 4-2 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & ACTIONS TRANSPORTATION policy, followed by an alphabet sequence. For example, "Action ENV -1.4a" is the first action of the fourth policy of the first objective in the Environmental Resources Element. All of the Actions are summarized in Implementation Matrix in Chapter 5 Action Plan. 8 Official Maps, that are meant to be legally binding. All other figures in the plan not designated as Official Maps are for information purposes only. Because the Official Maps are created from GIS files, these maps may be printed at any scale with all or selected data layers. The Official Maps distinguish "Policy Layers" from "Information Layers". The Policy Layers are the official information on that map that require an amendment to the plan to add, delete, or relocate records on the map. Changes that improve the accuracy of the map are not considered amendments. The Information Layers provide background and may be changed in any way or removed without a plan amendment. The metadata for the Official Maps specify, at a minimum, the source of the data and explain the attribute features (See Attachment A). The GIS files and metadata shall be housed and maintained by the County of Hawaii Planning Department. `4. T1(�.�a R o►NSPORTATIQN The Transportation section of the Kona CDP serves as a policy guide for County decisions regarding transportation systems. Its objectives, policies, and actions establish a transportation -oriented basis for future development that is integrated with the Land Use section, as well as the Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services section of the Kona CDP. In addition, it provides guidance for concurrency and connectivity of transportation facilities with future ' development to ensure that all communities are adequately served. 4.1.1 Existing Conditions Traffic congestion in Kona is bad and grows worse with time. The congestion is fueled by the rapid growth and exacerbated by the road network, land use patterns and dependence on the automobile. Road improvements have not kept pace with development. Poor management of past 8. Promote effective governance. development has eliminated or compromised future roadway corridor options. Major road improvements take a long time to complete and limited financial resources have to be prioritized and supplemented by innovative funding sources. Guiding Principles Transportation 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. ✓ Two major north/south roadways, Queen Ka`ahumanu/Kuakini (Highway 19) and Mamalahoa Highway (Highway 190), are well beyond capacity and carry the majority of the north/south traffic through and within Kona. Both State and County share jurisdiction over the roads in Kona (See Figure 4-1). KONA CDP 4-3 0 Keahole Kallua Keauhou Legend ® State, Arterial Primary State, Arterial Secondary County, Arterial Primary — — — County, Collector Major County, Collector Minor Miles 0 1 2 4 1 inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii Kealakekua Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-1 Existing Major Streets - Ownership and Functional Classification r CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, 'POLICIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION r Based on State DOT traffic counts, several locations along regional Levels of Services (LOS) is a quantitative transportation facilities in the planning area currently operate at poor and qualitative assessment of traffic operations LOS are defined by LOS "A" levels of service (COH Planning Department, August 14, 2006). In through "F", Los "A" representing ideal or r general, the following roadway segments operate at Level of Service free-flow traffic operating conditions and LOS "F" unacceptable or potentially (LOS) "D" or worse (COH Planning Department, August 14, 2006): congested traffic operating conditions Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway, Keahole to Palani Road Hawai`I Belt Road, Palani Road to Kealakekua Palani Road, east of Henry Street and west of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway Over the years, new development mauka and makai of the primary arterial highways has occurred without local road connectivity. New developments have been built with no or very little connection to each other. Lacking such connectivity, all traffic funnels to the arterials and conditions have deteriorated to the degree that Kona's residents' quality of life, visitors' regional experience, and overall public safety suffered. D co N c� 0 N 0 N Relationship of Functionally Classified 4.1.2 Overall Strategy Systems Serving Traffic Mobility and Widening improving and extending major arterials as well as land Access emphasArterialize for a hi movement + + or distribution emphasize the high level of increasing connectivity between and within existing and future mobility for through movement collectors development are necessary to enhance mobility In Kona. Priori offer approximately balanced service for P rY � � both functions arterial highway projects include widening Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway between Henry Street and the airport, Kuakini Highway Widening between Henry Street { i and Kamehameha III Road, and the construction _ of the Mamalahoa Highway Bypass Road and Kahului-Keauhou Parkway. The proposed - Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) will add u - - capacity to the north -south arterial network, and reduce demands on the existing regional facilities. It would also serve as the central multi -modal a corridor serving future regional development. A, series of east -west (mauka-makai) collector roads linking the regional north -south facilities must also Traffic congestion along Kuakirn Highway Nancy Pisicchio be provided for added circulation and to further reduce the reliance upon the regional facilities. In addition, future urban development must contribute to a well-connected local transportation network that provides for safe, direct, and convenient access for automobile, bicycle, and pedestrian traffic. Local streets include all streets that are not designated as collectors or arterials Although local streets are not designed for through or heavy traffic, the connectivity of these streets with each other and with collectors is crucial ensuring that residents can easily reach destinations within the community. KONA CDP 4-5 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACTIONS The design of local streets also plays an important role in affecting traffic speed and choice of travel modes. Narrow local streets tend to slow traffic and are more conducive to pedestrian travel. Narrow local streets also cost less to build and maintain, encourage more efficient land use, and improve neighborhood character. Narrow streets are an efficient way of connecting the local street system without encouraging the use of local streets for through or fast moving traffic. Local streets must be wide enough to accommodate emergency vehicles and provide for on -street parking. Current budget limitations will hinder rapid major investment in public road improvements. But, even if immediate financing and approvals were available to improve roadways, other solutions to Kona's long term traffic woes are necessary. There are several other major strategies that embody the Guiding Principles expressed in Sections 4.3 Land Use, 4.5 Housing, and 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services. They relate to transportation, housing, land use, and infrastructure that need to be integrated and incorporated into Kona's long-term transportation policies as Kona's population continues to grow in the years ahead. These strategies include the following: 1. Mass Transit. A major expansion of the County's public mass transit service in Kona would provide significant alternatives to individual automobile use. 2. Multi -Modal Transportation. Taking advantage of Kona's consistently mild climate, a network of interconnected bike lanes, trails, and sidewalks within and outside road right-of- ways would provide a healthy and green alternative to automobile use. 3. Transit -Oriented Development (TOD). The development of compact, mixed-use villages which would integrate housing, employment, shopping, and recreation opportunities. Villages would be designed around transit stations/stops which would reduce the need for daily trips and financially support the expanded transit system. 4. Multi -Purpose Design. Beyond getting us from one place to another, our transportation corridors are major public spaces that must safely accommodate uses other than vehicular travel. 5. Safety and Aesthetic Qualities. Safety and aesthetic qualities need to play a larger role in improving existing and designing future roadways, in order to contribute to Kona's quality of life and tourism appeal. 6. Affordable Housing. Affordable housing located near major employment centers would serve to decrease the number of people who fill the roadways commuting long distances to work every day. These housing policies, which recognize their relationship to transportation, are addressed in the Section 4.5: Housing. 4.1.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Transportation Goal. An efficient, safe, and attractive multi -modal transportation system integrated with land use planning that allows movement around and through Kona with minimal reliance on the automobile. Objective TRAN-1: Transportation and Land Use. To organize growth on a regional level in Kona, growth should be compact and transit -supportive. Compact mixed-use villages along transit routes provide sufficient densities to support transit feasibility and enable people to meet a variety of daily needs within walking distance. 4-6 KONA CDP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POL/C/ES & ACT/ONS TRA NSPORTAT/ON Policy TRAN-1.1: Official Transportation Network Map. The Official Transportation Network Map shall show proposed transit routes, proposed arterials and collectors, and pedestrian/bicycle paths (see Figures 4-2a to 4-2d). This map shall designate the functional classification of the roadway. The purpose of this map is to show intended interconnections, plan and preserve these corridors, budget public improvements, and provide notice to affected landowners of potential impacts from these projects. Action TRAN-1.1a: Adopts Official Transportation Network Map (Enacted by plan). Policy TRAN-1.2: Trunk Line. The new Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) shall function as the trunk transit route connecting Kailua Village with the airport, along which transit - oriented developments (TODs) will be located. As the trunk transit route, there will be future allowance for a dedicated transit -way within the right-of-way and the headways will be of the highest among all transit routes in Kona (See Figure 4-2a). Action TRAN-1.2a: Design and construct Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) in functional sections. 1) Phase I - Palani Road to Kealakehe Parkway a) Design ready (PD, 1-2) b) Construction Ready (DPW, 2-3) c) Construct (DOT, DPW, 3-5) 2) Phase II — Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street a) Design Ready (PD, 1-2) b) Construction Ready (DPW, 2.3) c) Construct (DPW, 3-5) 3) Phase III — Hina Lani Street to Ka`iminani Drive a) Design Ready (PD, 5-10) b) Construction Ready (DPW, 5-10) c) Construct (DPW, 5.10) 4) Phase IV — Ka`iminani Drive to University Drive a) Design Ready (Private, 1-2) b) Construction Ready (Private, 3-5) c) Construct (Private, 3.5) Policy TRAN-1.3: Spacing of TODs along Trunk Line. Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Urban Villages shall be located a minimum of one mile apart, between major transit stations, along Keohokalole Highway trunk route in order to preserve the transit efficiency of this route. KONA CDP Action TRAN-1.3a: General locations of TODs have been determined by the Official Kona Land Use Map. (See Policy LU -2.3 and Figure 4-7) (Enacted by Plan). 4-7 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy TRAN-1.4: Secondary Transit Route. A secondary transit route shall connect Kailua Village with Keauhou and also serve the areas mauka of Queen Ka'ahumanu and Kuakini Highways (See Figure 4-2a). As a secondary transit route, transit will share the vehicular travel lane, and its headways will be equal or less than the trunk route. Any new developments along these routes shall pay their proportionate share for the frontage road costs and provide transit stops or stations. Action TRAN-1.4a: Establish bus routes on existing streets along the designated Secondary Transit Route (MT, on-going) Action TRAN-1.4b: Establish bus routes on proposed streets as they are built along the designated Secondary Transit Route (MT, on-going). Action TRAN-1.4c: Provide bus maintenance facility in the Kona UA to support the expanded bus service (See Figure 4-1 Cc) (MT, 5-10) Policy TRAN-1.5: Frontage Road. A frontage road makai of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, or, if permitted by DOT, within the 300 -foot wide Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway right- of-way between the airport and Honokohau Harbor shall serve as a secondary transit route. It will enable the consolidation of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway vehicular access points for the developments makai of Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway. Action TRAN-1.5a: Design and construct Frontage Road. 1) Phase I — Airport to Huliko'a Drive a) Coordinate design and intersections with the DOT's Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway widening (PD, DOT, 1-2) b) Coordinate financing with public and private owners (PD, Fin., 1-2) c) Obtain permit approvals (PD, 2-3) 2) Phase II — National Park Service (NPS) Section a) Determine alignment within 300 foot right-of-way or NPS property (PD, NPS, 3.5) 3) Connect to Kuakini Highway extension a) Coordinate financing and construction with DLNRIDHHL and QLT (PD, DPW, DLNRIDHHL, QLT, 3-5) Policy TRAN-1.6: Kailua or Makaeo Village as a Transit Hub. The redevelopment of Kailua shall include a plan to create an intra -Kona transportation service, with Kailua Village or Makaeo Village as the "hub" or transit center. Buses would operate from Captain Cook to the Kailua or Makaeo Village hub. At the hub, buses would intersect with other routes operating from Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), the frontage road, and other Kona destinations. Transfers for continued travel would be made at this location. Action TRAN-1.6a: Determine the location, design, and function of the major transit hub (MT, PD, 1-2). 4-8 KONA CDP Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2a Official Transportation Network Map - Proposed Roads and Transit •-.Y.p ti� �, V r t t S A I� `IVF)�, \ r t t S A \ �5 '+l ,t = Legend Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP)* — __ r - - - -_� _ - d�` '� "� TYPE �' e o Lane Path `'' _`.�•- ' r� � x � _ -- - -- , - - - Path -s Ped-sw Ped -trail IT f- �� Shared ® Shoulder I y TOD Type Neighborhood Regional center ED -Kona -Urban Area - - - - -- - -- - - - — - - --- - - - ® Rural Town TODs Kealakekua Existing Roadway * Policy Layer 0 1 2 4 ; Miles 1 Inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. t - A \ �5 '+l ,t = l+ r :. I - L ai75'a V, age Be eve pmerl zr ` I Al t Legend Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP)* — __ r - - - -_� _ - d�` '� "� TYPE �' e o Lane Path `'' _`.�•- ' r� � x � _ -- - -- , - - - Path -s Ped-sw Ped -trail IT f- �� Shared ® Shoulder I y TOD Type Neighborhood Regional center ED -Kona -Urban Area - - - - -- - -- - - - — - - --- - - - ® Rural Town TODs Kealakekua Existing Roadway * Policy Layer 0 1 2 4 ; Miles 1 Inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. - A \ ,t = :. I - L ai75'a V, age Be eve pmerl zr Kailua �•i0• �'. up Q Al t Kahal ♦ e, t i� Keauhou Legend Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP)* — __ r - - - -_� _ - d�` '� "� TYPE �' e o Lane Path `'' _`.�•- ' r� � x � _ -- - -- , - - - Path -s Ped-sw Ped -trail IT f- �� Shared ® Shoulder I y TOD Type Neighborhood Regional center ED -Kona -Urban Area - - - - -- - -- - - - — - - --- - - - ® Rural Town TODs Kealakekua Existing Roadway * Policy Layer 0 1 2 4 ; Miles 1 Inch equals 2 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2b Official Transportation Network Map - Pedestrian and Bike Paths - ,t = Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2b Official Transportation Network Map - Pedestrian and Bike Paths I 7 <',Kahaluu,,Makai"Village CD Legend Proposed Roads, Classification* Proposed Transit Line" -CDP, Local 001 Trunk CDP, collector, major Secondary CDP, collector, minor KOLE IPA ■ GP, arterial Transit Stations* GP, collector, major 0 Transit Hub* GP, collector, minor TOD Type Pedestrian -Bike Paths (CDP)* TYPE Neighborhood Regional Center Lane ®Rural Town TODs 21 Path C3 Kona Urban Area ' - m Path -s — Existing Roadway Ped-sw Ped -trail CO Shared Shoulder Policy Layer 0 900 1,800 3,600 Feet 1 inch equals 2,000 feet Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-2c Official Transportation Network Map -Kahaluu Area 0 Kona Community Development Plan ' Figure 4-2d ' Official Transportation Network Map -Nana Kailua Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION Action TRAN-1.6b: Determine funding and construction schedule (MT, PD, 2.3). Action TRAN-1.6c: Identify Kailua urban transit routes, including phasing and transfer points (MT, 2.3). Policy TRAN-1.7: Transit Route to Rural Town Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs). The existing rural towns between Honalo and Captain Cook are encouraged to be redeveloped as TODs with Mamalahoa Highway (Highway 190) functioning as a secondary transit route connecting these villages to Kailua or Makaeo Village. Action TRAN-1.7a: Establish a route to Kailua or Makaeo Village with enhanced frequency and in coordination with rural paratransit service (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN-1.7b: Master plan transit stations in coordination with Rural Town redevelopment (MT, PD, 3.5). Also refer to Policy LU -3.1 and Figure 4.3b. Objective TRAN-2 Street Network Connectivity. To develop a system of interconnected roads in Kona that will provide alternative transportation routes that will disperse automobile trips and reduce their length, while not compromising the through functions of arterials and major collectors with excessive intersections. A highly connected transportation system within Kona's Urban Area (UA) serves to do the following: (a) provides safe choices for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians; (b) promotes walking and bicycling; (c) connects neighborhoods to each other and to popular destinations, such as schools, parks, shopping, libraries, and post offices, among others; (d) provides opportunities for residents to increase their level of physical activity each day by creating walkable neighborhoods with adequate connections to destinations; (e) reduces vehicle miles traveled and travel time, thus improving air quality and mitigating the effects of auto emissions on the health of residents and the environment; (f) reduces emergency response times; (g) increases effectiveness of municipal service delivery; (h) restores arterial street capacity to better serve regional long-distance travel needs; and (i) provides increased emergency evacuation opportunities. New development that is not well-connected with existing neighborhoods contributes more cars and creates greater traffic congestion on collector roads. When new development is integrated into existing street patterns, providing additional choices for movement in and out of the neighborhood, new developments can actually increase connectivity within the region. KONA CDP 4-i5 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy TRAN-2.1: Connectivity Standards. Connectivity refers to the directness of links and the density of connections that make up the transportation network. Within the Kona Urban Area (UA) new development shall contribute to this interconnected transportation network of streets, pedestrian, and bicycle access that work to disperse traffic and connect and integrate new development with the existing fabric of the community. Proposals for new development or redevelopment within Kona's UA shall meet the following connectivity standards: Maximum Block Size. In lieu of Hawaii County Code (HCC) Section 23-29(c), the maximum length of blocks for predominantly residential subdivisions shall be 800 feet, unless unfeasible due to natural topography, protected resources, or surrounding development patterns. 2. Connection to Adjoining Development. The road system for new development shall contribute to the local transportation network. To supplement HCC Section 23-40, at a minimum, new subdivisions shall incorporate and continue all collector streets, and selected local streets to adjoining property. If a portion of the stub -out is not improved, the current developer shall improve the stub -out portion. Connection to adjoining properties may not be required if seriously constrained by topography or other physical hindrances, or in cases where through travel cannot occur because the property is bounded by development with private streets previously allowed. 3. Gated Entry. In the Kona UA, gates will be prohibited across new roadways identified to service the local transportation network. 4. Cul-de-sacs Discouraged. Cul-de- sacs are discouraged based on Policy TRAN-2.1 (1) Maximum Block Size and Policy TRAN-2.1 (2) Connection to Adjoining Property unless construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. Where cul- de-sacs or dead-end streets are allowed, they shall meet the prevailing standards in the Chapter 23 Subdivision Code. 5. Future Extensions. Roads serving future transportation interconnectivity will be identified for any proposed subdivision located adjacent to a vacant parcel. To supplement HCC Section 23-44, where necessary to give access to or permit a satisfactory future subdivision of adjoining land, or to conform with the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d), a street stub -out or pedestrian path improved to the boundary is required unless financially guaranteed to enable the County to coordinate the stub -out construction as a regional project or in coordination with the development of the adjoining property. Applicants submitting preliminary development plans shall provide for extension of selected local streets to adjoining undeveloped properties and eventual connection with 4-16 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POL/C/ES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION the existing street system. Within phased subdivisions, temporary stub -outs shall be required. 6. Connectivity. In the Kona UA, all new roads that will serve as part of the interconnecting roadway system shall be dedicated to the County. Action TRAN-2.1a: Amends Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to incorporate connectivity standards (Enacted by Plan). ' Policy TRAM -2.2: Access Management. To preserve the through functions of arterials and major collectors, driveway access along new arterials and major collectors shall be minimized to the greatest extent consistent with the need to provide access to adjoining property. Access ' to such adjoining properties shall be planned to occur from local streets, and not from the arterial or collector road, whenever possible. On existing arterials and major collectors, the number of access driveways currently permitted shall not be increased, and when ' development is proposed that would increase the usage of an existing driveway access, every effort should be made to eliminate the driveway access in favor of access at an existing or planned intersection. Four-way intersections with arterials and major collectors shall be ' permitted only as shown on the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d), in order to preserve the through functions of arterials and major collectors. ' Action TRAN-2.2a: Update the Official Transportation Network Maps with intersection locations as they are determined through preliminary engineering reports or other plans and/or studies (Figures 4-2a and 4.2b) (PD, on-going). ' Objective TRAM -3. Multi -Modal System. To develop a multi -modal transportation system to 1 Y P P Y ' encourage walking, biking, transit, and other non -vehicular modes of travel. A multi -modal system needs to be attractive, safe, comfortable, convenient, accessible, environmentally friendly, and affordable. Such a system would reduce congestion, improve air quality, reduce fuel consumption, and increase healthy activity. Not only would the system enhance the mobility of the elderly and youth, who do not drive, it would also make it possible for residents to divert automobile ownership expenses to other daily needs, such as a homeownership mortgage or insurance. The network could connect ' pathways within and outside of street rights-of-way. The system should provide convenient transfers between modes of transportation. ' Policy TRAM -3.1: Street Standards. County street standards should be pedestrian -friendly, safely accommodate bicycles, accessible to the disabled, and appropriate for its surrounding land use context. Action TRAN-3.1a: Complete on-going effort to revise County of Hawaii Street Standards (PID, 1-2). KONA CDP 4-17 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Policy TRAN-3.2: Public Right -of -Way Maintenance. Recognizing that the County is not currently staffed or equipped to maintain landscaping within street rights -of -ways, a combination of new and existing tools, both public and private, shall be developed to implement a landscaping maintenance program. Action TRAN-3.2a: Determine staffing and equipment requirements for landscaping maintenance program (DPW, PD, 1-2). Action TRAN-3.2b: Identify financing tools for maintenance programs through public financing plan (DPW, PD, Fin., 2.3). Action TRAN-3.2c: Implement financing plan for maintenance programs (DPW, PD, Fin., 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.3: Right -of -Way Landscaping. Recognizing that the availability of water should dictate the nature of landscaping within public rights-of-way, lusher landscaping shall be provided on streets where reclaimed wastewater will be available for irrigation as noted on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map (see Figure 4-10c), and xeriscape landscaping shall be the preference where reclaimed wastewater is not available. Action TRAN-3.3a: Designates the reclaimed wastewater zone on Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map (Enacted by plan). Action TRAN-3.3b: Establish list of recommended vegetation, in consultation with the Kona Outdoor Circle, as an amendment to the County of Hawaii Street Standards (PD, DPW, 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.4: Retrofit of Existing Streets. To the extent practicable, pedestrian improvements and/or bicycle accommodations shall be added to existing public streets when repaving or doing other repair or maintenance work, especially on those streets identified for such multi -modal purposes in the Official Transportation Network Map (See Figure 4-2b). Action TRAN-3.4a: Identify high priority retrofits and coordinate with DPW (PD, DPW, 2.3). 4-18 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION Action TRAN-3.4b: Obtain DPW's repaving and repair project schedule and coordinate retrofits in conjunction with those projects (DPW, PD, 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.5: Safe Routes to Schools. Every public elementary school in Kona shall have a Safe Routes to School program. Action TRAN-3.5a: Identify high priority routes in coordination with DOE, DOT and DPW (DPW, DOE, DOT, PATH, 3-5). ' Policy TRAN-3.6: Multi -Modal Network. The Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d) shall designate a system of pedestrian and bicycle paths to use as a guide for street design, public improvements, and subdivision improvements. Recognizing that the ' appropriate type of facility may evolve, the Implementation Committee (See Chapter 5) shall have the authority to change the designated type and maintain such changes on a database. I Action TRAN-3.6a: Designate multi -modal paths (pedestrian and bicycle) (on- going). ' Policy TRAN-3.7: Traffic Calming Standards. In order to slow traffic for pedestrian safety or comfort, standards for traffic calming shall be included, as part of the County of Hawai'i Street Standards. Action TRAN-3.7a: Develop criteria for selecting and determining appropriate traffic calming tools as part of the on-going revision of the Street Standards (DPW, PD, 2-3). Policy TRAN-3.8: Inter -Modal Connections. To facilitate the transfer between modes of ' travel: 1. Automobile/Transit and Bike/Transit Transfer. Park and ride facilities are desirable ' and must be built to ameliorate the traffic congestion in Kona. A transit station or transit hub will be located within each of the TODs, as shown in the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d). Park and ride facilities will be ' provided in the vicinity of the transit station and transit hub. Park and ride facilities shall include storage for bicycles. t2. Ground/Air Transfer. The transit and bicycle network shown on the Official Transportation Network Map (Figures 4-2a to 4-2d) shall provide connections from major residential areas to the airport. The Kona International Airport's Master Plan should include accommodations for transit and bicycles. ' 3 Bike/Transit Transfer and Beach Accommodation. To the extent feasible, public transit should have the ability to carry bicycles and surfboards. KoNA CDP E CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, TRANSPORTATION POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Action TRAN-3.8a: Master plan, design, and construct park and ride facilities (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN-3.8b: Coordinate inter -modal connection with Kona International Airport Master Plan (MT, PD, DOT, on-going). Action TRAN-3.8c: Investigate beach service options (MT, 1-2). Objective TRAN-4 Non -Structural Solutions to Manage Congestion. To manage peak -hour traffic using a diversity of non-structural approaches in order to reduce congestion on Kona roads, while acknowledging that building new roads is only one of many needed solutions. Policy TRAN4.1: Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Solutions. The County government will educate its community on the value of, a rideshare program and provide incentives towards its use; the County will encourage flexible hours among its staff and workers and educate by example; or the County will encourage the community to reach and adopt innovative solutions to transportation demand. The community will recognize all employers in Kona who do their part to either, participate in the County's Rideshare Program, subsidize transit costs for their employees, provide flexible work hours or work -at-home options, or use other innovative programs to reduce reliance on the automobile for work-related trips. Action TRAN4.1a: Implement Rideshare program for County employees (MT, Mayor's, 2-3). Action TRAN4.1b: Identify major employers to initiate TDM programs (MT, 2.3). Policy TRAN-4.2: Commuter Transit Service. Express bus commuter routes and schedules should be provided to major employment centers. Action TRAN4.2a: Evaluate work shifts of major employers in relation to existing bus schedules and routes (MT, 1-2). Action TRAN4.2b: Request major employers to contribute toward subsidizing ■ commuter transit service (Businesses, 1-2). Policy TRAN4.3: Managed Parking. New construction in Transit -Oriented Developments ■ (TODs) shall provide parking in accordance with the Village Design Guidelines in Attachment B, which were designed to limit parking as a means of discouraging automobile trips to TODs. ■ The public improvements program, as part of the TOD Master Plan, centralized public parking facilities shall be included Public parking fees should be set low enough to be affordable yet high enough to discourage automobile use. ■ 4-20 KONA CDP I CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POL/C/ES & ACT/ONS TRANSPORTATION Action TRAN-4.3a: Identify centralized public parking as part of the TOD Village Master Plans (PD, developers, on-going). Action TRAN4.3b: Identify centralized public parking as part of the Kailua Redevelopment Plan (PD, KBID, on-going). ' Action TRAN4.3c: Investigate appropriate parking fees (PD, KVBID,1-2). Objective TRAN-5 Rural Transit. To provide a paratranslt system for Kona - with emphasis on ' mauka areas and South Kona recognizing that a rural population cannot support an urban transit system. ' Policy TRAN-5.1: Paratransit. An affordable public paratransit system shall serve the general public of South Kona (i.e., it should not be restricted by age or disabilities). Action TRAN-5.1a: Establish fares for seniors, disabled, students, and general public. (MT, 1-2) Action TRAN-5.1b: Commence shuttle service using mini -vans and small buses (i.e. Handi-Van) (MT, 1-2). I Action TRAN-5.1c: Modify shared ride taxi program to use coupons for the first nine (9) miles and to allow starting the meter after nine (9) miles (MT, 1-2). ' Objective TRAN-6 Concurrency. To manage the timing of growth so as to avoid overloading the arterial system. 1 0 I1 Policy TRAN-6.1: Official Concurrency Map. The Kona UA shall be designated as a "critical road area", as defined in HCC 25-2-46. Rezonings within the Kona UA shall comply with the Official Concurrency Map (See Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3), which identifies the road segments to be constructed concurrent with occupancy of units as the minimum "area mitigation", as defined in HCC 25-2-46(Zoning Code). The Official Concurrency Map assumes: K °Cntical road area" means a geographical area where any of the transportation facilities serving the area have been determined by the Council to be worse than the acceptable level of service "Area mitigation" consists of improvements which increase the capacity of an arterial or other major road, such as additional lanes, in the general region containing the project, or construction of a new arterial or collector road in the general area containing the project, or improvements to public transportation such as buses or park and ride facilities, sufficient to offset the traffic demand generated by the project The widening of Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway to four lanes from the Kona International Airport to Henry Street, and Completion of the Mamalahoa Bypass Road to the Napo`opo`o junction HCC 25-246 Zoning Code KONA CDP 4-21 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Any rezoning outside of a designated TOD within the Kona UA approved prior to completion of the Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway widening to the Airport shall restrict occupancy until this widening project is completed. Any rezoning in South Kona approved prior to the completion of the Mamalahoa Bypass Road shall restrict occupancy until this bypass project is completed. This policy does not apply to projects exempt under concurrency provisions in HCC Section 25-2-46 (e.g. affordable housing). The Concurrency Map shall distinguish the current planning status of the corridor alignment. Table 4-1 shows the roadway corridors that shall be built concurrently within the concurrency zone and/or TOD Village. Other roadway corridors shown on the Concurrency Map, but not listed in Table 4-1 are part of the proposed roadway network, but are not critical to concurrency determinations. Action TRAN-6.1a: Adopts Concurrency Map (Enacted by plan). Policy TRAN-6.2: Prioritized Road Improvements. In order to rectify existing deficiencies and influence the pattern of future growth and new roads, the following are priorities: ■ Kahului-Keauhou Parkway ■ Mamalahoa Bypass ■ Keanalehu Street-Manuwale'a Street ■ Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), Phase I Palani to Kealakehe Parkway ■ Kamanu Street Extension ■ La'aloa Street Extension a• ■ Lako Street Extension ■ Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), Phase II, Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street ■ Nani Kailua Street Extension a. Makai section (Kuakini Highway to Ali'i Drive) b. Mauka section (Hualalai Road to Kuakini Highway) ■ Kealaka'a Street Extension ■ Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road), Phase III, Hina Lani Street to Ka'iminani Drive ■ Hienaloli Street Extension ■ University Drive Action T— 6.2a: Develop financing plan for streets according to the priorities listed in Policy TRAN-6.2 (PD, DPW, Fin., 1-2). 4-22 KONA CDP 11 n n CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES & ACTIONS TRANSPORTATION Table 4-1 Concurrency Table Concurrency Zone Roadway and ID No. 4A — Queen Ka`ahumanu Frontage Road and provide - adequate A access to Queen Ka`ahumanu Frontage Road. (Keahole Road to Huliko`a Drive) 1 — University Drive Extension (Mamalahoa Highway to Keohokalole Highway, aka Mid -Level Road) 2 - University Drive (Ma`alea Drive to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway) B 3A - Main Street (Ka`iminani Drive to University Drive) 6A - Keohokalole Highway, (University Drive to Ka`iminani Drive) 7 - Kealaka`a Street (Kukuna Street to north end) and/or provide adequate interconnectivity to surrounding area University Village 2 - University Drive (Ma`alea Drive to Queen Ka`ahumanu Highway) 3A - Main Street (Ka iminarn Drive to University Drive) Kalaoa Village None (infill) Connection between Kaiminani Drive and Hina Lani Street. 36 or 513/5A or 5B/6B C 36 — Main Street (Ka`iminani Drive to Hina Lani Street) 5A — Keohokalole Arteriall 513 — Keohokalole Highway (Keohokalole Arterial to Hina Lani Street) 613— Keohokalole Highway (Kapuahi Street to Keohokalole Arterial) D 9A — Kealaka`a Street (Extend Holoholo Street to Hina Lani Street) 56 — Keohokalole Highway (Keohokalole Arterial to Hina Lani Street) (portion Kaloko Makai Village within development project) 5C — Keohokalole Highway (Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway) 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) E None F 3C - Kamanu Street Extension (to Kealakehe Parkway) Honkohau Village 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) continued on next page 1 KONA CDP 4-23 TRANSPORTATION CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Table 4-1(continued) Concurrency Table Concurrency tone Roadway ID No, and Name 5B — Keohokalole Highway (Keohokalole Arterial to Hina Lani Street) G (portion within development project) 5C — Keohokalole Highway (Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway) 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) Keahuolu Village 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) 18 — Makala Blvd. Extension (any development makai of 5D) H 9B — Kealaka'a Street (Hina Lani Street to Kealakehe Parkway) 9C — Kealaka'a Street (Kealakehe Parkway to Hao Kuni Street) 1 413— Kuakini Extension Collector (Kealakehe Parkway to Old Airport) Makaeo Village 46— Kuakini Extension Collector (Kealakehe Parkway to Old Airport) Kailua Village None (infill) Redevelopment Pua'a-Wa'iaha Village 19C — Kakalina Street Extension (Nani Kailua Drive to Puapua'anui Street) Kahului- Puapua'a Village 29 — Puapua'anui Street Extension J 5D- Keohokalole Highway (Kealakehe Parkway to Palani Street) 19A-Kakalina Street Extension (to Puapua'anui Street)) 1913-Kakalina Street Extension(E. Kakalina Street to 19A) (any development K south of Malulani Drive) 20 — Hienaloli Street Extension (Palani Street to Keolani Drive) 21 -Connector 4 (Hienaloli Street Ext. to Kakalina St. Ext.) L 30A — Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Lako Street to Kuakini Highway) 31— Lako Street Extension 30B — Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Lako Street to Kamehameha III Road) M 31— Lako Street Extension 32 — La'aloa Street Extension 30B — Kahului-Keauhou Parkway (Lako Street to Kamehameha III Road) Kahalu'u Makai Village 33 — Connector 9 34 — Connector 10 4-24 KONA CDP Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-3 Official Concurrency Map CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE The Land Use section of the Kona CDP serves as ' policy guide for County decisions regarding physical development It establishes a physical framework for future growth by identifying the County's major ' policies concerning the type and location of future development in order to meet the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP. 4.2.1 Existing Conditions The County of Hawai'i General Plan Land Use ' Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) controls long-term land use pattern in this County Figure 4-4 shows the LUPAG designations for the Kona area. Figure ' 4-5 simplifies the LUPAG map to show the areas designated for urban development (High Density Urban, Medium Density Urban, Low Density Urban, ' Industrial, Resort Node, Resort, and University), urban expansion, rural, and open areas (Important Agricultural, Extensive Agricultural, Orchards, tConservation, and Open) Guiding Principles Land Use 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ The zoning designation is a more detailed control of land use. The zoning and LUPAG should be consistent. For example, for the LUPAG High Density Urban designation, consistent zoning designations include commercial (CG -commercial general, CV -commercial village), multi -family ' residential (RM), or mixed-use (RCX). Figure 4-6 shows the areas zoned for urban development. The areas on the LUPAG that are designated for urban development or urban expansion (as shown in Figure 4-6), but not currently zoned for urban development, are potential areas for rezoning ' Comparing the LUPAG and zoning maps, the amount of potential land available for rezoning far exceeds the amount of land needed to accommodate future growth projections This excess could ' encourage a low-density sprawling growth pattern. In fact, this has been the past trend. Kona experienced a significant increase in land development from the mid -1990's to the present. The rate of land consumption exceeded the rate of housing production. In the period between 1995 and 2005, the ' amount of developed land increased by 3,582 acres s at a rate of over 350 acres annually. Developed ' 8 Developed Land Environmental Simulation Center, (2006) Based on ParcellTMK maps from the County of Hawaii (2005) Additional data provided by the County of Hawaii tax assessors office Includes all parcels where the primary use is either ' "Residential", "Apartment", "Commercial", "Industrial", and "Hotel and Resort" (PITT codes of 100 — 400 and 700) "Conservation" areas (PITT code 600) are excluded unless they have secondary land use with another PITT code, in which case the secondary land use is used. "Agricultural and Rural" areas and "Unimproved Residential" (PITT code 500 and 800) are considered undeveloped, EXCEPT if the lot size is less than 5 acres AND the improvement values on the property exceed $30,000 per acre KONA CDP 4-27 Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-4 Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) LEGEND 0 Open- Conservation 0 Open- Open Area Open- Important Ag Lands Open- Extensive Agriculture Open- Orchards Rural Urban- High Density Urban Urban- Medium Density Urban Urban- Low Density Urban Urban- Industrial Urban- Resort Node 0 Urban- Resort 0 Urban- University Use Urban Expansion Kona CDP Planning Area 0 2 4 8 Miles 1 inch equals 6 miles Source County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program I d 9n �ir r/ iae/;. _ 1 _rte .. •�1 Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-5 Generalized LUPAG Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-6 Generalized Zoning �e r ^ � ��� r e '• +� s k4 �J yak � ��"'k b-r+vrt*Aay�y,� + N LEGEND 0 (road) © FA -1a © RM -15 © A -10a Q FA -2a © RM -2- . QA -la FA -3a RM -2 5 re 1 a� •.,�-h ry -� '' a> © A -200a Q FA -5a 0 RM -20 ^ Q A -20a © FR RM -3 j �. e _• 'a- �� © A -255a © MCX-1 a Q RM -3 5 ® A -2a Q MCX-10 Q RM -4 ® A -35a Q MCX-20 Q RM -5 © A -3a © MG -10a © RM -5 5 A -40a © MG -1a Q RM -6 ® A -500a Q MG -20 © RM -7 © A -5a © MG -3a Q RM -8 ^ Q A -600a Q MG -5a ® RS -10 "� Q A -7a Q ML -10 Q RS -15 s, © A -8000a 0 ML -1a © RS -20"° �. • . '� ' r Q -0a Q-20 Q-5aA Q A -aa Q ML -3a Q RS -75 Q A -900a NP Q V- 75 Q APD © OPEN Q V-1 �' Q CDH ©PD "Qn V-1 0 t� '� ° - ' u . • =' °'-. r , © CG -10 ©RA- 5a -125 Q CG -20 © RA -1a Q V-1 5- Q CG -7 5 Q RA -2a Q V-1 75 Q CN -10 ® RCX-10 © V-2"""' Q CN -20 Q RCX-2 © V-2 0 Q CN -40 © RD -375 Q V-225 Q CN -7 5 © RM- 75 © V-25- ® CV -10 ® RM -1 ® V -2a - Q CV -15 Q RM -1 25 Q V-4 ^ y Q CV -1a Q RM -1 5 Q V-6 0 "" • „ ` ' " , © CV -20 RM -10 0 V-7 ©Kona CDP Planning Area CV -7 5 RM -14 5 O ♦ x�k���Apy ,; _- �' �f4 ` naw •mss 0 2 4 8 Miles 1 inch equals 6 miles +° Source County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program a Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-6 Generalized Zoning ■ CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ■ POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE ■ land increased at a rate of 9% annually, while population increased at a rate of 2.4% annually, and housing units increased at a rate of 5.5% annually. Land in Kona is being developed at a rate that is nearly 4 times population growth and almost 2 times housing unit growth. ■ These land use trends are helping to define Kona's land use policies and strategies: ■ Competing Values for Coastal Land. As a limited and valuable resource in Kona, policies need to balance competing opportunities for environmental protection, economic development, and public open space. ■ Affordable Housing. The quality of the neighborhoods, and housing stock within them, are key indicators of a high quality of life. The insufficient and aging housing stock, and increasing ■ demands for alternative housing types, will continue to be important trends influencing policies. ■ Mixed -Use Developments. There is a growing demand for development that is mixed-use, ■ well-designed, walkable, and higher density. These developments are an important opportunity for redevelopment, infill, and new developments in strategic areas. ■ ■ Public -Private Partnership. The lack of public infrastructure, coupled with the desire to maintain healthy neighborhoods and business areas, support the need for the County to work with the private sector in the land development process. Growth and change in Kona will be ■ the result of public and private partnerships. ■ Emphasis on Redevelopment. To preserve open space, existing developments are ■ expected to be infilled and redeveloped. ■ Emphasis on Rural Character and Agriculture. There is a long-standing need to protect the ■ rural lifestyle of Kona, which includes mauka Villages and surrounding agricultural lands and open space. Related trends can also be found in the Section 4.5 Housing. 4.2.2 Overall Strategy The current application of State and County land use regulations is not necessarily an integrated approach. The preference to encourage future urban and rural growth to occur in the form of compact, village -style development was a very strong message from the public meetings. The Kona CDP provides an integration mechanism as a means to avoid the current trend toward sprawling lot -density developments, disconnected subdivisions and business centers, and a general decline in the quality of life that people believe reflects the "Kona Way of Life." The overall land use strategy is to proactively implement public policy through a regional framework for growth. While respecting landowner entitlements, this framework provides additional direction so that individual planning decisions are made as part of a larger, integrated program for achieving an efficient growth pattern, optimizing investment in services and infrastructure, protecting the natural environment and cultural resources, and creating opportunities to enhance the quality of life for Kona's residents. KONA CDP 4-31 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Such a framework provides greater certainty and predictability for the community, government, and private sector, allowing all three to participate in, a synchronized move towards a mutually planned future. The legally binding policies in this section, as defined in 4.0 Goals, Objectives, Policies and Actions, do not override or invalidate existing zoning. Such legally binding policies, however, shall be implemented with new changes of zone, time extensions on existing zoning requiring County Council action, state land use boundary amendments, and Special Management Area (SMA) permits, when applicable. Where such policies modify subdivision standards and requirements, they would only apply to subdivision applications received after the effective date of the ordinance enacting the Kona CDP. Variances to policies modifying subdivision standards and requirements may be applied for in accordance with the standards and procedures set forth in the Subdivision Code. Establishment of priorities for the investment of public resources for new infrastructure and services will be linked to the regional land use framework. The regional land use framework, restated from the Guiding Principles (Section 3.2) is as follows: Urban Area. Most of the future growth in Kona will be directed to an Urban Area (UA) defined in the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7). Within this Kona Urban Area, growth would be directed to compact villages located along proposed transit routes or to infill areas within, or adjacent to, existing development. The general locations of these villages are within the Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) identified during the public meetings that evolved into the Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs). Rural Area. Outside of the Kona Urban Area, the character of the rural areas should prevail. This means that limited future growth should be directed to the existing rural towns and villages in a way that revitalizes and enhances the existing rural lifestyle and culture of those communities. Outside of these towns and villages, the protection of important Vin" � , 1r� 1'- J�`J a ' V- YUYInu ^ Y � �t agricultural land is a priority objective. Protecting Map identifying the Growth Opport pity Areas these lands requires regulations and incentives that (GOAs) will keep these lands available for agricultural use. Any development outside of the rural towns and villages should be directed to suitable areas that are not important for agriculture, in clustered patterns that will optimize the preservation of rural open space. ■ Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) Map. Within and outside the Kona Urban Area, the LUPAG map designates areas for resort, high density urban, medium density urban, 4-32 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE low density urban, industrial, and university areas. The plan supports these existing designations Any amendments to the LUPAG map not consistent with the Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map would be contrary to the land use framework envisioned by this plan. ' Green Areas. The areas where growth should not occur also determines the framework and pattern of growth. These areas are identified and discussed in Section 4 3 Environmental ' Resources. The following "tools" are used to conform growth to the land use framework: 1. To encourage growth towards the Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs): a) Design Flexibility. To collaboratively learn and apply the best available practices, a Design Center (See Policy LU -4.1) will provide an inviting venue to brainstorm ideas among applicants, government officials, and community members. The Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B) provide the minimum standards for TODs/TNDs, but do not ' rigidly constrain creativity. b) Streamlined Permit Processing. ' ■ Flexible approval. The Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) approximately locates the TODs, but it does not change the existing zoning until a rezoning with an approved master plan for the TOD defines the metes and bounds of this TOD. In other words, the TODs are "floating" zones that subsequently need to be anchored by rezoning to a specific area. However, as long as the proposed rezoning conforms with the Kona CDP in terms of general location and concept, the legislative 1 rezoning approval should be expedited. Subsequent refinements in the master plan can then be done by administrative approval. ■ Concurrent environmental review. An Environmental Assessment (EA) or Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), usually triggered by use of public lands or public funds, will accompany the master plan and will be reviewed at the same time. By doing the environmental review at the master plan level, subsequent projects ' within the TOD will be relieved of this requirement ■ Concurrent State Land Use Boundary Amendment. In cases where a State Land Use Boundary Amendment is necessary, the County will assist with the petition and processing. ■ Permit coordination. For those applicants who use the services of the Design ' Center, a County employee will be assigned to assist in identifying the various permit requirements, suggest a work plan to coordinate the permit requirements, and follow through with various agencies to avoid delays. ' c) Increased Range of Permitted Uses and Densities. As an incentive, the TODs substantially increase the permitted uses and densities over the existing zoning. In ' partial return for this additional density, the master plan will need to incorporate a minimum level of affordable housing (discussed further in the Section 4.5 Housing), provide a variety of open spaces within the TOD, and preserve open space around the TOD, in perpetuity. KONA CDP 4-33 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS d) Prioritized Essential Infrastructure. Government capital improvements programs will give priority to servicing the TODs, particularly with regard to roads, water, and sewer (discussed further in Section 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services). Where regional drainage systems are appropriate, the County will coordinate such improvements. e) Public Financing of Infrastructure. In recognition of the regional benefits of major roads and transit stations, these types of improvements within TODs shall be funded with general revenue funding sources. f) Concurrency Requirements. The TOD Village Master Plan will control the provision of infrastructure relative to build out. Therefore, the countywide concurrency requirements will be met for projects within TODs. g) Vested Rights. A TOD Village Master Plan, based on the Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B), will be built out over a number of years. Investors require certainty; in return, the community and government expect performance on promises. The reciprocal commitments set forth in the master plan would be secured by a development agreement that will include a Phasing Plan. The agreement will specify the developers commitment to provide certain public facilities. In return, government will provide a commitment to complete certain public infrastructure by a certain date. h) Redevelopment Authority. In order to spur the redevelopment of Kailua Village as a TOD, redevelopment can be stimulated and coordinated by either an expanded business improvement district or the establishment of a redevelopment authority. 2. To encourage village -style development outside of TODs within the Urban Area: a) Already Zoned. For undeveloped areas already zoned residential, commercial, or industrial, the intent is to encourage a more creative mix of uses and density, by clustering to create open spaces and pedestrian -oriented streetscapes. The Kona CDP creates an overlay zone for these areas to allow an administrative review of a master plan consistent with Village Design Guidelines. b) Need Rezoning. For areas zoned agricultural within the Kona Urban Area (UA), a new type of Project District (as defined in the Chapter 25 Zoning Code) is created called the Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND). Although rezoning through a legislative process is required, the advantages would be similar to a TOD: design flexibility, concurrent environmental reviews and State Land Use Boundary Amendments, Design Center services, increased range of permitted uses and density, concurrency waivers, development agreement options to negotiate public improvements commitments and other terms. 4-34 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE 3. To encourage rural clustered subdivisions: a) Streamlined Processing. By following the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (Attachment C), many issues are pre -settled and therefore a shorter definite permit processing time period is justified. The master plan approval also serves as the tentative subdivision approval. By using the Design Center, the applicant also receives the benefit of a county employee assigned to assist with permit coordination. b) Alternative Standards. The Clustered Rural Subdivision guidelines provide options for alternate road and wastewater standards. 4.2.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Land Use Goal. Public policies set the foundation and framework within which the community and private sector work collaboratively towards a shared vision of concentrating growth within urban villages in North Kona, preserving rural character and agricultural lands, protecting significant natural and cultural resources, providing a range of housing opportunities, and a process to constructively, efficiently, and fairly achieve these ends with the best practices and ' Objective LU -1: Overall Growth Pattern. To identify areas where higher intensity growth areas should occur and areas where the rural character and open space along the shoreline should be ' preserved. Policy LU -1.1: Official Kona Land Use Map. The Official Kona Land Use Map shall define ' the Kona Urban Area (see Policy LU -1.2) and the general locations, spacing, and type of TOD Villages (see Policies TRAN-1.3 and LU -2.3). Action LU -1.1a: Adopts Official Kona Land Use Map (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -1.2: Urban Area. The majority of future growth in Kona shall be directed to the Kona Urban Area shown on the Official Kona Land Use Map (See Figure 4-7), which spans from the Kona International Airport to Keauhou subject to the policies set forth under Objective LU -2 Urban Area Growth Management. Action LU -1.2a: Defines Kona Urban Area (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -1.3: Rural Area. The rural area consists of the lands outside of the Kona Urban Area. Future growth in this area shall be concentrated within and around the existing LUPAG medium and low density areas, which correspond to the existing rural towns. Action LU -1.3a: County shall work with State to identify lands that may be appropriate to reclassify from Agriculture to Rural, consistent with Kona CDP Policies (PD, on-going). KONA CDP 4-35 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-36 KONA CDP Keahole LEGEND ® Kona Urban Area* ® Rural Town TOW Proposed Transit Line Trunk Secondary TOD Type* = Neighborhood --Regional_Center Existing Roadway * Policy Layer 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 1 inch equals 1 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. I 4 c I, University Village kalaoa',Vi1la`g$7j� Honokohau Village tnx + d� r * S.'..\ Kaawaloa Keahuolu.Vdlage LEGEND ® Kona Urban Area* ® Rural Town TOW Proposed Transit Line Trunk Secondary TOD Type* = Neighborhood --Regional_Center Existing Roadway * Policy Layer 0 0.5 1 2 Miles 1 inch equals 1 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map. I 4 c I, University Village Kailua ate 'N,Kahului - Pus t :� r.- -S S j .• r �---ff '1 l • t5 IUa Village _ - -�= T = ,_ _ f-- . Kahaluu Makai Village_ Keauhou ITF kalaoa',Vi1la`g$7j� Honokohau Village tnx + t* .S' * S.'..\ Kaawaloa Keahuolu.Vdlage Kailua ate 'N,Kahului - Pus t :� r.- -S S j .• r �---ff '1 l • t5 IUa Village _ - -�= T = ,_ _ f-- . Kahaluu Makai Village_ Keauhou ITF Honokohau Village Kaawaloa Keahuolu.Vdlage \M Makaeo Village Katlu�lage Redevelopment Puaa = Waiaha Vilk C-- '\\V -III "1 `— Kailua ate 'N,Kahului - Pus t :� r.- -S S j .• r �---ff '1 l • t5 IUa Village _ - -�= T = ,_ _ f-- . Kahaluu Makai Village_ Keauhou ITF Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map Kaawaloa Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE Policy LU -1.4: Consistency with Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG). The current LUPAG accommodates the vision and needs for the Kona CDP area planning horizon and should be amended only for compelling reasons Any rezoning application shall be consistent with the LUPAG. Policy LU -1.5: Enhanced Shoreline Setback. Beyond the 40 foot shoreline setback regulated by Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) Sections 205A Part III, the County shall explore alternatives (e.g., density transfer based on gross density) for the applicant of a Special Management Area (SMA) Major Permit to dedicate to the government or land trust or encumber as open space for the purpose of realizing a shoreline linear park along as much of Kona's coastline as possible. Consistent with the Federal Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) and County of Hawaii General Plan policy to retain open space and protect natural resources along with public access to and along the shoreline, it shall be a priority of the County to maintain a minimum of 1,000 -foot open space no -build setback for undeveloped lands adjacent to the shoreline, on parcels which currently exceed 1,000 feet in depth, in discretionary land use approvals such as SMA major permits, rezonings, and state land use boundary amendments. Structures makai of this setback should be for public recreation and ocean -dependent facilities such as harbor improvements. Action LU -1.5a: Review rezoning and SMA applications pursuant to Policy LU - 1.4 (PD, on-going). Action LU -1.5 b: Identify priority shorelines for increased setback as part of Policy ENV -2.1 Open Space Network Program (PD, PR, 1-2). Policy LU -1.6: 17 -Mile Protected Coastline: As part of any discretionary land use approvals such as SMA major permits, rezonings, and state land use boundary amendments, implement the vision of a 15 mile long protected stretch of open coastline from Makaeo north to Kikaua Pt. at the Kuki`o development. Most of this area is already publicly owned and much of it has already been set aside for park purposes. This incorporates the Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park, the portion of Kohanaiki that will be deeded to the County under the terms of the existing SMA permit, the makai portion of O'oma 2, NELHA and state lands makai of the airport runway, to the extent that they can be used for public recreation consistent with the requirements of NELHA and the airport, the Kekaha Kai State Park, and Makalawena. (Enacted by plan) Objective LU -2: Urban Area Growth Management. Recognizing that the LUPAG Urban Area is larger than needed in order to accommodate the projected growth within the planning horizon, future growth within the Urban Area shall be encouraged in a pattern of compact villages at densities that support public transit. Policy LU -2.1: Village Types Defined—Transit-Oriented Developments (TODs) vs. Traditional Neighborhood Developments (TNDs). Both TODs and TNDs are compact mixed-use villages, characterized by a village center within a higher -density urban core, KONA CDP 4-39 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACTIONS roughly equivalent to a 5 -minute walking radius (1/4 mile), surrounded by a secondary mixed- use, mixed -density area with an outer boundary roughly equivalent to a 10 -minute walking radius from the village center (1/2 mile). The distinction between a TOD and TND is that the approximate location of a TOD is currently designated on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) along the trunk or secondary transit route and contains a transit station, while TND locations have not been designated and may be located off of the trunk or secondary transit route at a location approved by a rezoning action. Action LU -2.1a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to define TODs and TNDs (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.1b: Conduct public workshop to educate community, including landowners, developers, and the public about TOD/TND Villages (PD, RSD, DC, 1.2). Action LU -2.1c: Work with landowners, through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Village Design Guidelines (PD, on-going). Policy LU -2.2: TOD/TND Components The components of a TOD/TND include Urban Core, Secondary Core, and Greenbelt. A TOD/TND contains a higher density urban core surrounded by a lower density secondary area. A greenbelt will, in turn, surround and define the outer edge of the secondary area. (Enacted by plan) Urban Core: To control the scale and intensity of development within the urban core of a TOD/TND, there shall be two types of urban cores: a. Regional Center. Regional centers are intended for mixed use and higher - density residential, retail, commercial, employment, and/or regional one -of -a - kind facilities, such as major civic, medical, education, and entertainment designed around a Commercial Center, designed to encourage pedestrian activity. facilities. Regional centers shall be which is the focus for the Village and b. Neighborhood Village. Neighborhood Village Core Areas are intended for predominately residential, public/civic uses, or small-scale neighborhood -oriented commercial uses. The Core's commercial uses are of a small scale and are intended to serve the needs of the Village residents. Neighborhood Village Core Areas shall be designed around a Neighborhood Center. Land uses include recreational space, small-scale public/civic uses, neighborhood oriented retail uses, and mixed-use. 440 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE 2. Secondary Area. TODs/TNDs may be surrounded by more auto -oriented, lower -density areas called "Secondary Areas." The Secondary Areas are within a half -mile of the TOD/TND urban core. These Secondary Areas take advantage of the services within the ' Urban Core through an interconnected street system with easy access to transit by foot, bike or car. Secondary Areas will be primarily comprised of standard single-family and multi -family neighborhoods. These areas may also provide more land -extensive uses that ' serve TOD/TND residents, such as schools and community parks. Because of their proximity to the Urban Core, Secondary Areas are ideal for bicycle travel ' 3. Greenbelt. The Greenbelt is an undeveloped area surrounding the Secondary Area. The Greenbelt is a strategic planning tool to prevent urban sprawl by keeping land permanently open. The purpose of the Greenbelt is to prevent urban sprawl of the TODs/TNDs, prevent neighboring towns from merging into one another, and to preserve the setting and the character of the TODs/TNDs. The Greenbelt may also serve multi-purpose uses, such as for drainage (e.g., flow ways or retention basins), sensitive resource preserves or ' wildfire protection buffers. Policy LU -2.3: TODs Identified. To control the spacing of transit stations in support of Policy TRAN-1.2, TOD floating zones, identifying the general location of TOD, shall be limited to the following, as shown on the Official Kona Land Use Map (See Figure 4-7): 1. University Village (Regional Center). The goal is to use the university as a catalyst for complementary commercial opportunities surrounding the campus and to attract students, faculty, and staff to live on or near campus. The university would hopefully be a center for cultural and performing arts, life-long learning, innovation, and workforce development that would benefit the broader community 2. Kalaoa Village (Neighborhood) 3. Kaloko Makai Village (Neighborhood) 4. Honokohau Village (Regional Center). The County Civic Center shall be one part of a centralized government service center with surrounding complementary office and retail. The area would serve as an appropriate location for a regional park that would include active recreation facilities and a multi-purpose auditorium. 5. Keahuolu Village (Neighborhood) 6. Makaeo Village (Regional Center). A major retail center is planned near the Old Airport Park. As a mixed use village, the plan is to introduce residential uses into the mix, design a complementary relationship to the Old Airport Park, and to integrate a transit hub or major park and ride facility for commuters (primarily resort workers). 7. Kailua Village Redevelopment (Regional Center) In recognition of the importance of Kailua Village as the cultural, retail and visitor core of the Kona District, redevelopment KONA CDP 4-41 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS of the area shall be a high priority. The majority of Kona's urban affordable housing is located close to the Village Center, but much of this housing is in poor condition. The availability of infrastructure in the Village offers the opportunity to provide new, high density affordable housing for the resident workforce. Redevelopment plans shall consider the following: location of a transit hub, enhanced pedestrian -oriented improvements along Alii Drive, centralized public parking strategically located in relation to shuttle routes, and village design guidelines. 8. Pua`a — Wai`aha Village (Neighborhood) 9. Kahului — Puapua`a Village (Neighborhood) 10. Kahalu`u Makai Village (Neighborhood) Action LU -2.3a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to define TODs and TNDs (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.3b: Initiate redevelopment plan for Kailua Village. Consider the establishment of redevelopment authority, pursuant to HRS Chapter 53 (Urban Renewal). Partner with the Kailua Village Business Improvement District program in preparing the re -development plan (PD, KVDC, KVBID, 3-5). Policy LU -2.4: Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Floating Zones Established. The TOD's extent and locations on the Official Kona Land Use Map (Figure 4-7) are approximate and become fixed pursuant to the Project District rezoning procedures as modified below: 1) Minimum land area. The minimum land area for a new community shall be 80 acres, which corresponds to the urban and secondary core, plus a density transfer area proposed in the master plan to set an urban boundary limit. 2) Project District Rezoning Application. In addition to the requirements specified for a Project District application, the application shall include the following: a. Master Plan. To the extent practicable, the master plan shall conform with the Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B) and at a minimum address: i. Mix of permitted uses and density; ii. Transportation systems including street layout and standards, transit routes and facilities, and bike and pedestrian pathways; iii. Village center public facilities and financing; iv. Infrastructure requirements, financing, and timing; v. Neighborhood park and public space standards; vi. Phasing plan; vii. Calculation and treatment of density transfer area; viii. Planning process, including extent of consultation with the Design Center. 4-42 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS OBJECT/VES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS LAND USE ' b. An environmental report meeting the requirements of HRS Chapter 343. 3) Expedited Review. Within ninety (90) days after a project district application has been accepted by the Planning Director, the Director shall forward the application to the Planning Commission. 4) Environmental Review Concurrent Processing The Planning Director shall enable and ' allow the applicant to concurrently process the environmental document according to the procedures of HRS Chapter 343. ' 5) State Land Use Boundary Amendment Concurrent Processing. If a State Land Use District Boundary Amendment is necessary, the Planning Director may accept the application, review the application to determine consistency with the decision criteria below, suspend the processing of the Project District until a decision is made by the State Land Use Commission, and express the County's support of the application before the ' State Land Use Commission as consistent with the Kona CDP and County of Hawai'i General Plan. The Project District process may then immediately resume upon favorable approval by the State Land Use Commission. 6) Development Agreement. A development agreement pursuant to Hawai'i County Code may be used to memorialize reciprocal agreements among the several parties responsible ' for implementing the plan, including the County, and thereby vest the rights as set forth in the Development Agreement. ' 7) Planning Commission Review. Within sixty (60) days after receipt of the application from the Planning Director, unless a longer period is agreed to by the applicant, the Planning Commission shall transmit the proposed project district ordinance together with its recommendation thereon through the Mayor to the County Council. The Planning Commission shall recommend approval in whole or in part, with or without modifications, or rejection of such proposal, based on the following criteria: ' a Extent to which the master plan meets the intent and objectives of the Village Design Guidelines; b. Extent, inclusiveness, and mix of affordable housing; ' c. Feasibility of the infrastructure financing plan; d. Effectiveness of concurrency controls; e. Compatible linkages and relationships to surrounding areas; f. Effectiveness in optimizing and protecting open space within the density transfer area. ' 8) Rebuttable Presumption. The Planning Director, Planning Commission, and County Council shall review the TOD application with a rebuttable presumption that the project furthers the intent of Chapter 25 Zoning Code and is consistent with the goals, objectives, ' and policies of the County General Plan and Kona CDP, provided that the proposed location is generally consistent with the Official Kona Land Use Map and the master plan ' consistent with the Village Design Guidelines. This rebuttable presumption does not apply ' KONA CDP 4-43 LAND USE CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS to a TND application since the general location of a TND has not been determined by the Kona CDP 9) Amendments. Amendments to the master plan shall be processed administratively by approval of the Planning Director, unless the changes are significant as determined by the Planning Director. Action LU -2.4a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to establish TOD floating zone project district (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -2.5: Village Design Guidelines. The Village Design Guidelines in Attachment B apply to the development of master plans for TODs and TNDs, as well as subsequent projects implementing the master plans. The intent of the Village Design Guidelines are to do the following: 1. Promote transit -oriented and pedestrian -oriented development, to increase transit use, to manage traffic congestion, 2. Encourage mixed-use, compact development that is pedestrian in scale and sensitive to environmental characteristics of the land, and facilitates the efficient use of public services; 3. Have residences, shopping, employment, and recreational uses located within close proximity with each other and efficiently organized to provide for the daily needs of the residents; 4. Provide for a range of housing types and affordability within pedestrian -oriented, human -scale neighborhoods; 5. Incorporate natural features, open space, and cultural features; 6. Provide efficient circulation systems for pedestrians, non -motorized vehicles, and motorists that serve to functionally and physically integrate the various land use activities; and 7. Promote strong neighborhood identity and focus. The Village Design Guidelines establish: 1. An acceptable mix of uses for regional centers, neighborhood core areas, and secondary areas; 2. Minimum as well as maximum residential densities; 3. Non -permitted uses in the urban core that are primarily automobile -dependent that detract from a walkable town center; 4. Pedestrian -oriented street standards, supplementing County of Hawaii Street Standards; 5. Nomenclature of public facilities and siting criteria that serve as the town focus; 6. Density transfer calculation methodology; and 7. Transportation standards. Action LU -2.5a: Adoption of Village Design Guidelines (Attachment B) (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.5b: Continually improve and refine the Village Design Guidelines (PD, DC, on-going). 4-44 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE ' Policy LU -2.6: TOD/TND Public Infrastructure and Facilities. To encourage the development of TODs and TNDs, public financing sources shall pay 100% for: ' Major proposed trunk transit route, ■ A transit station (or transit station component if the transit station is part of a private mixed- use project) within the Urban Core , ' A major park or plaza within the urban core. In the preparation of the master plan, the applicant shall coordinate the input of appropriate ' agencies to identify sites and financing of appropriate public facilities such as schools, libraries, and post offices, with respective financial commitments between public and private sources documented in the master plan The County water allocation and capital improvement policies in ' Section 4.6: Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services, Policy PUB -4.1 shall further support the development of the TODs. Action LU -2.6a: Negotiate the respective cost-sharing of the appropriate public facilities (DC, applicants, on-going). Action LU -2.6b: Program funding of major transit routes, transit stations, and major parks within urban core in coordination with proposed TOD build -out (PD, Fin., on-going). Policy LU -2.7: Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Floating Zone Established. Where as the locations of TODs are conceptually determined by the Official Kona Land Use Map, the locations of TNDs are proposed by applicants outside of the TODs within the Kona Urban Area (UA). Because of the need to review the specific suitability at the time of proposal, TND floating zones shall not have the rebuttable presumption of a TOD; otherwise, rezoning procedures shall be the same as a TOD Project District. Policy LU -2.8: Development Outside Transit -Oriented Developments (TODs), but within the Kona Urban Area. Development outside the TODs, but within the Kona UA, may occur as follows: 1. Existing Zoning a. TND Overlay Any project greater than 20 acres on land zoned Single-family residential (RS), Multiple residential (RM), Residential -Commercial Mixed Use (RCX), General Commercial (CG), Village Commercial (CV), or Neighborhood Commercial (CN), shall be permitted to develop as a neighborhood TND following the procedures for a PUD and the Village Design Guidelines. b. Non -TND Projects. Any project may be developed in accordance with the existing zoning, subject to the following requirements: KONA CDP i. Parks (See Policy PUB -6.2.) ii. Affordable Housing. Resale restrictions on affordable units built in compliance with HCC Chapter 11 (See Policy HSG -5.2). 4-45 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACTIONS iii. Street Standards. Connectivity standards (see Policy TRAN-2.1), street standards (see Policy TRAN-3.1), and traffic calming standards (see Policy TRAN-3.7). iv. Wastewater. Priority sewer area (see Policy PUB -4.4). v. Concurrency. The requirements of Hawaii County Code Section 25-2-46 and Policy TRAN-6.1. vi. Sensitive Resources. Survey of potential sensitive resources (see Policy ENV -1.5). 2. Rezoning a. TND. Any project greater than 20 acres within the Kona UA may apply for the TND Floating Zone. b. Conventional Rezoning. Rezoning to other than TND', is subject to the following guidelines: i. Consistency with LUPAG. Refer to Policy LU -1.3. fl. Infill. Rezonings that promote infill are encouraged. The concept of infill is to connect two or more pre-existing developments. Infill is usually associated with small scale developments of 20 acres or less that have been leapfrogged by the surrounding or adjacent developments. Infill rezonings should be conditioned to ensure connectivity to the surrounding developments and, where applicable, to provide mixed-use opportunities to make the area more walkable. iii. "Greenfields" Rezoning. Rezoning anywhere within the Kona UA, whether within or outside a TOD area designated on Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map, that is not a TOD, TND, or infill shall require an amendment to the Kona CDP that triggers HRS Chapter 343 Environmental Review Process. c. State Land Use. Where a rezoning application meets the above criteria, the County shall support a State Land Use Urban Boundary amendment for lands within the County Urban Expansion Area. Action LU -2.8a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to create a TND overlay zone for existing zoned lands within the specified residential and commercial zoning districts (Enacted by plan). Action LU -2.8b: Review subdivision and plan approval applications pursuant to requirements for parks, housing, street standards, wastewater, and concurrency (PD, on-going). Action LU -2.8c: Review conventional rezoning applications pursuant to Policy LU -2.8 (1)(b) (PD, on-going). Objective LU -3: Rural Area Growth Management. To preserve the rural character of the existing rural towns, the agricultural lifestyle, and the open landscape. 4-46 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Policy LU -3.1: Redevelopment of Rural Towns as TODs/TNDs. The rural towns along Mamalahoa Highway, consisting of Holualoa, Honalo, Kainaliu, Kealakekua, and Captain Cook, are encouraged to be redeveloped as TODs/TNDs. The master plan for TOD/TND redevelopment shall: a) identify the site and appropriate design character of a transit stop or station, as applicable; b) identify other public facilities that would enhance the civic and economic vitality of these towns, c) encourage innovative opportunities to provide affordable housing and live/work opportunities; and d) improve pedestrian -friendliness of the streetscape. To the extent practicable, the TOD/TND master plan shall follow the Village Design Guidelines in Attachment B. The master plan shall be the basis for any comprehensive rezoning, capital improvement program, and/or business improvement district for facilities or services. Action LU -3.1a: Initiate community organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public, on the opportunities ' of TODs/TNDs for each of the towns (RBD, PD, on-going). Action LU -3.1 b: Prepare town master plan(s) (PD, MT, town entity, 5-10). ' Policy LU -3.2: Revitalization of Other Existing Rural Villages. Rural Villages such as Honaunau, Napo'opo'o, Kealia, and Miloli'i are also encouraged to develop ' community-based revitalization master plans that would serve as the basis for any comprehensive rezoning, capital improvement program, and/or business ' improvement district for facilities or services. Action LU -3.2a: Initiate community ' organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public on the opportunities of TODs/TNDs for each of the rural villages (RBD, PD, 3-5). ' Action LU -3.2b: Prepare village master plan(s) (PD, village entity, 5-10). I KONA CDP LAND USE 447 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy LU -3.3: Clustered Rural Subdivision Project Unit Development (PUD). Provided a PUD application for rural- or agriculturally -zoned land substantially meets the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines in Attachment C, the Planning Director shall issue approval, with or without conditions within sixty (60) days after acceptance of the application, and the approval shall be considered a tentative subdivision approval. All other requirements and procedures of a PUD shall be as set forth in Article 6 of the Zoning Code. Action LU -3.3a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code and Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to establish Clustered Rural Subdivision PUD (Enacted by plan) Policy LU -3.4: Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. The Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines in Attachment C apply to proposed subdivisions outside of the Kona Urban Area (UA). The intent of the guidelines is to minimize grading, preserve the natural appearance of the land to the maximum extent possible, ensure agriculture use in the State Land Use Agricultural District, and create a rural setting for residences. Towards this end, the guidelines shall, at a minimum, specify: 1. Minimum lot sizes; 2. Natural and cultural resources meriting protection applicable; 3. Minimum standards for roads and wastewater disposal 4. Legal tools for permanent protection, maintenance lands; 5. Connections to the open spaces of surrounding areas. and associated buffer areas, as of open space, and/or agricultural Action LU -3.4a: Adopts Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (on-going). Action LU -3.4b: Continually improve and refine the guidelines (PD, DC, on- going). Action LU -3.4c: Work with State to allow individual home sites smaller than one acre on lands classified as Agricultural so as to increase the flexibility of the Clustered Rural Subdivision Program (PD, OSP, on-going). Policy LU -3.5: Encourage Clustered Rural Subdivision for IAL Lands Less Than 5 Acres. Any subdivision of important agricultural land (IAL) lands involving 30 acres or more currently zoned at densities between Ag -1a to Ag -5a and FA are encouraged to follow the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines in order to prevent sprawling, large-scale residential subdivision of these lands. Action LU -3.5a: Review subdivision application for lands with existing zoning Ag -1a to Ag -5a and FA pursuant to Policy LU -3.5 (PD, on-going). 4-48 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, 'POLICIES, AND ACTIONS LAND USE ' Action LU -3.5b: Work with landowners through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (PD, on- going). Policy LU -3.6: Subdivision on Agriculturally -Zoned Land Served by a Private Water System. When granting any subdivision water variance served by a private water system to ' allow a subdivision involving 30 acres or more, a condition of the variance should be to follow the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. (Enacted by Plan) r Policy LU -3.7: Farmworker Housing Agricultural employee housing where the employee works a minimum of 20 hours a week on a farm is permitted on agriculturally zoned lands where the housing and the farm are not on the same parcel. rAction LU -3.7a: Reviewing Agricultural Employee Housing proposals pursuant to Policy LU -3.7 (PD, on-going). 1 1 r r 1 1 1 1 r r 1 1 Policy LU -3.8: Rezoning Outside of Urban and Rural TODs and Outside of GP LUPAG Urban Area. Rezoning of areas currently zoned agricultural, outside of the Urban and Rural TOD areas shown on Figure 4-7 Official Kona Land Use Map, and outside of urban designations on the General Plan LUPAG, shall not be allowed, except in the following limited circumstances: (1) the rezoning allows only a small number of additional lots, consistent in scale with the transfer of lots to family members, (2) the rezoning does not create a net increase in the potential number of agricultural lots (such as a rezoning that increases potential density in one area but also reduces density in another), or (3) the rezoning is to permit a subdivision consistent with the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines, while preserving the majority of the property in non-residential use dedicated to agriculture, open space, or other conservation purposes, and does not have the primary effect of allowing subdivision into lots smaller than allowed by existing zoning. This policy is intended to prevent the rezoning of agricultural property to allow agricultural subdivisions where the primary objective of the lot owner will be to have a residential estate. Action LU -3.8a: Review rezoning applications with higher burden of justification pursuant to Policy LU -3.8 (PD, on-going). Objective LU -4: Pro -active Design Review. To foster a spirit of excellence, creativity and collaboration among the applicants, community, and County to meet the Kona CDP goals, objectives and policies. Policy LU -4.1: Design Center Establishment. The County Planning Department shall establish a Design Center to accomplish the following objectives: 1. To support and expedite the translation and implementation of the Kona CDP goals, objectives, policies, actions, and design guidelines as applied to proposed development projects, 2. To be a catalyst for creative excellence and innovation; KONA CDP 4-49 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, LAND USE POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 3. To foster public-private partnerships; 4. To promote coordination and collaboration among the community, government agencies, applicants, landowners, professionals, and educational institutions; 5. To provide education on best design practices to applicants, government staff, community members, educators and students; and, 6. To award and recognize exemplary projects. Although the Design Center will be administered by the Planning Department and staffed by County employees, the department may organize a technical committee of interdisciplinary volunteers. Action LU4.1a: As an option, consider budgeting and hiring independent contractor(s) to determine the structure of the Design Center and to establish a pilot program. During this interim period, the independent contractor will provide recommendations to the Planning Director for land use applications requiring Design Center review (PD, 1-2). Action LU4.1 b: Create and fund positions to staff the Design Center (PD, 2-3). Policy LU -4.2: Mandatory Review. The Design Center shall review and approve all master plans prepared for floating zones (TODs/TNDs, Affordable Housing, Eco -Industrial) and Clustered Rural Subdivision PUDs. Projects implementing these master plans, as well as any other project within the Kona CDP planning area, are encouraged, but not required, to be reviewed by the Design Center. Action LU4.2a: Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to require mandatory Design Center review (Enacted by plan). Policy LU -4.3: Expedited Permit Processing. For projects reviewed by the Design Center, a staff member of the Design Center may be assigned to coordinate and expedite permit approvals for the proposed project. Action LU4.3a: Assign and train staff (PD, 1-2). 4-50 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 4.3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES The Environmental Resources section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies, and actions to guide the management and protection of Kona's environmentally sensitive areas. It will become important to focus on creative solutions that protect the environment while allowing for growth, redevelopment, and increase densities in strategic ' areas. 4.3.1 Existing Conditions u r 0 L7 Mapping of various resources in the Kona region has been on-going for many years. With advancing computer technology, such Geographic Information System (GIS), much of the available information has been incorporated in computer databases. While the geographic detail made possible by such computer mapping gives the sense that such mapped information is comprehensive, accurate and reliable, it is not always the case. The actual level of accuracy ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Guiding Principles Environment 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. ✓ 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ and reliability varies widely It is important to continually improve the state of knowledge and track changes by documenting the source and methodology of the data collection. The mapping data for the environmental resources collected for this plan come from the following sources: 1. Regulatory map with defined procedures to map and amend: ■ Flood Insurance Rate Map (regulated under the Floodplain Management Code, Hawaii County Code Chapter 27) 2. Legally mandated inventories yet to be completed: ■ Trails—Under the Na Ala Hele statewide trail and access program, the Department of Land and Natural Resources is required to "inventory all trails and accesses in the State, whether wholly or partly on public or private lands and whether or not under the jurisdiction of the department" (HRS Section 198D-3). ■ Historic sites—The State Historic Preservation Division is required to develop an inventory of historic properties (any structure or site over fifty years old) and burial sites (HRS Section 6E-3). 3. Voluntarily compiled databases that lack a comprehensive management system for verification and maintenance: • Critical Habitats: Although the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service follows a formal procedure to designate a critical habitat, there is no formal procedure to provide a map to the County permit agencies; 1 KONA CDP 4-51 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Coastal Resources and Water Quality Monitoring Stations: GIS data on coastal resources compiled by the University of Hawai'i at Hilo for the Planning Department; location of State Department of Health (DOH) water quality monitoring stations (Source: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and DOH (State GIS Program) Anchialine Ponds: Data digitally representing occurrences of anchialine ponds that were recorded by Hawai'i Natural Heritage Program, between 1970 — 2000 (Source: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Ocean Service, Office of Response and Restoration, Hazardous Materials Response Division (University of Hilo, Department of Geography and Environmental Studies) Native Habitats: The Hawaii Natural Heritage Program (HNHP) collects information on the location and condition of Hawai`i's rare animals, plants, and natural communities (ecosystems) (Source: Hawai'i Natural Heritage Program (November 2005). Information in the database spans from the 1800's to present day. Data summarizes species current and historical ranges, decline or increase in the number of individuals, recorded habitat and observed threats. The HNHP database includes four categories: Natural Communities, Special Vertebrates, Special Invertebrates, and Special Plants. The HNHP database includes only rare occurrences. A natural community is considered rare and imperiled if it is known from 20 or fewer localities or if it covers less than 2,000 acres in the world. For plants and animals, the HNHP defines taxon as rare if records indicate that its current distribution or abundance is limited, i.e. it is known from 20 or fewer locations or fewer than 3,000 individuals have been observed in the wild.) 4.3.2 Overall Strategy People in Kona have a growing ecological awareness and respect for their diverse resources — one that must be translated into a commitment to protect and manage these resources. This commitment will only be implemented by policies that are based on knowledge about our diverse resources as well as on humility that we do not know the full consequences of all that we do and err on the side of caution (precautionary principle), and on the understanding that all of us must assume some responsibility to do our part. The following strategy emerged from this attitude: 1. Managing our Impacts. The reasons to minimize human impacts on natural resources are many, while many are yet to be known. Ecosystem services upon which our survival depends (e.g., clean drinking water) must be maintained. This concept was honored by Hawai'i's earliest inhabitants, most clearly in the "mountain to sea" ahupua'a model of land use. This awareness and the larger reality of the intrinsic value and interconnectedness of all natural systems should be expanded upon and protected through education and intelligent land use policy. The Kona CDP's Land Use Policies are intended to limit both urban and rural sprawl and also serves to provide direct benefits toward managing our resources. a. Recognizing the Multi -Value Importance of the Mauka Lands. Before human contact, a band of wet native forest thrived, extending from sea level to 6,000 feet in elevation (Atlas of 4-52 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ' Hawai`i, 31d Edition). Beside being a habitat for native species, this forest "absorbed" much of the rain. This water that percolated into the ground and recharged the groundwater "reservoirs." As forests were cleared for pasture or other purooses. much of the rainfall that ' would have been absorbed now runs off the land surface. Recognizing the value of these mauka lands for its habitat, groundwater recharge, and stormwater management values, the objectives are to encourage the preservation of the forest that remains, the restoration of forest lands, as well as the innovative restoration of some of the innate functions of the cleared lands (e.g., detention basins that mitigate surface flow and promote groundwater recharge). b. Turning Stormwater Management Into An Asset. If the mauka lands are able to mitigate some of the surface stormwater runoff, there is still a challenge in managing stormwater runoff because of Kona's steep topography and undefined drainageways. The objective is to identify Services for these policies that apply to the County's water system). d. Integrating the Coastal Resources. Kona is blessed with unique anchialine ponds, beautiful sandy beaches, abundant coral reefs, and clear nearshore waters. What we do on the land impacts these coastal resources. The objectives are to manage the activities that are the major source of pollutants that reach the coastal waters through groundwater seepage or surface runoff, and to monitor the water quality to know when corrective action is in order. e. Protecting Sensitive Resources. Besides the mauka lands, there are other sensitive resources that need to be protected through regulations and/or incentives. The first step is to classify what resources are "sensitive"—i.e., unique, rare, fragile, providing an essential ' support service, or other values. The second step is to develop a reliable inventory of these resources. This second step is a considerable challenge given the varying stage of accuracy ' and completeness of the available information for each resource. Nevertheless, a central data gathering system needs to be developed that continually improves the state of knowledge. 2. Managing Access as a Linked Network of Open Spaces. Not all open spaces should have unrestricted public access (e.g., forest reserves, sacred sites). Where public access is permitted, whether unrestricted or managed, the objective is to create a network of "hubs" (e.g., parks) and "links" (e.g., trails, bikeways). While reaffirming the Guiding Principle for expanded recreation opportunities, the vision is also for residents and visitors to have the option to walk or bike to a beach or park, as well as drive on a scenic route. I KoNA CDP 4-53 the drainageways where the major stormflows would be directed, provide a buffer to these drainageways to account for our imperfect knowledge, and to design these drainageways to function as recreational or open space amenities (e.g., linear parks). ' c. Not Exceeding the Limits of the Groundwater Resource. Compared to the wet, windward side of the island, Kona's basal groundwater resource is thin. The primary groundwater source ' is high-level groundwater; the extent of which as a resource is uncertain. The objectives are to conserve water, encourage alternative sources (e.g., reclaimed wastewater) for non -potable uses, and ensure adequate capacity of the County water system to serve the preferred growth areas set forth in the Land Use element (see Section 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services for these policies that apply to the County's water system). d. Integrating the Coastal Resources. Kona is blessed with unique anchialine ponds, beautiful sandy beaches, abundant coral reefs, and clear nearshore waters. What we do on the land impacts these coastal resources. The objectives are to manage the activities that are the major source of pollutants that reach the coastal waters through groundwater seepage or surface runoff, and to monitor the water quality to know when corrective action is in order. e. Protecting Sensitive Resources. Besides the mauka lands, there are other sensitive resources that need to be protected through regulations and/or incentives. The first step is to classify what resources are "sensitive"—i.e., unique, rare, fragile, providing an essential ' support service, or other values. The second step is to develop a reliable inventory of these resources. This second step is a considerable challenge given the varying stage of accuracy ' and completeness of the available information for each resource. Nevertheless, a central data gathering system needs to be developed that continually improves the state of knowledge. 2. Managing Access as a Linked Network of Open Spaces. Not all open spaces should have unrestricted public access (e.g., forest reserves, sacred sites). Where public access is permitted, whether unrestricted or managed, the objective is to create a network of "hubs" (e.g., parks) and "links" (e.g., trails, bikeways). While reaffirming the Guiding Principle for expanded recreation opportunities, the vision is also for residents and visitors to have the option to walk or bike to a beach or park, as well as drive on a scenic route. I KoNA CDP 4-53 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS 3. Prioritizing Limited Financial Resources a. Establishing Acquisition Priorities. The objective is to set clear priority criteria for land acquisition based on significance, extent of public use, or the extent of restrictions on other private use. 4. Ensuring Maintenance. Adequate funding shall be budgeted for proper maintenance, particularly for resources open to the public. 4.3.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Environmental Resources Goal. The natural and cultural resources enhance Kona's character together with the built environment, developed in harmony with ecological principles, where residents and visitors enjoy and interact with nature through a networked system that promotes a healthy active lifestyle, and where the financial and moral commitment reflects the high level of carina that the Kona people have for the land. Objective ENV -1: Managing Impacts. In order to minimize impacts on the land, make use of best management planning practices for any land-based endeavor by balancing public and private rights, and taking advantage of an ever -improving knowledge of resource sensitivity and natural processes. Policy ENV -1.1: Central Environmental Resources Inventory. The County should be a central repository of environmental resources GIS data (including the metadata documentation), assist in inventory creation where there are data gaps, and assist in maintenance where there are no assigned maintenance responsibilities. Action ENV -1.1a: Compile available GIS environmental data and make it available to the public (PD, DATA, on-going). Policy ENV -1.2: Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program. The Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program shall encompass the public and private lands mauka of Mamalahoa Highway (see Figure 4-8a). The purpose of this program is to synthesize the current knowledge of the mauka lands resources, develop a viable action plan to coordinate the various public agencies and private owners, and serve as the basis for establishing an ecosystem services incentives program. Such a program recognizes the ecosystem service value of our watershed and open space in our community to protect values such as aesthetics and scenic vistas; water catchment and infiltration; carbon sequestration; oxygen production; habitat enhancement and preservation; fire suppression and fuel load management; soil conservation; preservation of cultural values; and, potential for additional public access and recreational opportunities. The action plan shall be prepared by the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership, whose membership shall include at a minimum the affected public agencies and private landowners, a community representative(s), and'the County. 4-54 KONA CDP Kiholo Kaupulehu Makalawena LEGEND High -Level Groundwater, 1,500 ft Kona Mauka Watershed Planning Area Private Nature Preserve Managed Public Lands_ Institutional Public Lands =777',Private lands ® Kona Urban Area ® Rural Town TODs CDP Planning Area Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source. County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Hookena N Nim,, ►u-� Manuka �xy Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-8a Environmental Resources Map - Kona Mauka Watershed Area 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES agricultural use may be considered provided the proposed project is consistent with the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program and reviewed by the Design Center. If the project involves residential lots, then the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines (Attachment C) should apply. Density transfers may be permitted between sending and receiving areas identified in the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program, including between non- contiguous parcels, as approved under the special permit or Clustered Rural Subdivision PUD process. Action ENV -1.6a: Enact appropriate mechanisms pursuant to Policy ENV -1.2 Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (PD, 3-5). Policy ENV -1.7: Flood Corridors. The County's Central Environmental Resources Inventory (See Policy ENV-1.1)should include the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 100 -year floodplains, as well as planned natural flow ways identified by the Stormwater Management Program (See Policy PUB — 4.7), where excess runoff from existing and future development will be directed. Collectively, the FIRM floodplains and the planned flow ways may serve as open space amenities, such as linear parks and/or greenbelts between urbanized areas. Action ENV -1.7a: Develop priorities and financing strategies to improve accuracy and comprehensiveness of flood mapping (DPW, 2-3). Action ENV -1.7b: Budget and hire contractor to study feasibility of regional stormwater management systems, such as flow ways (DPW, PD, 2-3). Action ENV -1.7c: Identify corridors to be recommended for public open space pursuant to Policy ENV -2.2 Open Space Network Program (PD, DPW, 3.5) Policy ENV -1.8: Multi -Purpose Flood Corridors. If the flood corridor serves regional multiple benefits the County should consider ownership and/or maintenance responsibility for the flood corridor, upon request of the affected landowner. Owners may participate in an adopt -a -flood corridor program to enhance the landscaping of the flood corridor fronting their property, preferably with appropriate native Hawaiian plants. Action ENV -1.8a: Establish guidelines for Adopt -a -Corridor Program (DPW, 1- 2). KONA CDP 4-59 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-60 KONA CDP lko[C4 Kiholo Kaupulehu Makalawena Yfuuwaawaa \'T,- Y Keaho ,- Keaholi J -- Y L Kail Keauhou r - Kaawal a taw"Cook_ _,�_ - — - — — -------------------- Napoopoo aunau Lam' ~� � ``. LEGEND Federal Park State Park 0 DCH Water Quality Monitoring Station Flood Zones - Unofficial M A M X500 Flood zone unofricial LATEST LOMR Flood Zones - LCIVIC Public Shoreline Access Marine Life Conservation District Whale Santuary Fish Management Area Na Ala Hele Ala Kahakai Trail Kona Urban Area Rural Town TODs CDP Planning Area Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source- County of Hawaii and Hawaii Statewide GIS Program Hookena Kipa Milolii 4o 'fo 0 0 % v. all, S.- !!6Manuka =OW Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-8d Environmental Resources Map - Other Resources CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES Policy ENV -1.9: Setback Buffer from Flood Corridor. To account for nature's unpredictability, any structure as defined in Chapter 27 Floodplain Management Code shall be in compliance with Section 27-18(d)(5) (Ordinance 07-169). Action ENV -1.9a: Supports Chapter 27 pursuant to Policy ENV -1.9 (on-going). Policy ENV -1.10: Non -Degradation of Anchialine Ponds. Within the United States, these unique habitats are only found in Hawaii. Anchialine shall be eligible for the Kona Treasures Fund for restoration and maintenance, subject to the preparation of a maintenance and water quality monitoring plan. As wetlands, these resources merit heightened community vigilance for any violations of the federal law relating to the disturbance of wetlands. (Enacted by plan) Policy ENV -1.11: Anchialine Ponds Management Program. The County shall adopt the following strategies: 1. Conduct an inventory of anchialine ponds in Kona. 2. Develop management policy: a. Development projects must map anchialine ponds and monitor their physical, chemical, and biological status b. Management of anchialine ponds on development project land should include assessment and removal of invasive species c. No development project should be approved that impacts anchialine ponds 3. Develop education modules for anchialine ponds and signage for sites in Kona to educate the public about ponds and their "protected" status 4. Identify public/private funding mechanisms for the maintenance of Kona's anchialine ponds. Action ENV -1.11a: Budget and hire contractor to verify and update anchialine inventory and prepare the Anchialine Ponds Management Program (PD, COE, 2- 3). Policy ENV -1.12: Water Quality Monitoring Program. In recognition of Kona's exceptional nearshore coastal resource, a comprehensive system to monitor nearshore water quality shall be established for purposes of protecting public health as well as ecosystem health (particularly coral reefs) to supplement the State Department of Health's water quality monitoring program. At a minimum, water quality should be monitored at stations which KONA CDP 4-67 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS correspond to the popular water -contact recreational areas and the exceptional coral reef habitats. The Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines shall be referenced when requiring water quality monitoring as a condition of permit approval or in the establishment of a comprehensive Water Quality Monitoring Program. Action ENV -1.12a: Hire consultant to prepare Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines (PD, DPW, DOH, 2.3). Action ENV -1.12b: Set up water quality monitoring station locations (PD, Community, UH Sea Grant, DOH, 2-3). Action ENV -1.12c: Organize and train community base water quality team (PD, Community, UH Sea Grant, DOH, 2-3). Policy ENV -1.13: Environmental Resource Management Education. A diversity of tools shall be sought to provide increased education and awareness on the part of our residents and visitors regarding the preservation of Kona's environment. How about Community Volunteer Deputies? A community-based volunteer "deputy" program to work with government authorities expands the number of "eyes" to inhibit violations, provides an opportunity for individuals to become involved while ensuring that these individuals are knowledgeable and trained, and serves as an educational program as these deputies share their knowledge with the broader community Action ENV -1.13a: Develop appropriate educational tools for residents and visitors and marketing plan to use them (RSD, 2-3). Action ENV -1.13b: Conduct educational workshops (RSD, 2.3). Objective ENV -2: Open Space Network. To develop a networked system of appropriate access to all significant open space resources that enhances opportunities for residents and visitors for recreational, educational, subsistence, or gathering purposes. Policy ENV -2.1: Open Space Network Program. The purpose of the Open Space Network Program is to enhance opportunities for residents and visitors to access Kona's Environmental Resources for recreational, educational, subsistence, or gathering purposes. The Program will identify the following: i. Hubs and Links. Map the existing and planned "hubs" and "links" that comprise the open space network. "Hubs" include, without limitation, parks, cultural sites open to the public, and natural beauty vantage points and views. The "links" include, without limitation, bikeways, trails, scenictheritage corridors, public accessways, flow ways, and linear parks. ii. Public Access Management. Address any special needs to manage access, such as ownership, maintenance, and/or sensitivity of the resource. 4-68 KONA CDP ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS OBJECTIVES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ' iii. Public Areas. Identify areas that have high traffic which shall then receive special attention for funding, maintenance, safety and educational signage. ' Action ENV -2.1a: Budget and hire consultant to prepare Open Space Network Program (PD, PR, OSP, DLNR, TNC, NPS, 1-2). ' Action ENV -2.1b: Coordinate with the National Park Service's (NPS) Ala Kahakai Trail Program as follows (PD, DLNR-PR, NPS, on-going): ' 1. Continue to enforce county and state laws requiring public access to and along the shoreline as a condition of land use approvals. These trails may become official components of the ' Trail. 2. Require that applicants conduct metes and bounds surveys of any historic trails and routes that will be required as part of the ' land use permitting process to be preserved and that may become part of the Trail. 3. Encourage private landowners who have public access ' requirements as conditions of a land use approval to execute an agreement with the NPS to include these areas in the Trail, where appropriate. ' 4. Work with the NPS to identify public access easements with potential incorporation into the Trail. 5. Work with the NPS to identify trail segments through county parks for incorporation into the Trail. 6. Collaborate on the design and specific signage that identifies the route of the Trail, particularly where is traverses County Beach ' Parks. 7. Include the Ala Kahakai National Historic Trail (NHT) administrative office on the mailing list for the Planning Commission. Objective ENV -3: Fiscal Commitments to Open Space. To affirm the commitment that ' expenditures for open space management are just as important as investment in hard infrastructure (e.g., water, sewer, and roads) Policy ENV -3.1: Acquisition Priorities. To supplement the activities of the County Open Space Commission, the Open Space Network Program shall identify high priority areas in Kona for public acquisition, based on the following criteria: ' a. Significant value; b. Extensive public use; c. Imminent threat by private development; and d. Lack of alternative means of protection. KONA CDP 4-69 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Action ENV -3.1a: Identify high priority areas for acquisition pursuant to Policy ENV -2.1 Open Space Network Program (PD, PR, OSC, DLNR,1-2). Policy ENV -3.2: Maintenance Commitment. A variety of funding sources shall be pursued to supplement, as necessary, existing government operational budgets to ensure a high standard of maintenance of all "hubs" and "links" identified in the Open Space Network Program. Action ENV -3.2a: Develop a financing strategy as part of Public Facilities Financing Program (PD, 1-2). Policy ENV -3.3: Public/Private Partnership. To foster a public and private partnership of stewardship, a Kona Treasures Fund shall be established and administered by a non-profit entity to implement the environmental policies set forth in this plan by supplementing any governmental funding. The non-profit entity would enable individuals and/or businesses to contribute time and/or money for environmental causes without sacrificing the resources to commercial use. Action ENV -3.3a: Establish Kona Treasures Fund as tax deductible organization (PD, KCC, 2.3). Action ENV -3.3b: Provide funding and staff support as well as public marketing campaign (PD, KCC, 2.3). 4-70 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS CULTURAL RESOURCES 4.4 _CULTURAL RESOURCES _ _ ______ In the Hawaiian language, Kona means yours and ours; it is a traditional Hawaiian moku (district), not just a place, and it is part of our being. In tradition and custom, Kona's great beauty and many resources have been entrusted to the people by Akua (our Creator), and inherent in this trust comes kuleana (responsibility/obligation) to malama (care for) all that gives ke ola (life), so that it may ho`omau (be perpetuated). Today, this means to honor what has gone before, be responsible for the present, and plan for the future. Ahupua`a and Malama `Aina In honoring the past, it is important to recognize the valuable lessons learned. One of these is the ahupua`a land use model of sustainability, whereby the land was divided into pie -shaped wedges -- broad at the shoreline and narrowing in the uplands - - providing a good diversity of natural resources for Guiding Principles Cultural 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ its inhabitants. Another is that of malama `aina that calls for the responsible and respectful use of the land and sea, including all the natural resources in and on it, in a manner that promotes their conservation and perpetuation, so the present, as well as the future generation, may be able to enjoy them alike. Prior to 1778, Hawaiians lived and practiced these principles in a truly self-sufficient manner. Understanding and practicing these important principles of resource management are vital to understanding the Hawaiian cultural landscape and our place on it, especially when decisions are made which will impact that landscape and the long-term future of Kona. The very essence of this principle is embodied in the Hawaii State motto Va mau ke ea o ka `aina i ka pono'; that the very life of the land is perpetuated in the proper relationship of humans with nature. Historical Perspective The districts of North and South Kona have been very significant in the history of Hawaii. Because of the mild climate, fertile mauka lands and abundant marine resources, from the time of the great chief, 'Umi a Liloa, Kona has been favored as a place of residence by various ruling chiefs and their extended families. This resulted in a large population of inhabitants who settled in villages mainly along the coast (kulakai), particularly around bays and fishponds. Additional land uses occurred in the middle zone (apa`a), which supported temporary habitation and resource gathering between the makai (coastal) and mauka (upland) areas, and, the upland zones (wao kanaka), which supported larger -scale agriculture and dryland and lowland forests Figure 4-9 depicts the traditional lands uses and zones extending from offshore areas to the piko or summit regions. KONA CDP 4-71 N. This concept_ map was intended to show traditional. ? ! uses extending from offshore areas to piko or . summit- regions. Traditional land'uses and zones continue to lie"evident among land holdings. � a % UewA-i*a:, Fisheries and kola belt offshore resources o0hikat tkCula kal! Coastai settlement , °Y. `Temporary, habitation, resource gathering ° a areas --that connects coastal'to mauka zones, i a-1Vc►,`e�.o'�: AgrioUlttiral, dry, land'& low land forests, also identified as a resource gathering area, *Waohlahhele; °Upper forest region, f+arest gathering s .OiWao Akua !'Piko: spiritual connectionsAnd molest linkages, stretches mauka up to the `p u u and summit + -areas ` } None: l4awauanuse.zones vwre,umcgpwallyn4pped Erased on known,cultural sites, topography, vepetaoon areas, ratnfall, and ethno'torical reports conducted lof,selecr aliupua'a'mthe kcnawWxn.*sdataisnotmtended-€oruse,ataceiailedorparcel ' CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS CULTURAL RESOURCES ' To support these populations and settlements, an elaborate system of na ala hele (foot trails) was established between makai and mauka areas, and these intersected with the more lateral ala loa (long trails) that ran between the moku. Many of these trails still exist and can be found today, although ' some portions may have been altered, damaged or simply remain overgrown. Collectively, the settlements in Kona were probably some of the most densely populated in the ' Hawaiian Islands (U.S. National Park Service, September 1993) and, as a result, complex religious, social, and political systems and structures had developed around them Many cultural practices, such as the Makahiki festival and other rituals for invoking rain and fertility, centered in Kona. Moreover, ' many ancient traditions and mythological personages were associated with Kona, such as the god Lono, who is credited with introducing primary plant foods such as taro, sweet potato, yams, sugarcane, and bananas to the Hawaiians. ' Kona played a very significant role during the Kamehameha dynasty, and several defining moments in Hawai`i's history took place here. ' According to Kamakau (1961), when Kamehameha the Great was in his final years at Kamakahonu, the coastal lands were part of a large royal center supporting the m67 and his royal court, such that "at night the sparkle of lights reflected in the sea like diamonds, from the homes of the chiefs from Kahelo to Lanihau. The number of chiefs and lesser chiefs reached into the thousands." ' Following the death of Kamehameha I at Kamakahonu in 1819, his son Liholiho, succeeded him and, with the urging of the kuhina nui Ka`ahumanu and the Queen mother, Keopulani, he broke the traditional `ai kapu (eating prohibition) at Kamakahonu. A short while later, Liholiho was challenged by ' Kekuaokalani, the keeper of the war god Kuka`ilimoku, who wanted no part of this change. A fierce battle ensued along the shore at Kuamo'o, and the hundreds that were killed in the battle, the last fiht in Kona, were laid to rest at Lekeleke. Those burial grounds can be seen today at the end of Alii Drive, just south of Keauhou Bay. After the defeat of Kekuaokalani, the ancient kapu system was largely abolished, although some practices continued long after that. The following year and just a few months after the kapu system had been broken, the first Christian missionaries arrived at Kamakahonu, and, in 1823, Mokuaikaua, HawaiTs first Christian church was erected in Kailua. Additional churches were then established throughout the district, a number of which still remain in active service today. After the death of Liholiho in 1825, Kauikeaouli became King Kamehameha III. His reign, which continued until 1854, was the longest in the history of Hawaiian Monarchy. The town of Kailua is one of the most historically significant areas in Hawaii, since it was the residence ' of Hawaiian chiefs, including being the primary home of King Kamehameha I. This area has been described by visitors in great detail. In 1823, when the English missionary, William Ellis, visited the ' area between Kailua and Keauhou, he reported passing through many villages where the houses "are generally built on the sea -shore" and mentioned seeing numerous heiau and burial grounds (Ellis 1963). In 1929-30, when Reinecke surveyed the coastal areas of Kona, he made detailed notes on the large numbers of cultural resources still remaining in those areas (Reinecke 1930). KONA CDP 4-73 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, CULTURAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Today, even 185 years after Ellis' visit, the remains of these villages and the cultural resources associated with them are known and continue to be uncovered throughout Kona, especially in the lower elevations and coastal areas — a clear testament to the importance of Kona throughout Hawai`i's long history. Hawaiian ranching history precedes, and is distinct from, the ranch history of America's mainland West. When Captain George Vancouver gave the gift of a few cattle to King Kamehameha I in 1793, he had little idea how this single act would affect the history of Kona. Ten years later, an American gave a mare and a stallion to Kamehameha I. The ranching history of Kona began with these two small introductions. After bringing more cattle in 1794, Vancouver asked Kamehameha I to place a kapu on slaughtering them to allow the herd to grow. Kamehameha I placed a kapu and also constructed a huge stonewall, the "pa nuPto contain and protect them (Kona Historical Society, undated). The mid -1870's mark the beginning of the development of Kona's coffee industry. In the early years, Hawaiians and Chinese were hired to work on large coffee plantations. Later, Portuguese, Fillipino, Japanese, and others, who had either fulfilled or broken their contracts with HawaiTs sugar plantations, came to Kona to work the lands. Descendants of these workers remained in Kona and wove their lives together with the Hawaiian community, unified by the region's powerful natural environment, thus providing the foundation for Kona's incredible cultural landscape. Their mutual inter -dependence based on self-sufficiency, stewardship, and sustainability provides us with a model for the future. 4.4.1 Existing Conditions Kona's Cultural Landscape The cultural landscape of Kona is multi -faceted and pervasive, and, in today's modern society, sometimes not well understood. Nevertheless, it is this landscape that is at the heart and very nature of the Hawaiian culture; it is also that which is so vulnerable to the impacts of Western civilization. In order to understand the concept of cultural landscape, it is important to have some knowledge of the long-standing and valued cultural traditions and practices of the Hawaiian people, their relationship with nature, and the importance of these to the sustainability of the culture for over one thousand years. According to cultural historian, Kepa Maly (2001), "in any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawaii, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its natural environment. Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture ends and nature begins. In a traditional Hawaiian context, nature and culture are one and the same. There is no division between the two". So, in the Hawaiian mind, all aspects of the land — all natural and cultural resources — are interrelated and culturally significant. Cultural Resource Identification, Determination, and Action Kona has long been valued and known for its year -around mild climate, magnificent natural beauty, island lifestyle, friendly people and ethnic diversity. Over the last 50 years, the Kanaka Maoli 4-74 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS CUL TURAL RESOURCES (Hawaiian) culture has undergone a true renaissance and interest in learning the traditions and customs of the host culture has grown significantly. To take responsibility for the present, the identity, scope and significance of valued cultural, historical and natural resources which remain on and a part of the Kona lands today, and the extent to which traditional and customary native Hawaiian rights, practices and beliefs are exercised and need to be determined. Such a determination will provide direct information about the Hawaiian culture and convey a tangible and unique sense of place and values, all of which are important to the present and future generations of Kona residents and visitors alike. This, in turn, allows proper recognition and incorporation of the cultural landscape into modern land use planning. By doing so, it values native Hawaiian traditional and customary rights protected by the State constitution and further enables Hawaiian culture to thrive and perpetuate, as envisioned by the Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan (January 2008). Present Conditions: Kona s physical and cultural landscape has undergone tremendous change since Statehood, and with the ever increasing influx of new residents and visitors, the pace of this change has been more rapid, especially with new coastal and upland development taking place. Despite these changes, many areas of Kona still contain undisturbed historical and cultural resources which are significant and valued, not only by the Hawaiian people, but the Kona community, as well. While some sites are well known, most sites are not apparent and are only found during archaeological surveys. There is a need to enhance the contribution that these sites can provide to the day to day lives of people in Kona, rather than merely creating database inventories. At the same time, there is the issue of not disclosing the locations of sites for fear of looting or damage by the curious public. "When considering this relationship in the context of the present time, the historic preservation and cultural value of archaeological sites is more than dust their excavation or information potential, and archaeologists should recognize that Hawaiian sites are cultural resources with sp►ntual and heritage values " The extensive Kona Field System from Hu`ehu`e to Honaunau and beyond, are the lands that were intensively cultivated and yielded significant agricultural production. Portions of this field system have been recorded and can still be seen throughout Kona today. Kona contains approximately 40 sites listed on the National and State Historic Register. Most of these sites are of traditional Hawaiian origin and can yield information vital to reconstructing Hawai`i's early history. Equally, and perhaps more significantly, however, are the thousands of recorded historical and cultural sites and resources from the pre - contact Hawaiian period which are not listed on the `Register". Among these are along the Kona coast, particularly between Kailua and Honaunau, including the structures at Kaloko-Honok6hau National Historic Park, Ahu`ena at Kamakahonu, Puapua`a, the large complexes of Keolonahihi and Keakealaniwahine in Holualoa, Buddy E Neller, 1998 Former SHPD Archaeologist (Ruby McDonald, 2008) numerous heiau more well-known Kauakaiakaola in those in the royal KONA CDP 4-75 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBjECT/vES, CULTURAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS centers at Kahalu'u and Keauhou, Hikiau at Napo'opo'o, and, at Pu'uhonua o Honaunau National Historic Park, where Hale o Keawe was the ancestral mausoleum for many of Hawai`i's ruling chiefs before they were relocated to Oahu. 4.4.2 Overall Strategy For the purposes of this plan, the Historic Sites Element of the County General Plan has been expanded to: "Kona's Cultural Resources." The perspective of cultural resources much more fully captures the breath of Kona's cultural landscape, past, present, and future. The future well-being of Kona's cultural landscape can only be meaningfully addressed by policies in this plan by recognizing: 1. The fundamental relationship between cultural resources and the natural environment, and 2. The urgent need to ensure their protection very early in the land use planning process. Necessarily, this must involve commitments by citizens who have knowledge of these resources and by government representatives who have a direct role in the land use planning process itself, including those who are charged with proper implementation and enforcement of laws designed to protect these resources. Protection of resources will be aided by incorporating the values and philosophy of the ahupua`a resource management system into land use planning and decision-making). In addition, there is a need to recognize the significant cultural and historic resources that are part of our built environment within the District of Kona. The "built environment" includes historic buildings, our villages, and our agriculture lands, such as the Kona Coffee belt. Throughout this plan, there are policies that will provide tools to better celebrate and protect Kona's cultural landscape including: "Preserving Hawaii's histonc buildings, landscapes and communities is more than a feel good exercise, more than an economic development strategy and more than a marketing approach for the tounsm industry. It is central to who we are as a society and the value that we place on the people, places and events that shaped our present communities." Linda Delaney, 1990 OHA Land and Native Rights Dept. (Ruby McDonald, 2008) • Long-term protection and management of watersheds ■ Long-term protection and management of coastal resources ■ Protection and re-establishment of public trails ■ Preservation of rural, small town, country characterlatmosphere ■ Retention of open space and prevention of urban sprawl The County General Plan's Historic Sites Element, adopted in 2005, includes a number of goals, policies and standards that fall outside of the State Historic Preservation Division's (SHPD) jurisdiction. SHPD also lacks the regional insight needed to build upon the cultural foundation for Kona. While there is a sense of the value of all ethnic groups who have come to Kona, information on the pre - contact and early -contact eras remain largely undocumented and are in danger of being lost due to a lack of comprehensive planning through a common, local knowledge base. Therefore, the time has come for the County of Hawaii to take a proactive role in the compilation of information on and 4-76 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS CULTURAL RESOURCES management of our cultural resources, not just in the Kona district, but throughout Hawaii County. In doing so, the County will be able to supplement State policies in the following areas: ' ■ Pursue community education initiatives about cultural traditions and resources ■ Establish/update inventory of cultural resources ■ Increase community interaction with cultural resources t ■ Encourage the use and protection of mea kanu (native plants) ■ Promote the accurate and proper use of the Hawaiian language and traditional Hawaiian place names ' • Revise, implement and enforce county policies/laws to protect resources ■ Uphold constitutionally protected rights ■ Establish funding sources directed toward Cultural Resource protection ' The following Goals, Objectives, Policies, Actions will greatly enhance our ability to implement the goals adopted within the General Plan's Historic Sites Element. ' 4.4.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Cultural Resources Goal. The multi-ethnic cultures of Kona are preserved, protected, and restored in a manner that perpetuates those cultures and all aspects of the Aloha Spirit ' Objective CR -1: Community -Based Program. Develop a community-based program to evaluate and to protect Kona's cultural resources. Kona is rich with historic and cultural resources, but organized, proactive processes to provide stewardship for these resources are lacking. Policy CR -1.1: Kona Cultural Resources Committee (KCRC). The County of Hawaii shall create the Kona Cultural Resource Committee. The KCRC shall assist in the implementation of the Kona CDP's goals, policies, and actions for Kona, along with the General Plan. This Committee will be made up of residents of Kona. Some of the duties of this KCRC shall include the following items: 1. Review and supplement the State's inventory of historic sites, trails, and buildings 2. Recommend that cultural resources, including trails and historic sites appropriate for public access be included as part of the Kona CDP Open Space Network Program. Provide recommendations for the County to purchase appropriate buffers surrounding these sites, and providing appropriate tools for interpretation. 3. Recommend which cultural resources may not be appropriate for public access. 4. Assist in the identification, preservation and restoration of historic buildings. 5. Prepare a report on Kona's cultural landscape that would form the basis for: a. Assisting in the development of a joint program with the State and private property owners to protect and/or restore sites on public or private lands. b. Aiding in the development of a public education program regarding Kona's cultural landscape and resources. c. Identifying funding sources, such as the Kona Treasures Fund and the County Open Space Fund, to undertake actions designated in this plan. KONA CDP 4-77 CULTURAL RESOURCES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS d. Promoting the accurate and proper use of the Hawaiian language and traditional Hawaiian place names. e. Assisting in promoting public awareness, education, and the appropriate use of native plants in public and private landscaping. Action CR -1.1.a: Establish the KCRC. The Kona Cultural Resources Committee will include seven members. County Council Members from District 6, 7, and 8 will each nominate two (2) individuals, and the Mayor will nominate one member. All shall be kama`aina, or long-term residents of Kona and knowledgeable in Hawaiian history and/or cultural practice and tradition. Each shall be confirmed by the County Council. (PD, 1-2) Action CR -1.1b: Identify by GPS coordinates all existing historic trail alignments that (a) have been recommended for preservation by SHPD, (b) appear on historic maps and/or are known by oral tradition, and incorporate these into the County GIS database (PD, KCRC, SHPD, NPS, 1-2) Action CR -1.1c: On a continuing basis, identify by GPS coordinates, all cultural resource sites recommended for preservation by SHPD and KCRC, and incorporate in County's GIS database (PD, KCRC, SHPD, 1-2) Action CR -1.1d: Budget sufficient County funding to provide for administrative and technical support for KCRC to complete its duties listed in Policy CR -1.1 (PD, KCRC, 1-2) Action CR -1.1e: Establish a work plan to accomplish the duties in Policy CR — 1.1 (KCRC, PD, 1) Action CR —1.1f: Prepare Cultural Landscape Report. (KCRC, PD, 1-2) Objective CR -2: Funding of Kona Historic Resources Programs. In addition to budgeting general fund revenues, the County of Hawaii shall seek and participate in programs that can provide resources serving to protect and enhance Kona's historic resources. The federal government offers one source of preservation grant funds to local government agencies that is administered and distributed through the State Division of Historic Preservation. Known as Certified Local Government (CLG) funds, these monies are provided to the state by the federal government with the express purpose that they be distributed to support preservation projects engaged in by local governments. Typically, CLG funds help pay for historic site surveys and other studies and 4-78 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS CULTURAL RESOURCES ' planning projects. If Hawaii County becomes qualified as a CLG, it will become eligible to apply for funding to complete studies of the historic resources in Kona and throughout the County. Policy CR -2.1: Certified Local Government. The County shall seek the CLG status as Part of the National Historic Preservation Program, by establishing a Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission (HCCRC) which shall be comprised of a representative from each CDP Action CR -2.1a: The County shall apply for certification as a CLG under the National Historic Preservation CLG Program in order to be eligible to apply for and receive preservation funding administered by SHPD (KCRC, PD, 1-2). Policy CR -2.2: Regulatory System. The County shall examine interrelated responsibilities, identify weaknesses in the current programs, and make recommendations for improving programs regulating and protecting cultural resources and historic sites. This may result in recommendations for changes in policy County -wide or specifically to the Kona CDP. ' Action CR -2.2a: The County shall convene a workshop(s) that would include government agency representatives, cultural representatives and other stakeholders to review and make recommendations on the current programs ' intended to protect cultural resources and other historic sites (HCCRC, 3.5) Action CR -2.2b: The County shall recommend amendments to appropriate ' ordinances to incorporate the stewardship and protection of historic sites, buildings and artifacts (Grubbing and Grading, Subdivision Code) (HCCRC, 3-5) ' Action CR -2.2c: The County shall recommend amendments to relevant ordinances to incorporate the appropriate use of native plants in the landscaping of public facilities such as schools, government buildings, and parks. (HCCRC, 3-5) Objective CR -3: Preservation of Kanaka Maoli Culture and Island Values. Ensure that our Kanaka Maoli and island values and cultures are preserved and perpetuated. ' The following is from the Strategic Actions, Kanaka Maoli and Island Values, Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan. KONA CDP 4.79 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, CULTURAL RESOURCES POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Policy CR -3.1: Honor Kanaka Maoli culture and heritage. The Kanaka Maoli culture is the foundation of Hawai`i's living culture. We must ensure that the Kanaka Maoli people are supported and that this part of our culture is perpetuated. The success of this endeavor will ensure that the way of the Kanaka Maoli will guide our actions and behaviors in the years ahead. Action CR -3.1a: Ensure the existence of and support for public and private entities that further the betterment of Kanaka Maoli (public and private agencies, on-going). Action CR -3.1b: Increase fluency in Kanaka Maoll language. It is one of the official languages of Hawaii (community, DOE, UH, on-going). Action CR -3.1c: Sponsor cross -sector dialogue on Kanaka Maoli culture and island values (public and private agencies, on-going). Action CR -3.1d: Protect Kanaka Maoli intellectual property and related traditional knowledge (public and private agencies, community, SHPD, on- going). Action CR -3.1e: Provide Kanaka Maoli cultural education for residents, visitors and the general public (public and private agencies, community, on-going) Policy CR -3.2: Preserve and perpetuate our Hawaiian and island cultural values by celebrating our cultural diversity and island way of life. Our diversity likewise defines us. Ensuring that our cultural practices flourish through language, dance, song, and art is crucial to sustaining who we are as a people. We must protect and nurture all aspects of our diverse history, traditions and cultures. Action CR -3.2a: Increase the number of educators who teach cultural and historic education (public and private agencies, community, on-going). Policy CR -3.3: Enable Kanaka Maoli and others to pursue traditional Kanaka Maoli lifestyles and practices. We must provide opportunities to those who want to pursue and perpetuate the way of the Kanaka Maoli. 4-80 KONA CDP I CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING Action CR -3.3a: Provide Kanaka Maoli mentors with opportunities to pass on Hawaiian culture and knowledge to the next generation of Kanaka Maoli and others. The power of wisdom comes from communication (public and private agencies, community, on-going). Action CR -3.3b: Perpetuate Kanaka Maoli food production associated with land ' and ocean traditions and practices (public and private agencies, community, on- going). ' Policy CR -3.4: Provide support for subsistence -based businesses and economies. We must create opportunities for the Kanaka Maoli practice of subsistence -based businesses and economies, and remove the hurdles to their start-ups and development. Such traditional ' cultural practices are an economic alternative to Western forms of trade and commerce. Subsistence fishing, gathering, hunting and farming are examples of subsistence -based economies that are viable. Policy CR -3.5: Ahupua`a Resource and Management. Integrate the values and principles of the traditional ahupua`a resource and management systems as a basis for a sustainable Hawaii. Action CR -3.5a: Apply the ahupua`a concept in action plan for the Kona Mauka 1 Watershed Management Program (Policy ENV -1.2). 4.5 HOUSING The Housing section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies and actions to guide the development of affordable housing in Kona. Over the past decade, housing availability, including affordable housing, has been a growing issue within the County of Hawaii. Rapid population growth in Kona has not been accompanied by parallel growth in affordable housing construction. The cost of housing construction; the price of land, and the second home market all contribute to the lack of affordable housing opportunities. The availability of safe and decent housing for all segments of our community is at the center of what it takes to sustain a healthy community. Access to a range of available housing affords the opportunity for our community to be ethnically, professionally and age diverse. It is the core of a strong, vibrant community. A continuum of housing options shall exist, including housing for homeless and disabled, Guiding Principles Housing 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. ✓ 4. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ KONA CDP 4-81 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACTIONS housing for the elderly, affordable rental housing, and affordable home ownership. Housing types should be located to create a mix of housing opportunities for individuals and families. 4.5.1 Existing Conditions In 2006, SMS Research & Marketing Services, in cooperation with the Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HHFDC) and the various Counties' housing agencies, prepared the Hawaii Housing Policy Study, 2006 (February 2007) that reviewed various housing issues throughout the State of Hawai'i. This study provides current data but is primarily county -wide and not district -specific. As the population increases, new households are formed and the need for housing increases. If the rate of housing production keeps up with population increase, then housing availability will be sufficient to handle the need generated by new households. Between 2003 and 2006, the County of Hawai'i had an annual increase of 4.3% in total housing units, while having a 2.7% annual population increase during the same period (See Table 4-2) (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., 2006). Table 4-2 Total ousing Units, County of Hawai'i, 1990 2006 1990 1 1992 1 1997 1 1999 1 2000 1 2003 1 2004 1 2005 1 2006 48,253 1 49,394 1 59,098 1 61,108 1 62,674 1 67,878 1 70,927 1 71,984 1 77,577 % Change 1990-2000 = 2 5% % Change 2000-2003 = 2 6% % Chane 2003-2006 = 4 3% $200,000 Source 2006 Housing Poliq Study, SMS Research & Marketin Services, Inc , February 2007 Although home construction has outpaced population growth, ironically, this County, and particularly Kona, has a housing crisis. The production of new homes has been skewed to the upper income. As the real estate prices on the West Coast have surpassed those in Hawaii, the out-of-state demand has increased and has pushed home prices to record highs. In this County, nearly 10% of the single-family homes and 16% of the condominium units were owned by persons from outside the State (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007). Between Where We Have Been 1990 and 2006, the housing Housing Prices and Rents, 1985-2006 stock Statewide occupied by Hawai'i households has dropped from 92% to 86 8% reflecting the $400,000 $360,000- 350,000$300,000$250,000$200,000 $300,000- $250,000- $200,000 $150,000 $100,000 $1,900 recent trends for increased resort $1,700 development, increased out -of - $1,500 state real estate purchases, $1,300 increased number of second $1,100 homes, and the conversion of $900 residential units for visitor use (SMS Research & Marketing $5oo Services, Inc., February 2007). $soo "Alopl�a�h�� Housing rices and rents in 2006 tititititi 9p rent I have been at historic -highs. The 4-82 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HOUSING chart to the left shows that the Countywide rate of increase in median price for sales prices and rents ' from 2003 to 2006 has been unprecedented (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007). An enormous impact of rapid price run -ups and lower affordability is an increase in the households with inadequate housing. Inadequate housing can be defined affected by pent-up demand9, doubling up10, and homelessness". Other affordability include an increase in the number of young families moving out of the County, shortage of workers, and workers forced to commute from more affordable areas such, as Hawaii Ocean View Estates (HOVE) in Ka`u, who commute to their jobs in north Kona and Kohala Kona not only has a shortage of housing for families below the median income of the area, but also has a shortage of housing for many moderate -income households that affects the ability to recruit and retain essential community personnel, such as police officers, fire fighters, teachers, medical support, and civil servants. ' The County of Hawaii defines an affordable unit as a for -sale or rental unit affordable to a household earning up to 140% of the County's median ' income, where the housing costs (e.g., rent or mortgage and utilities) would not exceed 30% of the household income.12 The qualifying household ' income depends on household size (see Table 4-3 for the 2006 Affordable Housing Income Guidelines). Based on 30% housing costs at an ' assumed interest rate, Table 4-4 shows the 2007 affordable sales price and rents. ' The affordability ratio is the ratio of the affordable housing price to the median home price A ratio of 1.0 means the median market price is at a level ' affordable to the median income household, less than 1.0 means the median market price exceeds the affordable price, and greater than 1.0 means ' the median market price is lower than the as including impacts of number of households the lack of Dilemma of Workforce Housing Case example of a 2 -income household of a starting police officer and an elementary school teacher Even for a two -income family of a starting police officer and an elementary school, to purchase a new home at the median price of $500,000 would require paying 50% of their household income for mortgage, property taxes, property insurance, and utilities Median sales price 3- bdrm SFD $500,00000 80% Mortgage $400,00000 Monthly payment @ 6 5% interest, 30 yrs $2,52827 Property tax $33333 Insurance $41667 Utilities $30000 Subtotal Shelter costs $3,57827 Starting Police salary + starting teacher salary per month $7,16667 2006 County median $4,25000 Police + Teacher % median 169% Shelter Income % 50% Affordability Hawaii County Affordable Price/Actual Price AFFORDABILITY 1 30 v 120 -- - - - - - -- - - - -- - - 1,0 - - - -- --- - ?160 - - -- -- --- - c060 - - - - - - - - - ------- d010 ---------- -------- - 2 060 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 050---------------------- 040 ._..__...,_.,, . , m m m m �'� R'p'n'R'N'4 ���-�____ 2RRRRRnnn RRR ' 9 Pent up demand Households with the desire to move to a new unit but unable to do so The number of households who well be moving out of State to find affordable housing, and those who cannot buy because of soaring housing costs 10 Doubling up Multi -generational families or families living with unrelated individuals in one unit who would rather split up. 11 The number of homeless persons and families has not been measured since 2003 12 Hawaii County Code chapter 11. I KONA CDP 4-83 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACTIONS affordable price. The chart to the right shows that for Hawaii County, the affordability ratio dropped from affordable (over 1.10) in 2002 to very unaffordable (about 0.70) in 2006 (SMS Research & Marketing Services, Inc., February 2007). The Housing Study projects that the median price has peaked and the affordability ratio should start to improve to about 0.80 by 2010. 4.5.2 Overall Strategy The market forces and cost of infrastructure in Kona has driven the price of homes skyward. Without intervention, the market will deliver affordably priced homes further and further away from employment job centers, resulting in long commutes for the workforce. Affordable housing within the urban core is essential to maintain and enhance an economical and viably diverse community. The market also does not adequately meet special housing needs. Intervention strategies are long overdue and need to be coordinated with existing island -wide initiatives. Existing island -wide initiatives include: ■ Affordable rental property tax incentives. Property tax incentives are in place to encourage landlords to offer affordable rents (HCC Sections 19-2 and 19-53); ■ Density bonus. The inclusionary zoning requirements in HCC Chapter 11 provide a density bonus where a developer who is required to meet the 20% affordable housing requirement is entitled to a 10% density bonus and 10% reduction in lot size from what is permitted under the existing zoning (HCC Section 11-8). ■ Extending the Hawaii County Code (HCC) Chapter 11 requirements to existing zoned property. A bill, now being drafted, proposes to amend HCC Chapter 11 to apply the affordable housing requirements to subdivision applications for existing zoned property. ■ Homebuyer education program. The County Office of Housing and Community Development (OHCD) has contracted with the Hawaii Home Ownership Center to provide an island -wide homebuyer education program that includes the following: financial literacy (setting financial goals, preparing budget plans, saving for homeownership, understanding credit), shopping for a home (identifying needs, tenancies and tenure, referrals to lenders and realtors), and post -purchase counseling (basic maintenance and repair, predatory lending, mortgage delinquency counseling). Hawaii Island Housing Trust (HINT). The County established this 501(c)(3) non-profit corporation to develop housing projects and provide technical or financial assistance to other non -profits. The overall strategy builds on these ongoing initiatives and structures a partnership where all sectors are asked to contribute towards finding solutions to the very complex problem of affordable housing— for landlords to consider affordable rentals, for private developers especially to help meet the needs of our workforce population, for the public sector and non -profits to share the burden of providing housing for the lower income, and for the community to support these efforts with donations, time, and awareness. 4-84 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS IThe primary target groups for housing assistance includes three sectors: HOUSING ' 1. Low-income households (<80% median income): Since this group will find it very difficult to support a market rate mortgage to buy a home, the focus is to expand self-help housing program opportunities, build more new rental units (primary responsibility of government and ' non -profits), encourage affordable rentals of existing units through property tax incentives, and provide supplemental assistance for the Section 8 rental subsidy; 2. Moderate -income households (80 to 180% median income): To enhance homeownership opportunities, the focus is to provide incentives for non-profit housing entities and private developers, to optimize the use of suitable government land for affordable housing projects, to ' enhance the first-time buyer's capacity through homebuyer education and counseling programs, and to keep these affordable units affordable upon subsequent sales through deed restrictions; and ■ Elderly and disabled: To encourage private developers to build more units appropriate for the elderly or disabled, bonus incentives are provided; to assist the elderly and disabled ' evaluate housing choices in relation to their special needs, a one-stop information and counseling center is proposed. ' As a framework to focus the efforts, the strategy involves the following plans: 1. Build Units. ' ■ Provide Zoning Incentives for Kona. As an incentive to the private sector, an affordable housing floating zone would expedite rezoning for property less than 15 acres within the Kona Urban Area. ■ Encourage Innovative Redevelopment within Existing Villages. Existing building codes may pose obstacles to rehabilitation of existing buildings or innovative new construction. A central point in government (the Design Center) would assist in identifying and resolving case -specific problems and opportunities. ■ Identify and Facilitate the Use of Suitable Public Lands. The use of public lands for affordable housing significantly reduces the land cost of developing such housing. ' ■ Promote Accessory Units. Accessory units (also known as `ohana units) increase the affordable rentals inventory, and also could enhance a buyer's marginal capacity to buy a home by factoring the supplemental rent income. Together with the County's new tax break for affordable rentals, this would be an incentive for more homeowners to consider creating affordable accessory units. ' Offer Pre -Approved Affordable Designs. Small landowners or contractors could be encouraged to build affordable units if pre -approved plans for starter homes, accessory ' units, or other housing types were available at nominal or no cost. KONA CDP 4$5 AFFORDABLE HOUSING GUIDELINES FOR THE COUNTY OF HAWAII FOR -SALE UNITS GUIDELINES (Effectiveoslo1/o7) This information is based on 2006 median income established by the U S Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) for various family sizes Adjustments to the very low- (50%) and low-income (80%) limits are made by HUD for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing costs Most income limits are proportionately based on very low-income limits Thus, the four -person (60%) income limit is 120% (60150ths) of the four -person very low-income limit The figures considers (1) a 30 -year conventional fixed mortgage, (2) a fixed interest rate of 6 50%•, (3) housing expenses equal to 281k of gross annual income, and (4) a down payment equal to 50/6 of the sales price. 'The interest rate used is the annual average interest rate for a 30 -year conventional fixed mortgage, for the twelve months ending in the previous year, as published by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp (www freddiemac.com/news/factbook) The rate is rounded up to the nearest half percent FAMILY SIZE: 1 30% $ 327 One $ 350 Two $ 420 $ Three 486 Four $ 542 50% $ 545 $ 583 $ 701 $ 810 $ 903 60% $ 654 $ 700 $ 841 $ 972 $ 1,084 Income $ 21800 $ 26,160 $ 30,520 $ 34,900 $ 39,240 $ 40,M0 $ 44,810 $ 48,890 $ 52,960 $ 57,040 Sales price $ 84,700 $ 101,700 $ 118,600 $ 135.600 $ 152,500 $ 158,300 $ 174,100 $ 190,000 $ 205.800 $ 221,700 FAMILY SIZE- 2 Income $ 24,90D $ 29,880 $ 34,860 $ 39,900 $ 44,820 $ 46,560 S 51 $ 55,870 $ 60.530 $ 65.180 Sales price $ 96,800 $ 116,100g$ 135,500 $ t55,000 $ 174,200 $ 180,900 $ 199,000 $ 217,100.$ 235,200 $ 253,300 FAMILY SIZE: 3 Income $ 28,050 $ 331660 $ 39,270 $ 44,850 $ 50,490; $ 52,380 $ 57,620 $ $2,860 $ 68,090 $ 73,330 Sales price $ 109,000 $ 130,800 $ 152,600 $ 174,300 $ 196,200 $ 203,500 $ 223,900 $ 244,300 $ 264.600 $ 285,000 FAMILY SIZE: 4 Income $ 311,1501 $ 37,380 $ 43.61101S 49,850 $ 56,070 S 58,200 S 64,020 $ 69,840 $ 75,6601$_ 81480 Sales price $ 121,000 $ 145,300 $ 169,500 $ 193,700 $ 217,900 $ 226.200 $ 248,800 $ 271,400 $ 294 000 $ 316,600 FAMILY SIZE: 5 Income $ 33,650 $ 40,380 $ 47,110 $ 53,850 $ 60,570 $ 62,860 $ 69,140 $ 75,430 $ 81,710 $ 88,000 Kies price $ 130,800 $ 156,900 $ 183,100 $ 209,300 $ 235,400 $ 244,300 $ 268,700 $ 293,100 $ 317,500 $ 342,000 FAMILY SIZE: 6 Income 1 $ 38.1501$ 43,380 $ 50,610 $ 57.8501$ 65,0701$ 67.5101$ 74.260 $ 81.010 $ 87,770 1 S 94,520 Safes pAce 1 $ 140.5001$ 168,600 1 $ 196,7001$ 224.8001.$ 252,9001$ 262,3001$ 288.6001$ 314,800 $ 341.1001$ 367,300 FOR -SALE FINISHED LOTS GUIDELINES (Effective o6tt9w) This information is based on the affordable sales price for a completed unit for a household, earning one hundred percent of the median income in the County of Hawai I, less the cost to build a single-family home of 1,100 square feet '$130 per square foot cost is based on estimates by The County of Hawal i, Department of Public Works, Building Division FOR -RENT GUIDELINES (Effective os/oilu) Affordable rents are based on 30% of gross monthly income, including utilities (water, sanitary sewage service, electricity and/or gas) Please refer to form MUD-52667(Apawances for Tenant-Fumished Utilities and Other Services) for utilities for either single- and/or mufti -family units Bed .. 6/a of Median Income 30% $ 327 One $ 350 Two $ 420 $ Three 486 Four $ 542 50% $ 545 $ 583 $ 701 $ 810 $ 903 60% $ 654 $ 700 $ 841 $ 972 $ 1,084 80% $ 872 $ 935 $ 1,121 $ 1,296 $ 100% $ 1,018 $ 1,091 $ 1,309 $ 1,513 $ 1,446 1,687 120% $ 1.222$ 1.309$ 1,571 $ 1,815 $ 2.025 140% 1 $ 1,4261$ 1,5271$ 1,8331$ 2.1181S 2,363 INCOME SCHEDULE BY FAMILY SIZE 1HAWA111 THE FOLLOWING TABLE PRESENTS INCOME LIMITS BY FAMILY SIZE AND BY PERCENTAGES OF THE MEDIAN INCOME ESTABLISHED BY HUD. THESE INCOME LIMITS SERVE AS GUIDELINES TO ESTABLISH SALES/RENTAL PREFERENCE. THE COUNTY OF MAUI ESTABLISHES INCOME LIMITS FOR LANAI AND EAST AND WEST MOLOKAI. THE 2006 HUD MEDIAN INCOME IS 1 $55,300 % OF ---- -- -----INCOME LIMITS BY FAMILY SIZE --------- -- ------ MEDIAN 1 PERSON 2 PERSON 3 PERSON 4 PERSON 5 PERSON 6 PERSON 7 PERSON 8 PERSON Adjustments 0.7000 0.8000 0.9000 1.0000 1.0800 1.1600 1.2400 1.3200 for family size Base 10% 4,190 4,790 5,390 5,990 6,470 6,950 7,430 7,910 20% 8,380 9,580 10,780 11,980 12,940 13,900 14,860 15,820 30% 12,550 14,350 16,150 17,950 19,400 20,800 22,250 23,700 40% 16,760 19,160 21,560 23,960 25,880 27,800 29,720 31,640 50% 20,950 23,950 26,950 29,950 32,350 34,750 37,150 39,550 60% 25,140 28,740 32,340 35,940 38,820 41,700 44,580 47,460 70% 29,330 33,530 37,730 41,930 45,290 48,650 52,010 55,370 80% 33,550 38,300 43,100 47,900 51,750 55,550 59,400 63,250 90% 37,710 43,110 48,510 53,910 58,230 62,550 66,870 71,190 100% 38,710 44,240 49,770 55,300 59,720 64,150 68,570 73,000 1100/0 42,580 48,660 54,750 60,830 65,700 70,560 75,430 80,300 120% 46,450 53,090 59,720 66,360 71,670 76,980 82,290 87,600 130% 50,320 57,510 64,700 71,890 77,640 83,390 89,140 94,890 140% 54,1901 61,940 69,680 77,420 831610 $9,8101 96,0001 102,190 HUD determines the median, very low (50%), and low (80%) income limits. Adjustments are made by HUD for areas with unusually high or low family income or housing cost to income relationships. Pursuant to rules for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program, the 60% income limit is calculated as 120% (60/50) of the very low income limit for each family size. The income limits for other income groups of less than 80°% are calculated in the same way. The remaining income limits are calculated as a percentage of the median income for a family of four (the base) with adjustments for family size (e.g , income for a 3 -person family is 90% of the base, income for a 2 -person family is 80% of the base, etc.). CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 2. Maintain the Affordable Inventory. ■ Keep Some Units Perpetually Affordable. In a down market, the homes with restrictions are hardest to sell. But unless restrictions are imposed, as soon as the market turns, the prices will quickly escalate beyond the affordable range. Even in an up market, restricted homes that offer better quality for the price as a result of subsidies and/or the reduction of the land cost through a lease arrangement may be able to compete with unrestricted market homes. Government or non -profits should take the lead to develop and administer the perpetually -affordable inventory. ■ Replace the Displaced. For redevelopment projects, if there are any existing affordable units within the project area, the redevelopment project shall provide units comparable in number and affordability. ■ Renovate Under -Used Existing Rental Housing. Encourage repair, renovate, or redevelop existing public housing or multi -family private units. 3. Increase Buying and Renting Capacity. ■ Address Workforce Gap Group Needs. A segment of the population earns too much to qualify for affordable housing programs, yet too little to buy or rent decent housing close to their place of employment. These are your teachers, police officers, fire fighters, mechanics, and other moderate income households. In an area such as Kona, where ordinary homes are significantly more expensive than other parts of the island, the County's definition of "affordable" needs to be expanded to include this group to qualify for appropriate assistance. ■ Enhance Buying Capacity. There are various means to help a prospective buyer to qualify for a mortgage, such as no -down -payment loan or low-interest loan for the down payment; location -efficient mortgages that give credit for reduced transportation costs when locating closer to work; and energy-efficient mortgages that give credit for energy- saving designs that reduce monthly utility costs. Enhance Renting Capacity. Kona's rents often are too high to qualify for Section 8 assistance. A supplemental subsidy source could reduce the number of returned Section 8 vouchers. Provide Education and Counseling. To become a homeowner requires financial knowledge and good credit. An effective education and credit counseling program is essential in qualifying buyers and assuring that they are responsible homeowners. Raise the Workforce Earning Power. Community involvement is necessary in order to create and sustain a quality educational system. Only by increasing the learning capabilities and practical skills through our educational system can we shift upward the percentage of Kona residents who earn enough to buy a home. For this reason, the policies and actions related to workforce development (See Policy ECON-1.4) are pertinent to housing. 4-88 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING ' 4. Address Special Needs. ■ Elderly and Disabled. Even for those who are able to afford long-term care, choices are ' lacking. To stimulate the supply, developers would be allowed to receive additional credit for assisted living and other types of special housing which apply to the specific needs of the elderly and disabled, respectively. A one-stop center to provide information on housing ' choices is direly needed (See Section 4.6 Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services). ■ Single -resident Occupancy Units (SRO's). Single -resident occupancy units, which are ' dormitory -like structures, are particularly suitable to single farm workers and commuting resort workers who need a place to stay during the work week. Because of the predominance of these types of workers in Kona, developers are expected to meet their ' needs. ■ Farm workers. To encourage more farm worker housing, a policy interpretation of the ' zoning code will allow farm workers to live on a different farm than where they work. ■ Homeless. The Kona Housing Trust Fund, discussed in Policy HSG -1.2, will provide an ' additional source of funding to meet emergency needs to abate homelessness and to increase`the supply of homeless shelters. ' 5. Create a Funding Source and Housing Advocate. ■ Turn the Second -Home Market into an Ally. Recognize the rippling effects of Kona's booming second -home market on the construction costs and sales prices of homes, ensure that resort residential development either build affordable units (onsite or offsite) or pay in -lieu fees. Establish a Non -Profit Corporation and Trust Fund. Establish a Kona Housing Trust Fund to be administered by a Kona -based board of directors. This fund could be a repository for HCC Chapter 11 in -lieu fees, shared appreciation proceeds, and other designated sources. The fund would be used to finance or provide a match to subsidize land acquisition, water commitment fees, predevelopment activities, infrastructure improvements, and other related activities. The Trust could also facilitate matching developers who hold affordable housing credits with those who need credits to satisfy their HCC Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements. 6. Monitor Market Conditions and Need. Kona's housing needs, which are unique to the rest of the County, justify the need for regional -specific data to nimbly respond to changing needs and market conditions. The Kona Housing Trust Fund is the funding source for data collection spearheaded by the Kona Housing Non -Profit. KONA CDP ,:. CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 4.5.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Housing Goal. Diversity of housing choices for all segments of the population close to places of employment andlor daily needs. Objective HSG -1: Create Local Funding Source. To establish a non-profit entity and funding source to address Kona's affordable housing needs, which are particularly acute relative to the other areas of the County Policy HSG -1.1: Kona Housing Non -Profit. The Kona CDP Implementation Committee (See Section 5.2.1 Organizational Structure and Membership) shall designate an existing non- profit corporation, or create a new non-profit corporation, to carry out the Housing policies. The board of directors for this Kona Housing Non -Profit shall be Kona -based. Besides administering the Kona Housing Trust Fund, this non-profit shall carry out other responsibilities specified in this plan. Policy HSG -1.2: Kona Housing Trust Fund. The Kona Housing Non -Profit shall establish a Kona Housing Trust Fund. The potential funding sources to be coordinated with the County include linkage fees, which are funds contributed by companies requiring large numbers of employees, in -lieu fees, shared appreciation proceeds, charitable contributions, and others. The fund would be used as authorized by the Kona Housing Non -Profit, including without limitation, down payment assistance to first-time homebuyers, supplemental Section 8 subsidy, supplemental homebuyer education and counseling, homeless shelters, emergency rent, and data gathering. Objective HSG -2: Monitoring Housing Conditions. To gather Kona -specific data in order to adjust to changing needs and market conditions. Policy HSG -2.1: Data Gathering. The Kona Housing Trust Fund may be used to finance annual gathering of relevant data, as determined by the Kona Housing Non -Profit, including, without limitation, the following: 1. To evaluate whether adjustments of target groups are necessary: a. Median income for North and South Kona residents; b. Median home sales price for North and South Kona; c. Median rental for North and South Kona; d. % own vs. % rent. 2. To evaluate current need for affordable units: a. Number of affordable rental units and vacancy rates (Section 8 rent units or receiving property tax break); b. Number of returned Section 8 vouchers; c. Number of perpetually affordable (controlled appreciation or leased) units and vacancy rates; 4-90 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING d. Number of affordable units sold at market price (due to lack of demand for restricted affordable unit); e. Number on waiting list for government housing. Objective HSG -3: Increase Buying and Renting Capacity of Target Groups. To assist the lower income groups in obtaining decent housing and to enhance the opportunities of first-time homebuyers. Policy HSG -3.1: Homebuyer Education and Counseling. The Kona Housing Non -Profit will have the authority to supplement the County's homebuyer education and counseling program, ensuring appropriate and meaningful outreach to educate prospective first-time Kona homebuyers on strategies to save money, finance mortgages (including the potential rental income of an accessory unit), rehabilitate credit, and other pertinent subjects. Policy HSG -3.2: First -Time Homebuyers. The Kona Housing Non -Profit (see Policy HSG - 3.4 below) will have the authority to finance programs to assist first-time Kona homebuyers, ' thus supplementing available county, state, or federal programs. Policy HSG -3.3: Low -Income Renters. The Kona Housing Non -Profit will have the authority ' to finance a program to supplement the Section 8 subsidy to pay security deposits, or provide other assistance, in order to minimize the number of returned vouchers. Policy HSG -3.4: Employer -Assisted Rental. The Kona Housing Non -Profit will have the authority to assist employers who provide rental assistance to their employees for onsite housing or housing within five (5) miles of the place of work by locating rental units and expanding recruitment advertisements. Objective HSG -4: Build More Units. To build more units that offer a variety of housing types, tenures, and affordability. Policy HSG4.1: Public Sector and Non -profits Primarily Responsible to Meet Needs of Lower -Income and Middle -Income Renters. Because affordable rents cannot usually fully pay for the actual costs to develop a rental project 13, the private market cannot be relied upon to deliver these types of projects Therefore, public housing projects and projects using public lands or financing shall devote a significant percentage of the residential units to meeting the needs of middle-income renters (50 to 100% of median income) and lower-income households (less than 50% of median). Policy HSG -4.2: Workforce Housing. Because of the higher market sales prices in Kona, relative to the other parts of the island, even the workforce group (up to 180% of median income) has difficulty finding housing close to work. Therefore, a developer of a � housing project in Kona may earn an affordable housing credit of 0.25 for every completed for -sale dwelling unit affordable for qualified households earning 120-180% of median, provided that 13 See David Paul Rosen & Associates, Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis, p ES -2, -6, -8 KONA CDP 4-91 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACTIONS this provision shall be superseded by any subsequent amendment to Chapter 11 relating to Countywide standards for workforce housing. Policy HSG 4.3: Affordable Housing Floating Zone. In recognition of the critical affordable housing needs in Kona, a project that meets the following criteria shall qualify as an affordable housing floating zone: ■ The project is located in the Kona Urban Area; ■ The project area requiring rezoning totals less than 15 acres; ■ The project is served, will provide, or has commitments to provide all necessary infrastructure in a timely manner; ■ The project consists predominantly of residential uses and at least 80% of the residential units will be priced to be affordable; ■ The application includes a form of a declaration of covenants that requires 80% of all residential units built on the subject property to be affordable under the definition of HCC Chapter 11 Housing (including workforce), in which the declaration shall incorporate by reference the Affordable Housing Agreement referenced below and recorded upon rezoning approval; • The application includes a draft Affordable Housing Agreement setting forth the terms of sale or rent, resale restrictions, and other terms, which Agreement shall be finalized and executed between the applicant and the County Office of Housing and Community Development prior to enactment of the rezoning ordinance. A project meeting the above criteria entitles the applicant to the following: ■ The application shall be reviewed with a rebuttable presumption that the project furthers the intent of the zoning code and is consistent with the goals, objectives, policies, and action of the General Plan and the Kona CDP; ■ The application for State Land Use reclassification, as appropriate, shall be processed concurrently with the rezoning application; ■ The time period for the Director's review and the Planning Commission's review shall be 60 days, respectively; ■ The project shall be exempt from fair share (or impact fees) conditions; ■ If 100% affordable, the project in concurrence with the Design Center may preempt planning standards pursuant to HRS Section 46-15; ■ The project may qualify for any available subsidies from the County, Kona Housing Trust Fund, or other sources to pay, in whole, or in part the water commitment fees. Policy HSG -4.4: Housing Variety. The housing in TODs and TNDs shall be designed to mix the types, tenures, and affordability at the block level, to the extent practicable. An additional credit of 0.5 (beyond the credits specified in HCC Section 11-5) shall be recognized for senior or disability housing units (e.g., assisted living) and affordable live -work units (see Table 4-5). 4-92 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ' POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING ' Policy HSG 4.5: Innovation Encouraged for Redevelopment Projects. In Kailua Village, or the Rural Towns and Villages, landowners or developers who wish to develop affordable housing by rehabilitating or adapting an existing building, building a new infill building, or ' providing such housing above a commercial establishment may bring their proposal to the Design Center. The Design Center shall assist with any building code, zoning code, or other permitting issues to facilitate and enable the construction of such units. The level of ' assistance, such as permit coordination or subsidy financing, may increase proportionate to the number of committed affordable units. ' Policy HSG -4.6: Accessory Units. Accessory (`ohana dwelling) units are encouraged in order to increase the supply of rentals. For TODs and TNDs, any provisions in the Project District rezoning ordinance relating to accessory units may preempt the zoning code ohana dwelling provisions (HCC Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 3). For existing residences in conventional zoning districts that want to add an accessory unit, the `ohana dwelling requirements of the zoning code apply. Policy HSG -4.7: Pre -Approved Affordable Housing Designs. The Kona Housing Non - Profit (See Policy HSG -1.2) shall pay for the design of standard accessory units, starter ' homes, and other appropriate housing types. The County will consider expeditiously issue building permits for pre -approved designs. These designs shall be available to interested individuals or professional builders at nominal or no cost. ' Policy HSG -4.8: Density Bonus for Affordable Housing. The developer shall be granted a 1:1 density bonus over and beyond the 10% density bonus in HCC Section 11-8 for each ' affordable housing unit that exceeds the affordable housing requirements, up to a maximum 30% density bonus ' Objective HSG -5: Maintain Affordable Housing Stock. To maintain an inventory of affordable units to meet present and future needs, while providing some opportunity for homeowners to upgrade their housing condition through equity appreciation. KONA CDP 4-93 Table 4-5 Housing Credit Percentage of median Affordable housing Orly, Disabled, or household income credit per HCC Section LiveVork Unit Credits 11-5 120-180% (proposed) 025 0.75 120-140% 05 1.0 Dwelling 100-120% 10 1.5 Unit 80-100% 1.5 '2.0 80% 2.0 2.5 Rental 80-100 10 60-80% 1 1.5 2.0 Unit 60% 1 20 2.5 ' Policy HSG 4.5: Innovation Encouraged for Redevelopment Projects. In Kailua Village, or the Rural Towns and Villages, landowners or developers who wish to develop affordable housing by rehabilitating or adapting an existing building, building a new infill building, or ' providing such housing above a commercial establishment may bring their proposal to the Design Center. The Design Center shall assist with any building code, zoning code, or other permitting issues to facilitate and enable the construction of such units. The level of ' assistance, such as permit coordination or subsidy financing, may increase proportionate to the number of committed affordable units. ' Policy HSG -4.6: Accessory Units. Accessory (`ohana dwelling) units are encouraged in order to increase the supply of rentals. For TODs and TNDs, any provisions in the Project District rezoning ordinance relating to accessory units may preempt the zoning code ohana dwelling provisions (HCC Chapter 25, Article 6, Division 3). For existing residences in conventional zoning districts that want to add an accessory unit, the `ohana dwelling requirements of the zoning code apply. Policy HSG -4.7: Pre -Approved Affordable Housing Designs. The Kona Housing Non - Profit (See Policy HSG -1.2) shall pay for the design of standard accessory units, starter ' homes, and other appropriate housing types. The County will consider expeditiously issue building permits for pre -approved designs. These designs shall be available to interested individuals or professional builders at nominal or no cost. ' Policy HSG -4.8: Density Bonus for Affordable Housing. The developer shall be granted a 1:1 density bonus over and beyond the 10% density bonus in HCC Section 11-8 for each ' affordable housing unit that exceeds the affordable housing requirements, up to a maximum 30% density bonus ' Objective HSG -5: Maintain Affordable Housing Stock. To maintain an inventory of affordable units to meet present and future needs, while providing some opportunity for homeowners to upgrade their housing condition through equity appreciation. KONA CDP 4-93 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy HSG -5.1: Perpetually Affordable Units. Public agencies and non -profits that develop or own affordable housing units shall utilize methods, such as leasing or controlled appreciation, to ensure that sales prices of these units remain perpetually affordable. Policy HSG -5.2: Privately -Constructed Affordable Units. For private projects subject to affordable housing requirements, the Kona Housing Non -Profit or other non-profit shall have a first right of refusal to 10% of the required affordable units. All affordable units shall remain affordable for 40 years. No restrictions may apply after 40 years based on the rationale that newer homes will replace these older homes in the affordable housing stock. During the resale -restricted period, the level of restriction shall meet the following minimum requirements: ■ 1St 20 years: The affordable units shall have a minimum 20 -year controlled appreciation restriction (cost of improvements plus appreciation based on the Honolulu Consumer Price Index; ■ After 20 years: The owner may sell the property at market value with a shared appreciation with the County or Kona Housing Non -Profit at 50%; ■ Right of First Refusal: After 20 -years, the Kona Housing Non -Profit shall have the right of first refusal to purchase the unit; ■ Owner-occuganc3L During the resale -restricted period, affordable units must remain owner -occupied or rented out by the owner at an affordable rate as certified by the County real property tax division pursuant to the affordable rent provisions in HCC Chapter 19. Policy HSG -5.3: Redevelopment Shall Not Displace Affordable Units. Where there are concentrations of existing affordable units, redevelopment plans or projects shall ensure that units comparable in number and affordability to the existing units are provided in the new project, with priority given to displaced residents to purchase or rent. Policy HSG -5.4: Renovate Under -Used Existing Rental Housing. For public housing, the County shall explore privatization or other options with the responsible public agency if the responsible agency is financially unable to property maintain the affordable units. For Kona, a developer may earn affordable housing credits under HCC Chapter 11 Housing to rehabilitate public housing rental units or units within a multi -family rental complex owned by a non-profit, with the number of credits earned comparable to the costs the developer would have incurred for construction of new rental units. Objective HSG -6. Address Special Needs. To address the needs of special groups who are not normally provided for in the free market system. Policy HSG -6.1: Elderly and Disabled. Information services on housing choices to the specific needs of the elderly and disabled (including caregivers) as well as potential providers, shall be provided by a one-stop information center coordinated through the Office of Aging (See Policy PUB -3.2). 4-94 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS HOUSING ' Policy HSG -6.2: Homeless and Emergency Rent. The Kona Housing Trust Fund may finance the construction or operation of homeless shelters, and supplement or create an emergency rent program to provide short-term (no more than six months) assistance to low- income households who face potential homelessness as a result of unemployment, medical payments, or other unforeseeable causes. ' Policy HSG -6.3: Single -Resident Occupancy (SRO) Units. Recognizing that commuting resort workers often prefer an affordable place to stay overnight during workdays and return home on the off -days, that immigrant farm workers are often single, and that SRO's often are ' the last resort before homelessness, developers and government housing agencies are encouraged to provide such units in their mix of affordable housing units. Policy HSG -6.4: Farm Worker Housing. To support Kona's agricultural industry and its desire to strive for greater food sustainability, farm worker housing shall be a permitted use on agricultural lands where the tenant farm worker does not have to work on the same parcel where the farm worker housing is located. Actions ' Because the same actions in the Housing section crossover several policies, the actions are grouped together. Acknowledging the island -wide programs, the following actions implement the Housing policies to increase housing choices specifically for Kona: Action HSG—a: Establish the Kona Housing Non -Profit. The Kona CDP Implementation Committee, with assistance from OHCD, needs to designate or establish a non-profit entity (Policy HSG -1.2). The legal form of this entity needs to be appropriated to receive community donations, receive funds from the County Housing Trust Fund for specific projects, enter into agreements with developers (who would sell the units encumbered with covenants) for shared appreciation on certain HCC Chapter 11 housing units, and possibly buy certain units from developers to lease (as rentals or leased land) (OHCD, 1-2). Action HSG—b: Operate the Kona Housing Non -Profit. Once established, the Kona Housing Non - Profit will set up an account (Policy HSG -1.3) to fund various initiatives set forth in the policies including the following: 1. Sponsor a design contest and retain the winner to prepare pre -approved plans for starter homes, accessory units, or other appropriate housing types (Policy HSG -4.7); (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 2-3) ' 2. Draft standard first right of refusal provision to be included in the Affordable Housing Agreements executed between the developer and OHCD and incorporated as deed covenants (Policy HSG -5.2); (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 1-2) ' 3. Exercise rights of first refusal and purchase Chapter 11 units from developers to rent or lease to income -qualified households (Policy HSG -5.2); (Kona Housing Non -Profit, on- going) 4. Establish programs in coordination and to supplement island -wide programs to do the following: (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 2-3) 1 ' KONA CDP 4.95 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, HOUSING POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS i. Assist first-time homebuyers with down payments or other assistance (Policy HSG - 3.2); ii. Work with landlords to negotiate affordable rents that qualify for property tax breaks and/or Section 8 (Policy HSG -3.3); iii. Work with employers to locate affordable for -sale or rentals in the vicinity of the workplace (Policy HSG -3.4); iv. Supplement the island -wide homebuyer education program to expand the outreach in the Kona area (Policies HSG -3.1 and HSG -3.4); v. Coordinate with other related programs to establish an emergency rent program (Policy HSG -6.2); vi. Coordinate with OHCD and other appropriate programs to establish a Kona -specific data gathering and market -monitoring initiative (Policy HSG -2.1); vii. As a result of continually monitoring the needs of the Kona community, advocate or take action to meet existing or emerging deficiencies for special needs groups (e.g., elderly, disabled, homeless, farmworkers) (Policies HSG -6.1, HSG -6.2, HSG -6.3, and HSG -6.4). Action HSG—c: For government and non -profits to produce the units at subsidy levels to meet the needs of the lower income groups, the following actions need to be taken: 1. The County and the community (e.g., the Kona Housing Non -Profit) should encourage the State agencies currently developing affordable projects (e.g., DHHL at Laiopua, HHFDC at Keahuolu) to review their projects for consistency with the policies to provide affordable rentals (Policy HSG -4.1), mix of housing types (Policy HSG -4.4), and perpetual affordability strategies (Policy HSG -5.1); (OHCD, Kona Housing Non -Profit, DHHL, HHFDC, on-going) 2. The Kona Housing Non -Profit should coordinate with the pertinent State and County agencies to inventory potential public lands that are suitable for housing development and initiate project planning or ensure land -banking for affordable housing purposes; (Kona Housing Non -Profit, DLNR,1-2) 3. The County or Kona Housing Non -Profit should explore privatization options with the State housing agency. (OHCD, Kona Housing Non -Profit, 1-2) Action HSG—d: To gain the assistance of the private sector, several existing laws have been amended by enactment of this plan: 1. TOD/TND mixed affordable housing requirement, TOD/TND preemption of 'ohana dwelling, Project Description Affordable Housing Floating Zone (enacted by plan). 2. Additional Chapter 11 Housing credits for workforce housing,; disabled , elderly, live/work units; 1:1 density bonus; resale restrictions (enacted by plan). Action HSG—e: New private developments are encouraged to creatively provide low cost/affordable housing and meet certain needs especially critical to Kona. The Design Center should help to increase awareness of these policies and stimulate creativity to meet these needs. Developers, with assistance from the Design Center, are instrumental in carrying out the following: (PD/DC, on-going) 4-96 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS HOUSING 1. Take advantage of the higher densities permitted in TODs and TNDs to financially support building at least 25% affordable units , in a creative manner that results in a mix of housing types, tenures, and affordability (See Policies HSG -4.1 to HSG -4.8); 2. Take advantage of the Affordable Housing Floating Zone, 3. Take advantage of the credits recognized to provide affordable disabled, elderly projects and live -work units (Policy HSG -4.4), and rehabilitation of public housing units; 4. Although no additional credits are offered, strive to provide accessory (Policy HSG -4.6) and SRO (Policy HSG -6.3) units; 5. Encourage redevelopment infill projects within existing developed areas such as Kailua Village and the Rural Towns (Policy HSG -4.5), while considering potential displacement of any existing affordable housing (Policy HSG -5.3); 6. Take advantage of the County's interpretation of Hawaii Revised Statutes (HRS) 205 relating to farm worker housing as well as the Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines to provide clustered farm worker housing in rural areas (Policy HSG -6.4) F i� $ A�• y�.'i+"k-st-£�"C�-w%'�°+ 1.� v' 4! q° ' a '�'� �z�� � iii r '�' Cp �� �� ��r *I • '�I pry xl� f KONA CDP 4.97 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS PUBLIC FACILITIES�iNFRASTRU'CTURE, AND SERVICES --i The Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies, and actions that tie-in with and support other sections of the Kona CDP, especially Land Use, Transportation, Housing and Environmental Resources. An important concept promoted by this section is the public-private partnership required to assure that all communities are adequately served. 4.6.1 Existing Conditions County public facilities, infrastructure, and services are those service systems that are provided, staffed, and maintained by government or quasi -public entity to directly serve the residents including: the systems of parks, fire stations, police stations, refuse disposal, drinking water, health, and energy. Transportation - related infrastructure is covered in the Transportation section of this plan. The County also provides services to the elderly, as well as supplements funding for a number of social programs. 4.6.2 Overall Strategy Acknowledging the limited government resources for which Kona competes with other districts, the policies in this section set forth the expectations and priorities of the Kona community to enable the community and government to optimize the type, timing, location, financing, quality, and maintenance of public infrastructure, facilities, and services. Although sensitive to jurisdiction, the policies and actions attempt to set a framework to integrate the various providers-- whether County, State, Federal, quasi -public (e.g., HELCO), or private (e.g., private hospitals or schools). The community's expectations and priorities are guided by the following principles: 1. Public safety—the policies set a minimum level of service for essential public safety services including police protection, fire protection, emergency response, disaster response, and highway safety, and promote a community-based approach to crime prevention; 2. Healthcare—the policies recognize the limited role of the County and community in the healthcare system, but frame the desired outcome to foster coordination and partnerships for this critical basic need; 3. Growth management and environmental quality—the policies use public infrastructure to influence the location and timing of growth such as prioritizing the infrastructure that service TON as an incentive to develop within TODs, as well as ensuring that this infrastructure supports this growth in a manner that reduces waste and pollution, conserves water, and generally minimizes environmental impacts; 4-98 KONA CDP Pub. Fac., Inf., & Guiding Principles Ser. 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. Vol 4. Provide recreation opportunities. ✓ 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. ✓ 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ Acknowledging the limited government resources for which Kona competes with other districts, the policies in this section set forth the expectations and priorities of the Kona community to enable the community and government to optimize the type, timing, location, financing, quality, and maintenance of public infrastructure, facilities, and services. Although sensitive to jurisdiction, the policies and actions attempt to set a framework to integrate the various providers-- whether County, State, Federal, quasi -public (e.g., HELCO), or private (e.g., private hospitals or schools). The community's expectations and priorities are guided by the following principles: 1. Public safety—the policies set a minimum level of service for essential public safety services including police protection, fire protection, emergency response, disaster response, and highway safety, and promote a community-based approach to crime prevention; 2. Healthcare—the policies recognize the limited role of the County and community in the healthcare system, but frame the desired outcome to foster coordination and partnerships for this critical basic need; 3. Growth management and environmental quality—the policies use public infrastructure to influence the location and timing of growth such as prioritizing the infrastructure that service TON as an incentive to develop within TODs, as well as ensuring that this infrastructure supports this growth in a manner that reduces waste and pollution, conserves water, and generally minimizes environmental impacts; 4-98 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, PUBLIC FACIL /TIES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS INFRASTRUCTURE, ANDSERVICES 4. Sense of community and quality of life—the policies recognize that the types and quality of public facilities and services can enhance the sense of community by encouraging gathering and interaction, by providing lifelong learning opportunities, by building appreciation and respect for nature through trails and parks and other interactive opportunities, by nurturing the soul through art, and cultural activities; 5. Economic catalyst—the related policies in Section 4.8 Economic Development section identify specific public facilities that have the potential to stimulate desirable economic balance; 6. Standard of excellence—the policies set a standard of excellence in the construction, operation, and maintenance of all public facilities and the supportive role of the community to promote civic pride. 4.6.3 Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Public Facilities, Infrastructure, and Services Goal: A community where the public infrastructure and facilities are sustainably built and maintained with innovation and pride, promote sense of community, and support a quality of life where visitors and residents feel safe, healthy, and inspired. ' Objective PUB -1: To coordinate planning and budgeting for public facilities, the Official Public Facilities and Services Map shall identify existing and proposed public facilities. ' Policy PUB.1.1: Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The Official Public Facilities and Services Map shall identify existing and proposed public facilities. Proposed facilities shall distinguish whether the mapped site is committed or requires further planning. On the premise ' that the mapped proposed facilities are priority, only those proposed facilities shown on the map shall be eligible for funding (See Figures 4-10a to 4-10c). (Enacted by plan) ' PUBLIC SAFETY Objective PUB -2: Public Safety. To establish a minimum level of service for public safety resources ' in order to identify deficiencies and plan for future growth, and to recognize that how we design our communities can help to prevent crime. Policy PUB -2.1: Law Enforcement Level of Service. To enable timely response over a geographic area spanning approximately 60 miles long, there should be, at a minimum, a police station for North Kona and another police station for South Kona. The North Kona ' police station should have an adequately -sized holding jail and should be located near the court for efficient operations. Until superseded by a county -wide standard, the number of police officers for each district should be planned and budgeted at 4 officers/1000 persons in ' order to cover three shifts with a minimum of three officers per shift (Personal Communication, Chief Lawrence Mahuna, December 19, 2007). ' Action PUB -2.1a: Plan a new North Kona police station to be located within the Honokohau Village TOD, and program for design and construction funding (Police, 5-10). I KONA CDP 4-99 PUBLIC FACILITIES, CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS This page intentionally left blank. 4-100 KONA CDP Kaupulehu Makalawena Keahole s IIW'�o,",�", Kailua Keauhou Kaawaloa Napoopoo \ _,,Ouuwiawaa LEGEND «- aunau !� Lifeguard Station* Fire Station* ?� Fire Station - Volunteer* Proposed Fire Station* -**fen eal#a - - Police* Hookena IV Proposed Police Station*-** - C Hospital* P Proposed Hospital** N Emergency Shelters* Bus Baseyard** Financing Districts* Proposed Transit Line _ .-F em©ee Trunk pt fn Cook Secondary L _ Kona Urban Area / LEGEND «- aunau !� Lifeguard Station* Fire Station* ?� Fire Station - Volunteer* Proposed Fire Station* -**fen eal#a - - Police* Hookena IV Proposed Police Station*-** - C Hospital* P Proposed Hospital** N Emergency Shelters* Bus Baseyard** Financing Districts* Proposed Transit Line _ .-F em©ee Trunk Secondary L _ Kona Urban Area Rural Town TODs - - - - - -- Klpah_ hob --------------- — - CDP Planning Area _- _- _ _ ` __ -- Existing Roadway * Policy layer. * *Specific location to be determined M11011i 11MMiles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source County of Hawaii f ` • The County of Hawaii Planning Department is Manuka r ' i '� the repository of the official maps i Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10a Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Public Safety Kiholo Kaupulehu a .. Makalawena ' Keahole 4 f 1 k - t Kaawaloa ; �F a{iWn Cook _ Napoopoo _� = ` aunau �t r Hookena -7 r PuuWaawaa Keauhou LEGEND County Park - District* Proposed University" ICounty Park - Community* a School* L _ I Community Park 2 -mile Service Area* n Library* ICounty Park - Neighborhood* - Financing Distncts* ICounty Park - Other* Proposed Transit Line ®o©®� Trunk Proposed COH Park* Secondary District Park" ® Kona Urban Area IRegional Park" - TO ® Rural Town TODs — — - — -- -- - - — -- -- -_ Proposed Courthouse*-** - -- - ___ CDP Planning Area Proposed Civic Center* * Policy layer " Specific location to be determined Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department Is the repository of the official map Kipahoehoe-f ' - r _ Milolii r / O F Manuka I :fir-_ �• . Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10b Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Community Facilities / J I :fir-_ �• . Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10b Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Community Facilities J I :fir-_ �• . Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10b Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Community Facilities - - '�� W�Ik�oloa -�, A � • , t 't f Kailua j Keauhou ,r _ Kealakekua_- J LEGEND Priority Sewer Area" ® Wastewater Re -use Area' Kealakehe WWTP Expansion Natural Wastewater System— # Existing Transfer Station # Proposed Transfer Station" Financing Districts' QKona Urban Area ® Rural Town TODs CDP Planning Area Existing Roadway " Policy Layer *" Specific location to be determined Miles 0 2 4 8 1 inch equals 4 miles Source: County of Hawaii The County of Hawaii Planning Department is the repository of the official map Milolii l� `ti A Av Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Waste Management t Av Kona Community Development Plan Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map - Waste Management CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES Action PUB -2.1b: Coordinate with the State to relocate the circuit and district courts to the Honokohau Village TOD (State Judiciary, PD, 5-10). 1 Action PUB -2.1c: Design and construct the relocated South Kona police station. The County is in the process of acquiring a site (TMK: 8-2-001:072 and 084) (Police, 2-3). Action PUB -2.1d: Support the addition of manpower for policing efforts (Police, on-going). Policy PUB -2.2: Crime Prevention Emphasis. The community policing program with its emphasis on budding relationships and partnerships with the community plays a vital role in creating a safe Kona. But, beyond community organization and education programs, such as the Neighborhood Watch Program, the presence of these police officers on foot or on bicycles in villages instills a sense of public safety The design of new or renovated buildings or public facilities shall consider environmental design principles that prevent crime. Action PUB -2.2a: Support for the community policing program should continue (Police, on-going). Action PUB -2.2b: In Villages (e.g., Kailua Village, TODs, rural towns), consider reinstating the bicycle patrols (Police, 3-5). Action PUB -2.2c: Through a Business Improvement District or other organization, partner with downtown businesses to enhance security and orderliness (KVID,1-2). Action PUB -2.2d: Develop a public safety audit checklist and conduct neighborhood and downtown safety walks to identify potential crime spots or unsafe areas (Police, KVID, COMM, 2-3). Action PUB -2.2e: Incorporate in the Village Design Guidelines crime prevention through environmental design principles (PD, 3.5). Policy PUB -2.3: Fire Protection, EMS, Rescue, HazMat Level of Service. Until superseded by a county -wide standard, fire station locations should be planned to provide a response time of 8 minutes in the Urban Area (10 mile radius with 5 mile overlap) and 12 minutes in the rural areas (15 mile radius with 5 mile overlap). All fire stations should provide fire protection and EMS services. Rescue services should be provided by ground and sea by at least one station in each district, and by helicopter to service the North Kona and South Kona districts. One station should have HazMat capability to service the North Kona and South Kona districts. KONA CDP 4-107 PUBLIC FACILITIES, CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design (CPTED) Adapted from Zelinka, A and D Brennan, Safescape Creating Safer, More Livable Communities Through Planning and Design Chicago Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2001 Fear of crime impairs quality of life and sense of community Certain features of the physical environment contribute to fear People fear signs of deterioration, such as broken windows, graffiti, trash, as a signal that a place is no longer maintained or controlled by those who live or work there, thus, becoming attractive targets for potential criminals Other physical features such as bushes, low lighting, and dark tunnels limit the ability to see into a place where someone maybe hiding, or limit the ability to escape (e g , deadends) The CPTED approach to crime prevention is a shift in the discipline of criminology from a paradigm of examining the individual criminal to one which studies the crime event, i e, the physical and social environments that make the opportunity for a crime to be committed exceed the risk of apprehension The three tenets of CPTED are as follows • Natural access control the physical guidance of people coming and going from a space by the judicial placement of entrances, exits, signs, fencing, landscaping, lighting, and wayfindmg assistance such as kiosks People should have information to know where to go and avoid feeling lost and confused Criminals should have not only a difficult time entering a space without being observed, but also should be provided with no opportunities to justify or rationalize their presence trespassing into private or semiprivate spaces • Natural surveillance the organization of physical features, activities, and people in such a way as to maximize visibility (i e, users would feel they will be seen if they do something illegitimate) The placement of windows, doors, and common areas, the alignment of sidewalks and paths, the locations and levels of lighting, and the proper design and size of open spaces can contribute to natural surveillance opportunities The built environment that supports socialization and interaction with others reduces fear of others and enhances public safety because we are more apt to look out for those with whom we are familiar • Territorial reinforcement the use of physical attributes that express ownership, such as fences, pavement treatments, art, signage, and landscaping to clearly design a hierarchy of spaces public (intended for all to use), semiprivate (intended for specific users or uses), and private (intended for private use by businesses and homeowners) A sense of ownership and stewardship ensures continued management and maintenance to avoid deterioration Physical design should not be the exclusive focus Social structures such as community police, community organizations, and events complement the physical design strategy Action PUB -2.3a: Existing and proposed fire stations meet the level of service for the Urban Area. A new fire station is needed in South Kona in the vicinity of Ho`okena (Fire, 5-10). Policy PUB -2.4: Beach Safety Level of Service. Lifeguard stations should be located at County and State beach parks, in accordance with the "Needs Assessment Study" prepared by the County Fire Department as shown on Figure 4-10a Public Facilities and Services Map - Public Safety. Action 2.4a: Identify proposed lifeguard stations on the Official Public Facilities Map (Fire, PD, on-going). Policy PUB -2.5: Highway Safety Level of Service. In order to reduce the number of motor vehicle traffic accidents, high-risk locations or hot spots should be identified in order to improve roadway safety. 4-108 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' Action PUB -2.5a: Identify motor vehicle related fatalities and injuries (Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations, on-going). Action PUB -2.5b: Improve data collection, assessment, and dissemination of information (Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations, on-going). Action PUB -2.5c: Encourage an integrated planning and design process for improvements in roads, emergency medical services, and public transportation ' (Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety organizations. on-going). Policy PUB -2.6: Disaster Shelters and Critical Facilities There shall be adequate ' hurricane -proof shelters concurrent with the growing population. Where designated on Figure 4-10a Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Public Safety, new public buildings shall be evaluated by the Civil Defense regarding whether or not the design should include ' specifications to be hardened to serve as a hurricane shelter. Any new fire station or hospital shall be appropriately designed to withstand all hazards. Action PUB -2.6a: Identify additional shelters where deficient (State and County CD, 3-5). HEALTHCARE Objective PUB -3: Healthcare. To ensure access to healthcare and promote a healthy lifestyle. Policy PUB -3.1: Medical Care. The community shall support a viable medical clinic to ensure a safety net for those without health insurance or those unable to access the mainstream medical system. Action PUB -3.1a: Coordinate with the County of Hawaii Healthcare Crisis Plan (Mayor's Office, 3-5). See Related Policy ECON-1.1 Hospital as Stimulus for Healthcare Industry. Policy PUB -3.2: Long -Term Care. An information center/activity center shall serve as a clearinghouse for the community-based and institutional long-term care choices available. This resource center may be co -located with a senior recreational center in Kailua. Action PUB -3.2a: Plan, design, and construct an information center/activity center for the disabled and elderly (OA, 5-10). Policy PUB -3.3: Preventive Health through Walkable Communities. Through the Village Design Guidelines' pedestrian -friendly street standards, Kona shall be known as an avid walking and biking community conducive to all ages Also refer to Policy LU -2 2 TOD/TND Components. KONA CDP 4-109 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Policy PUB -3.4: Universal Access. As its expression of compassion and caring, the Kona community shall take pride in having all public facilities accessible to the disabled and respectful of the accessible parking stalls. Action PUB -3.4a: Continue to work with the police department to assist in accessible parking enforcement (Police, on-going). Action PUB -3.4b: Offer educational programs to sensitize residents to the challenges of the blind, deaf, or wheel -chair bound person (One Stop Community Resource Center, R&D, 2-3). Action PUB -3.4c: Continue to implement curb ramp program for streets and sidewalks and parks and recreation program facilities (PR, DPW, on-going). GROWTH MANAGEMENT AND ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY Objective PUB -4: Growth Management. To prioritize and locate growth -supporting infrastructure (water, sewer, drainage) to support the TODs and infill development and to minimize the environmental impacts of such growth. Policy PUB -4.1: Water for TODs. To encourage and direct development to the TODs, a priority shall be to provide an appropriately sized water transmission line within the Keohokalole Highway Corridor, and to flexibly enable water allocation policies to support the Kona CDP land use policy to concentrate growth within the TODs, in lieu of sprawl. Action PUB4.1a: Update, as necessary, DWS's master plan for Kona to support future growth in the TODs (DWS, 2-3). Action PUB -4.1b: Amend DWS's Rules, as necessary, to support the Kona CDP land use policies (DWS, 3.5). Policy PUB4.2: South Kona Water System. In recognition that the extension of the County water system south beyond its existing limit at Ho`okena would increase the growth pressures to convert agricultural land to urban uses, the South Kona County water system shall not be extended further south. (Enacted by plan) Policy PUB4.3: Agricultural Water. Recognizing the importance of agriculture as part of the rural character of Kona, the pervasiveness of small farms, and the critical need for irrigation in Kona's relatively dry climate, DWS shall develop a policy to implement best efforts to serve the agricultural water needs of the Kona area. This policy is not intended to subsidize the 4-110 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' farmers. Instead, the intent is to explore cost-effective systems to provide water for irrigation purposes, set water rates that encourage the small farms, and to ensure that these agricultural customers are committed to agriculture and use the water responsibly. Towards this end, the ' policies may consider agricultural dedication for property tax purposes (to evidence a commitment to agriculture) and the use of best practices irrigation (to evidence responsible water use) as a condition to receive DWS agricultural water rates. Action PUB -4.3a: Develop policies and plans to provide water for agricultural use, and amend DWS's Rules accordingly (DWS, 3-5). ' Action PUB -4.3b: Develop an irrigation best practices certification program (SWCD, 2.3). ' Action PUB -4.3c: Develop an application form to facilitate verification of the agricultural dedication and irrigation best practices certification (DWS, 2-3). Action PUB -4.3d: Update Kona water system master plan to incorporate agricultural water component (DWS, 3-5). ' Policy PUB -4.4: Sewer Priorities. In order to protect the nearshore water quality, the requirement to hookup to the County sewer system (HCC Section 21-5) shall be strictly ' enforced. The highest priority in expanding the sewer system within the Kona Urban Area shall be to service any shoreline properties that do not have access to a public sewer system and then to service lots within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline. Any new subdivision ' within 1 mile of shoreline within the Kona Urban Area shall either hookup to the public sewer system, or provide a private treatment system, and/or install dry sewers (see Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management). Private wastewater collection ' systems within the 1 mile zone shall be designed and constructed to County standards to enable potential connection to County sewer system. The County shall ensure that TODs can be served by the public sewer system in a timely manner. Action PUB -4.4a: Identify the violators and enforce the sewer hookup _ requirements (DEM, 1-2). Action PUB -4.4b: Develop a sewer plan to service the Kahalu`u area (DEM, 3-5). Action PU13 4.4c: Update the sewerage master plan to service the entire Kona Urban Area with priority to the TODs and the areas within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline (DEM, 3-5). Policy PUB -4.5: Wastewater Treatment and Effluent Reuse. The Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant shall be expanded to accommodate the projected sewage volume from the ' Urban Area extending south of Hina Lani Street to the Keauhou Wastewater Treatment Plant service area. A new County wastewater treatment plant shall be located in the vicinity shown on Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management and designed KONA CDP 4-111 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS to the extent feasible to utilize a natural treatment system that can double as an open space feature. Action PUB -4.5a: Master plan the expansion of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant (DEM, 1-2). Action PUB4.5b: Master plan the development of a new wastewater treatment plant servicing north of Hina Lan! Street that considers the feasibility of natural treatment systems (DEM, 2-3). Action PUB4.5c: Master plan a comprehensive wastewater reclamation system to maximize reuse (DEM, 2-3). Recycled Water - treated wastewater that by design is intended or used for beneficial purpose R-1 Water - recycled water that is at all times oxidized, then filtered, and then exposed, after the filtration process (Significant reduction in viral and bacterial pathogens) R-2 Water - recycled water that has been oxidized, and disinfected (Disinfected secondary recycled water) R-3 Water - oxidized wastewater (Undismfected secondary recycled water) Policy PUB -4.6 Wastewater Reuse Area: Recognizing the limited drinking water supply in the Kona area, every effort should be taken to develop a feasible wastewater reclamation system for non -potable uses. Also refer to Policy TRAN-3.3. The wastewater reuse area should be, at a minimum, located mauka of the shoreline up to Keohokalole Highway (Mid - Level Road), north of Palani Road and south of Huliko'a Drive (See Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management). Action PUB4.6a: Future wastewater reuse areas shall be identified on Figure 4- 10c Official Public Facilities and Services Map -Waste Management (DPW, PD, on-going). Policy PUB -4.7: Urban Stormwater Management. In recognition that stormwater runoff transports sediment and contaminants, thereby threatening the degradation of Kona's coastal water quality, and that Kona's undefined drainageways and susceptibility to intense rainfall cause flash flooding that threatens life and property, innovative solutions are necessary to address Kona's unique conditions and to guide future development and flood management projects. Acknowledging the complexity of managing stormwater, a stormwater management program tailored to Kona shall evolve through a public education and training phase, voluntary incentives, and the ultimate development of Stormwater Management Guidelines that will regulate development and establish standards for public projects. The evolution of this program shall consider the following: (a) a connected hierarchical overflow system where overflows from 10 -year storm facilities (e.g., drywells) are directed to higher -capacity flood management systems, so that the total system can safely accommodate a 100 -year storm; (b) use of natural drainageways and retention areas to the extent possible to maximize infiltration (groundwater recharge), filtration, and settling; 4-112 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES ' (c) multi-purpose use of the higher -capacity (e.g., 25 -year, 50 -year, 100 -year) flood management facilities for recreation or other uses since these areas will flood infrequently; (d) engineered "natural" flow ways to direct the sheetflow runoff into more defined drainageways; ' (e) onsite retention measures, such as rainwater harvesting methods; (f) street standards that minimize runoff and transport of sediment and contaminants; (g) watershed management system perspective; ' (h) Based on the Stormwater Management Program, existing and proposed stormwater management flow ways and facilities shall be shown on the Official Public Facilities and ' Services Map, especially those maintained by the County. Action PUB -4.7a: Hire a consultant to develop Stormwater Management ' Program and Guidelines, incentives, and Education/Training Program, such as Low Impact Development (LID). (DPW, 2.3). ' Action PUB4.7b: Implement the education and training program; adopt and publicize the incentives; adopt and enforce the Stormwater Management Guidelines (DPW, 2-3). SUSTAINABLE SOLID WASTE MANAGEMENT Objective PUB- 5: Zero Waste. To maximize recycling, reuse, and reduction. Policy PUB -5.1: Integrated Waste Disposal. To the extent feasible, Kona's proposed natural system wastewater treatment facility shall be co -located with a non -edible crop, such as a biofuel crop, to use the R-1 wastewater effluent, and also co -located with Kona's green waste composting site to compost the sludge from the wastewater treatment facility for use on biofuel crop. Action PUB -5.1a: Find entrepreneur(s) for biofuel crop (R&D, 3-5). Action PUB -5.1b: Master plan concept and financing for new natural system wastewater treatment facility and relocated transfer stationlrecycling center; obtain DLNR approval to use State land (DEM, 5-10). Policy PUB -5.2: Solid Waste. Within the Kona Urban Area, to increase the capture of recyclable materials and also to decrease the number of automobile trips, the County shall explore feasible alternatives for residential curbside collection, including source -separated recyclables. KONA CDP 4-113 PUBLIC FACILITIES, CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES POLICIES, AND ACTIONS SENSE OF COMMUNITY AND QUALITY OF LIFE Objective PUB -6. Quality of Life. To foster a sense of community and health through the public realm such as gathering places, parks, pedestrian networks, and open spaces. Policy PUB -6.1: Gathering Places. TODs shall include appropriate public gathering areas, such as plazas, in accordance with the Village Design Guidelines. The planning and design of such public spaces shall address any maintenance requirements. (Enacted by plan) Policy PUB -6.2: Active Recreation Opportunities. A range of recreational opportunities shall be provided to encourage physical activity and interaction among toddlers, youth, teens, adults, and seniors, including, without limitation the following: (e) Action PUB -6.2a: Identify deficiencies to the park system described in Policy PUB -6.2. Include consideration of the following (PD, DPR, on-going): 4-114 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS PUBLIC FACIL /TIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES skateboard areas network of walking paths and historic trails to be integrated into and between future development projects in both rural and urban areas pet -friendly parks and leashed dog walking areas with appropriate facilities Action PUB -6.2b: Establish a Master Plan for expansion and improvement of the Old Airport as a district park (PR, PD, 1-2). Action PUB -6.2c: Begin the process to find a location for and fund the Kona Civic Auditorium. Invite public input regarding design requirements and preferences (PR, PD, 2-3). Action PUB -6.2d: Prepare Master Plan for Kealakehe Regional Park (PR, PD, 3-5). Action PUB -6.2e. Begin the process to find location, acquire site, prepare Master Plan, and fund a South Kona District Park (including integrated community services center) (PD, PR, 3.5). Policy PUB -6.3: Optimize recreational facilities in the rural areas. Action PUB -6.3a: Establish, in cooperation with the State Department of Education, joint use of school facilities for recreational and community use (e.g. Konawaena, Honaunau, and Ho`okena Schools) (PR, DOE, PD, on-going). Policy PUB -6.4: Environment as a Public Realm and Classroom. For Kona, nature is the most culturally significant public realm as the setting for interaction, stewardship, and learning. i The Open Space Network is the primary access point to nature and culture. The purpose of this policy is to emphasize the educational value of the Open Space Network (see Policy ENV - 2.1 Open Space Network Program), to accordingly design this Network with interpretive opportunities, to encourage teachers to incorporate the Network into their activities, for the visitor industry to sensitively share learning opportunities of the Network with visitors, for residents to use the Network opportunities to interact with nature whether for leisure or subsistence purposes, and to develop deeper respect for people and places through cultural learning opportunities accessed through the Network. Action PUB— 6.4c: See Actions ENV -2.1a CR -1.1e. Policy PUB -6.5: Public Art. In recognition of Kona's embrace of cultural traditions, opportunities should be sought to creatively incorporate public art into public areas or facilities, to create a sense of place. KONA CDP 4-115 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Action PUB -6.5a: Consider 1% of public facilities construction budget to be allocated for public art at new County facilities (Kona CDP Implementation Committee, on-going). Policy PUB -6.6: Important Role of Schools in Creating a Sense of Community. The quality of its schools defines the quality of the Kona community. Quality schools show the caring of the community for its children. Quality schools are an investment in the quality of the future, which create outstanding citizens who acquire market -competitive survival skills. ■ Encourage the placement of an elementary school campus in every Neighborhood TODITND. ■ Link intermediate schools to the public transportation line. ■ Encourage schools to be utilized as community hubs for family -centered recreation and learning. ■ Encourage local governance of public schools. ■ Where DOE plans do not provide for development of planned school sites, charter or private school alternatives should be sought. ■ To provide life-long learning opportunities and to draw the community into the schools, the schools and the community are encouraged to develop community-based, after- school programs open to all ages. STANDARD OF EXCELLENCE Objective PUB -7. Standard of Excellence. To set a standard of excellence in design, operation, and maintenance for public workers in Kona to strive toward and for the community to encourage such efforts through partnerships. Policy PUB -7.1: Excellence in Design. Design of County facilities shall be evaluated on a life cycle cost basis, accept a higher level of risk for innovation where government has the opportunity to lead by example, and a reasonable premium to incorporate aesthetics or character. Action PUB -7.1a: Use charrettes to the extent practicable in the design process of County facilities to involve the community, broaden the design input with multi -disciplinary expertise, and stimulate creativity (DPW, PD, on-going). 4-116 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS PUBLIC FAC/L/T/ES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES Action PUB -7.1b: Update the community at milestones in the design process such as at the end of the schematic, design development, and pre-bid construction documents phases (DPW, PD, on-going). ' Policy PUB -7.2: Excellence in Maintenance. If the community and responsible public workers cannot stand next to the public facility with pride, then that is a call to action for both ' the community and the responsible public agency. Action PUB -7.2a: Develop a maintenance level of service for parks and ' streetscapes to establish a baseline expectation (PR, DPW, 2-3). Action PUB -7.2b: Encourage adopt -a -park and adopt -a -street civic participation to meet the level of service expectations (PR, COMM., on-going). Action PUB -7.2c: Provide for upgrading and maintenance to the public facilities ' in critical need of attention (PR, DPW, on-going): i. Develop a strategic management plan for upgrading facilities at Kahalu`u ' Beach Park, La`aloa Bay Beach Park, Hale Halawai, Higashihara Park, Yano Hall. ii. Maintain parks and public facilities in remote areas, such as Miloli`i. Action PUB -7.2d: Increase lighting at public restrooms (PR, DPW, 2.3). ' Action PUB -7.2e: Open existing public restrooms that are currently closed (e.g. Kainaliu), and provide for more public restrooms in strategic locations (e.g. Hale Halawai, pier in Kailua) (PR, DPW, 1-2). Action PUB -7.2f: Initiate a process to establish a monthly, scheduled maintenance review of public facilities in Kona (PR, DPW, 1-2). Policy PUB -7.3: Recruitment Incentives. Since government's ability to achieve excellence depends on its ability to fill positions with qualified workers, and since affordable housing close to work is one of the primary obstacles to recruitment, housing projects where government provides land or other substantial resources shall give a high priority to government workers purchasing or renting units within the project. PUBLIC SERVICES AND SOCIAL PROGRAMS Objective PUB— 8: To promote the cooperation between government, citizens and organizations, and to facilitate the development of programs to strengthen families and communities. Policy PUB -8.1: One -Stop Community Resource Center. The County shall serve as point of community access for information and referral for health, education and social services. KONA CDP 4-117 PUBLIC FACILITIES, INFRASTRUCTURE, AND SERVICES CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS This is not to duplicate services or provide direct services provided by private service organizations, but to foster maximum utilization of all available resources. Action PUB -8.1a: The County shall work with community to establish One -Stop Community Resource Center (RBD, COMM., 3-5). 1. The County shall provide a community resource staff member at a central location. 2. Staff will be knowledgeable about community resources for families and individuals. 3. Staff will assist community members navigating public systems and understand eligibility criteria for public and privately offered programs. 4. The resource center will be able to identify gaps in services for families and individuals and advocate for improved access to and availability of services. Action PUB -8.1b: Increase funding for the Healing Our Island Program (RBD, 3- 5). Action PUB -8.1c: Increase transportation options, especially small vans, in order to reduce rural isolation and increase access to programs, jobs, and activities (RBD, MT, 2-3). Action PUB -8.1d: Increase demand -response transportation through the use of small vans in order to increase accessibility to drug and alcohol treatment and programs (RBD, MT, 3-5). Action PUB -8.1e: Increase the number of therapeutic living programs and facilities (RBD, MT, OA, 3.5). Action PUB- 8.f: Develop a de-tox program in Kona (COMM., non-profit, 1). Action PUB -8.1g: Establish a youth intake center to provide more immediate intervention for youth in Kona (COMM., non-profit, 1-2). Action PUB -8.1h: Expand partnerships among substance abuse treatment providers and improve coordination and integration of services (COMM, non- profit, on-going). Policy PUB -8.2: The County shall serve as an advocate for programs serving the elderly, disabled, and homeless persons. 4-118 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ENERGY Action PUB -8.2a: Provide demand -response transportation (e.g. small vans) for the elderly, youth, and disabled (R&D, MT, 3.5). Action PUB -8.2b: Expand partnerships among providers and improve coordination and integration of services for residents with disabilities or special needs (COMM., non-profit, OA, on-going). Action PUB -8.2c: The County shall provide a new homeless shelter and an opportunity for transitional living to low income rental housing (OA, 3-5). The Energy section of the Kona CDP identifies that objectives, policies, and actions that will guide Kona toward energy sustainability Energy is a key component for achieving a sustainable community, which is a guiding principle of the Kona CDP In that regard, it supports other sections of the Kona CDP, particularly Housing; Transportation; Land Use; and, Public Facilities, Infrastructure and Services. 4.7.1 Existing Conditions The Island of Hawaii, including the Kona Districts, depends almost entirely on foreign sources of fuel for its energy needs. Over 70% of electricity generation and virtually all transportation fuel currently use imported petroleum products. High crude oil prices are linked with this island's high electricity prices, which are more than three times the national average. Gasoline prices are among the highest in the nation. Guiding Principles 'Energy 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ Kona has one power plant, the Whole Power Plant, that currently uses imported petroleum diesel. Energy policies have a pervasive influence on other related policies: Housing. Energy policies can lower residents' energy costs for housing and commuting, thereby providing more funds for home financing or renting; Transportation and Land Use. Transportation and Land use policies that reduce dependence on the automobile through compact, walkable, mixed use, villages and expansion of the transit system also reduce fuel consumption; Environment. — Global warming. Energy policies that support energy conservation and replacement of fossil fuels with renewable energy sources reduce greenhouse gas emissions; KONA CDP 4-119 ENERGY CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS — Open space. Energy policies provide further justification to preserve forests and other natural open spaces that lower air temperature and remove ("sequester") carbon dioxide; Economy. Energy policies can stimulate new local business opportunities (e.g., solar water heater installers, 31d party distributed energy providers). Additionally, savings from energy conservation measures translate into more disposable income for individuals and working capital for businesses. The dollars from new local businesses, disposable income spending, and working capital re- circulate in the local economy, thus creating more economic benefit than importing from foreign sources. 4.7.2 Overall Strategy Most energy policies need to apply equally to the entire county, and should not be limited to a particular community plan. The overall strategy for the energy policies in this section, therefore, are intended to inspire individuals as well as private and public organizations to embrace these broader initiatives. There are also certain policies that are highlighted as unique to the conditions of Kona. The overall strategy for the energy policies is to reduce per capita demand and move toward renewable energy sources through the following: Energy efficiency in transportation (County transit, automobile fleet purchasers). Transportation fuels account for over 75% of the energy demand on Hawaii Island. Most of the transportation fuel is consumed for ground transportation, with aviation accounting for 23%. The related polices in Transportation and Land Use reduce transportation fuel usage by expanding the mass transit system and creating more compact, mixed-use walkable villages. Energy efficiency in homes and buildings (builders, designers, homeowners). Residential use accounts for the largest share of electrical demand on the island and drives the peak period demand. Large homes are a recent phenomenon in Kona that consume large amounts of energy, particularly for air conditioning. Residential structures in the County are currently exempt from complying with the Model Energy Code. The policy is to encourage the removal of this exemption for the new larger residences. Conservation and energy efficiency of the water system (DWS). The DWS is the largest single user of electricity on the island. Since it uses most of this electricity to pump water, the policies encourage DWS to reduce the amount of water it needs to pump by controlling leaks and promoting water conserving appurtenances (essential for Kona's dry climate). Moreover, by adding power -generating pressure reducing valves (taking advantage of Kona's sloping topography), some of the power can be recovered. Renewable energy sources (HELCO, private providers). The policies encourage LEED and other sustainable building standards to be used, beginning with the County, which would lead the charge by example. 7 Johnson, J., et al, Hawaii County Baseline Energy Analysis, prepared for the Kohala Center and County of Hawai'i, May 2006. 4-120 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECT/VES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ENERGY 4.7.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Energy Goal. Establish Kona as a model for sustainability and energy self sufficiency. ' Objective ENGY-1. To provide a multi -prong framework, including standards, innovations, incentives, and education, to reduce the dependency on imported fossil fuels through energy ' efficiency and renewable energy generation. Policy ENGY-1.1: Energy Building Standards for New Residences. Recognizing that ' residential housing is the largest consumer of electricity (38%) and that air conditioning as a significant driver of residential demand is a relatively recent phenomenon in West Hawaii due to the numerous larger homes, this Kona CDP supports the mandatory application of the ' Model Energy Code to residential structures with gross living floor area of 6,000 square feet (s.f.) and over (Davies, M. et al, October 3, 2007). For residences less than 6,000 s.f., this CDP supports expedited permit processing by the County for builders who voluntarily employ ' energy efficient measures certified under the Hawaii BuiltGreen,a EnergyStar,9 or LEED programs.10 Action ENGY-1.1a: Provide a standard logo label to stick onto the title page of building plans to alert the Kona permitting agencies to expedite processing (DPW -BD, PD, -2). Policy ENGY-1.2: Energy Saving Renovation for Existing Residences. For existing home retrofits, investigate establishing a Home Performance with EnergyStar (HpwES) program, as ' modified and implemented in the State of Oregon." Trained and certified contractors work with homeowners to assess the energy performance of a residence, list recommended improvements, and analyze the approximate payback period (identifying and factoring eligible tax credits). (Kona Housing Non -Profit, 2-3) Policy ENGY-1.3. Mortgage Incentives. Advocate for a mortgage program that provides ' combined benefits for energy efficiency (to increase marketability of certified homes) and location efficiency (to increase marketability of homes in the walkable transit -oriented villages). 8 Hawaii BudtGreen is a self -certification program administered by the Budding Industry Association of Hawaii, which is a professional trade organization affiliated with the National Association of Home Builders. This is a local initiative based on homegrown knowledge of professionals familiar with the unique conditions of Hawaii See www.HawaiiBuiltGreen.com for more information 9 EnergyStar, a joint program of the U S EPA and U S Dept of Energy, is a rigorous certification of energy efficiency There is an EnergyStar certification for products and a separate certification for homes Builders of EnergyStar homes can qualify for the Energy Efficient Home Tax Credit for Builders for federal income taxes See www.energystar.gov for more information 10 Hawaii Revised Statutes section 46-19 6 requires all county agencies to place a "priority on processing of permit applications for construction projects incorporating energy and environmental design budding standards " 11 The Oregon program is described in Davies, M , et al, page 108. For details, see htta.//www energvtrust.ora/residentialhndex html I KONA CDP 4-121 ENERGY CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS Action ENGY-1.3a: Work with lenders to publicize available mortgage programs. Currently, there are conventional, FHA, and VA Energy -Efficient Mortgages, but Location -Efficient Mortgages are currently available only in select metropolitan areas (Chicago, Seattle, San Francisco, LA). There is no mortgage program at this time that is a composite of the two (Credit Unions and other lenders, 3.5). Policy ENGY-1.4: Energy -Related Water System Technology and Practices. As the largest single consumer of electricity in Hawai'i County, water conservation programs by the DWS translate into energy conservation programs. Aggressive efforts to fix water leaks and conserve water (e.g., dual -flush toilets, drip landscape irrigation systems, and low -flow shower heads) save energy by reducing the need to pump water. To take advantage of Kona's sloping terrain, consider installation of power generating -pressure reducing valves, which are turbines placed on existing water lines that produce electricity while relieving water pressure for domestic use at lower elevations. Action ENGY-1.4a: Finance a leak detection program for the County Kona water systems (DWS, 3.5). Action ENGY-1.4b: Install photovoltaic systems to power deep well pumps for the County Kona wells (DWS, 3.5). Action ENGY-1.4c: Pilot installations of power generating -pressure reducing valves in Kona are in progress (DWS, on-going). Policy ENGY-1.5: Distributed Energy and Other Innovative Technology Support. Photovoltaic systems are typically used as distributed generation when connected to the electrical grid where they have the potential to sell excess energy back to the grid. This is an emerging technology with challenges for the utility to incorporate such systems into the grid. This policy is aspirational and expresses general support in whatever way possible (e.g., permit coordination, grants) to encourage further development in this endeavor. Policy ENGY-1.6: Alternative Fuel for Keahole Power Plant. Consider biofuel to replace fossil fuel at the Keahole Power Plant. Policy ENGY-1.7: County Lead by Example. For projects and offices in Kona, the County shall lead by example in the following areas: 4-122 KONA CDP 11 IJ C G n CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT a. New buildings—certified by LEED, EnergyStar, or Hawaii GreenBuilt b Existing buildings --certified by LEED for major renovations or operations and maintenance c. Street lights—use energy-efficient or solar -powered lights d. Rain water and gray water harvesting—for new buildings, evaluate the possibility of installing rain water harvesting techniques such as tanks that collect roof drainage, roof -top tanks for toilet flushing, piping stormwater to lawns and gardens, permeable pavements for parking lots with collection system e Pesticide substitution—explore nontoxic alternatives for maintaining landscaping in public rights-of-way, parks, and at County facilities f. Purchasing—purchase EnergyStar and products made from recycled materials; purchase energy-efficient vehicles (and pioneer electric vehicle purchases when they become available). 14.8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The Economic Development section of the Kona CDP identifies objectives, policies, and actions that focus on supporting important foundations of Kona's economy as well as key opportunities for economic development for which Kona is strategically positioned. Maintaining a vibrant economy in Kona is essential for achieving the visions of the Kona CDP. 4.8.1 Existing Conditions According to Hawaii Business Directory, Kailua had 2,652 business listings in 2005 and increased by 10.8 percent in 2 -years with 2,939 business listings in 2007 (Hawaii Business Directory, 2006). In 2006, four industry sectors dominated Hawaii Island's total employment: 1) leisure and hospitality, which includes accommodation and food services; 2) trade, transportation and utilities of which retail is a Guiding Principles Econ. Devi. 1. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture. ✓ 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ✓ 3. Provide housing choices. 4. Provide recreation opportunities. 5. Direct future growth patterns toward compact villages, preserving Kona's rural, diverse, and historical character. ✓ 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with growth. ✓ 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy emphasizing agriculture and sustainable economies. ✓ 8. Promote effective governance. ✓ major contributor; 3) government, where most of the employment is at the state level, and, 4) education and health services, which includes health care and social assistance. Together, these four industries accounted for 73.3 percent of the total employment in Hawaii County. The major economic sectors for Kona include: Tourism. Tourism (and visitor -related activities) is the major industry on the Island of Hawaii. In 2005, there were 11,351 visitor accommodation units on the Island, located mainly in Hilo, Kona and South Kohala, an increase of 13 percent over the previous year. These breakdown KONA CDP 4-123 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT el CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS by unit type as: 1) hotel- 6,977; 2) timeshare -, 1,592; 3) condo/hotel — 1,462; 4) individual vacation- 756; 5) bed & breakfast - 353; 6) other -189; 7) hostel- 21; and 8) apartment/hotel -1. As Kona and South Kohala are the major destination areas, most of the units (approximately 8,000) are located in those two areas (County of Hawaii, 2005). An increasingly significant part of the tourism industry on the Island is the cruise ship industry. The County has experienced the largest impact from the cruise ship industry, with its relatively small tourist base. Hawaii cruise ship visitor arrivals were 312,812 in 2005, and grew by 27 percent to 397,318 in 2006 (County of Hawaii, 2005). In 2005, about 66 percent of all visitors Island stayed in hotels, 7.7 percent stayed in condominiums, 9.7 percent stayed with friends and relatives, 8.9 percent stayed in timeshare properties and 11.6 percent stayed on cruise ships. Hotel occupancy rates in Kona averaged 75.8 percent in the five year period from 2000 to 2005 (County of Hawai'i, 2005). Another opportunity for diversified agriculture expansion is the cruise line industry. A number of cruise lines are now sailing to Hawaii. Recently, there was an agricultural trade show hosting Norwegian Cruise Line purchasing officials. It was reported that these ships need fresh produce and fruit to supply the equivalent of 10 restaurants per ship and serve up to 2,000 passengers daily. (County of Hawai'i, 2005). Still another potentially profitable market for locally grown produce is the new and largely untapped niche, of the seasonal overseas market. Some farmers have already successfully entered this niche market. The increase in direct sales of agricultural products at farmers' markets demonstrate an increasing interest among the public to purchase fresh, locally produced agriculture products. In October of 2007, the Hawai'i Food Summit held in Kona was attended by about four 4-124 KONA CDP 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT hundred people interested in supporting the concept on increased food sustainability. Other events, such as The Taste of the Range, also indicate the growing support for local agriculture. Hawaii Island's climate and year-round growing season is conducive to agricultural production. Agriculture contributes substantially to the County's economy and produces a variety of goods for export and local consumption. The major industries in Kona are: aquaculture; cattle; coffee; forestry and macadamia nuts. 3. Forest and Ranching. Forestry in Kona includes a wide range of climate- and zone -specific forests, from the smaller, naturally occurring dry forests of Kapulehu to larger forests containing high value plantation species that are harvested commercially in areas such as the Honaunau forest in South Kona (Allen, William, Bioscience, "Restoring Hawai`i's Dry Forests" Dec. 200, Vol 50. No 12) and (CTHAR, Economic Issues, "Characteristics of Hawai`i's Retail Forest Industry in 2001," Feb 2006). Increasing interest lies in promoting ecologically sound methods of forestry, such as biodiverse agroforestry, in contrast to older methods of farm forestry like alley farming, as well as in reforesting former pastureland and the conservation and management of forests unique to Hawaii (Leakey, Roger, "Agroforestry: Tree -based Polycultures, www.agroforestry.neYevents/afvvkshp2006/virtualwkshps.html#Anchor-Agenda- 11481). The most recent 2001 survey estimated Hawai`i's forestry industry valued at $30.7 million, which includes a retail sector valued at $23.9 million (CTHAR, Economic Issues, "Characteristics of Hawai`i's Retail Forest Industry in 2001," Feb 2006). Within the islands of Hawaii and Kauai alone, there are more than 40,000 acres of standing, harvestable timber, along with over 20,000 acres in various stages of planting, planning or natural regeneration (Leone, Honolulu Star Bulletin, "Native Bat Forces Review of Timber Harvesting," Dec. 12, 2002). The livestock industry on the island of Hawaii includes approximately 450 beef cattle and dairy ranching Forest m Kona Nancy Asrcchto operations, located primarily in the North Kohala, Kona, and Ka`u districts, which generates over $20 million per year for the island. The island's beef cattle industry provides over half of the state's beef supply on approximately 650,000 acres of grazing land; however, most calves are now exported to the mainland U.S. Over 2,000 dairy cows, primarily Holstein -Friesians, stock the four major dairies on the island, providing almost all of the fresh fluid milk supply. The dairy industry generates over $7.5 million in farm gate revenues ("County of Hawaii Agriculture: Livestock" www.hawaii- county.com/bigislandag/livestock.html. 1997). Significant amounts of pastureland on the island are currently being withdrawn from use due to sale and other factors, and, in line with more biodiverse farming trends, Kona is currently seeing some efforts toward reclamation of pastureland for agroforestry, in certain areas (Kelley, Jack. "Shifting Paradigms for West KONA CDP 4-125 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS Hawaii" Hawaii Island Journal, Dec. 4, 2004 www.hawaiisalandjournal.com/2004/12bO4b.html). 4. Redevelopment Needs. A high priority is the need to invest in Kailua Village as the commercial, cultural, and visitor center for Kona. Capital reinvestment in Kailua properties has been below needed thresholds for years. Faced with a continuing decline, some tenants have departed as their leases have expired, and prospective tenants and owners have elected to locate their operations outside of the Village center. On the other hand, increasingly, travelers are choosing to stay in time-share units, condominiums, on cruise ships or with friends and family. This provides the Village with new opportunities to become economically and culturally strong. Also, the new owners of the King Kamehameha Beach Hotel will soon begin a $25 million upgrade to the facility. But without substantial improvements, Kailua Village's current businesses will likely be drawn away by the new commercial center on Queen Lili'uokalani Trust lands, mauka of the Old Airport. This will further decrease the economic viability of the Kailua Village. One proactive response to this threat has been the creation of the Kailua Village Business Improvement District (KVBID). Business Improvement Districts are a concept that swept through North America in the 1990s. They generally involve a legal mechanism to create a sustainable funding base for enhancing the management of a business district. The KVBID is a collaborative effort between business, government and area residents to develop and implement creative solutions to improve the cleanliness, attractiveness and economic vibrancy of Kailua Village. District landowners, lessees of land, commercial tenants and residents are assessed according to property tax valuations and these assessments return directly to the District to fund programs and improvements. 5. Housing Needs. The current shortage of all types of affordable and workforce housing is making it difficult for many residents to make a living as well as creating a major obstacle for companies to attract and retain employees in Kona. 4.8.2 Overall Strategy Economic vulnerability increases with excessive dependence on imports (e.g., susceptible to shipping strikes) and lack of diversity (e.g., susceptible to global recessions that reduce visitor travel). Therefore, the overall strategy for Kona's economic development is to support Kona's current strengths in agriculture and tourism, and to diversify with new opportunities that reduce dependence on imports, complement other objectives such as recycling and alternative energy, and provide job opportunities that raise the skill levels of the workforce. Pertinent initiatives include the following: (a) Energy industry. With NELHA as a catalyst, the policies encourage the development of renewable and distributed energy endeavors. 4-126 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT ' (b) Health industry. With a new Kona hospital as a catalyst, the policies encourage the development of health-related endeavors where Kona adds its own stamp to the island's reputation as the healing island. ' (c) Resource recovery network. The policies envision the development of interdependent industries in Kona that exchange and make use of each other's byproducts. ' (d) Food industry. Kona has a name brand specialty export crop in the Kona coffee. The policies support the health of that agricultural sector Additionally, the policies recognize ' the benefits of increasing locally produced food for the local market by reducing the current 85% dependence on imported food to the island. The suggested means is through the expansion of the underutilized Keahole Agricultural Park, and support for farmer's markets, ' NELHA's aquaculture incubation, community gardens, and opportunities to share cooking and food traditions. The inspiration is the Kona Field System, a vast, intensively cultivated area in the Kona uplands, which once supported a native Hawaiian population comparable ' in size to Kona's population today. According to figures supplied by the State Department of Agriculture, the revenue generated by diversified agriculture has continued to demonstrate gains every year since 1986. Diversified agriculture includes all agricultural ' commodities except sugar and canned pineapple. In order to move beyond the development of specialty niche market products and actually replace imports, locally - grown products must be supplied in sufficient quantities, year around, to meet the local ' market demand. Without the ability to make this commitment, it is difficult for local growers to compete effectively with imported products. Besides increasing our food sustainability, the development of a strong agricultural industry in Kona serves as an incentive to protect ' agricultural lands for agriculture. The primary strategies for the enhancement of our Agricultural Industry in Kona focus on the following. 1. Protection of Agricultural Lands. The maintenance of the current overall density of ' agriculturally- zoned lands outside of the Kona Urban Area (UA) will discourage unplanned sprawl as well as protect agricultural lands for agricultural uses. See Policy LU -3.8 ' 2. Rural Clusters. The adoption of the new program will encourage clustering of development on agricultural lands in exchange for the perpetual protection of ' contiguous blocks of lands for crop production. The program will also provide an opportunity to create affordable housing in rural areas. See Policy LU -3.3 3. Availability of Water. The Plan supports the need to identify irrigation water sources for the agricultural industry. See Policy PUB -4 3 4. Agricultural Tourism. The County shall adopt a program to define the legal development of our agricultural tourism industry. See Policy ECON. 21 5. Buy Local. The development of a "Local Grown" marketing program for agricultural products will promote Kona's agricultural industry which, in turn, eencourages the protection of agricultural lands. See Policy ECON. 2.1 KONA CDP 4-127 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 6. Urban Community Gardens. Land provided for use as community parks can be used for the development of community gardens within urban areas. See Policy PUB -6.2 (e) Ecosystem Services. The concept of ecosystem services attempts to make conservation a viable business option. The policies encourage the further exploration and development of this concept. (f) Workforce Development and Innovation. The new West Hawaii University or community college would synergize with NELHA, the hospital, and the Design Center to provide training opportunities for Kona's upcoming generation and, thereby, also attract new businesses. With partnerships established among other universities with expertise in emerging technology, engineering, and science, the university can stimulate innovative applications in the business arena. (g) Redevelopment. For our existing communities to thrive and for new opportunities to expand, we must invest in and maintain our basic infrastructure. The formation of a redevelopment District in Kailua is necessary in order to maintain and enhance Kailua Village as the commercial, cultural, and visitor center for the Kona District. As part of the proposed Kailua redevelopment project, it will be very important to provide new workforce housing and live -work units in the Village area to serve the needs of local business. Redevelopment priorities for our Mauka Towns also need to be established. 4.8.3 Goal, Objectives, Policies, and Actions Economic Development Goal: To foster economic diversification, reduce import dependence, and increase employment opportunities that pay living wages. Objective ECON-1. Strategic Public Facilities and Business Opportunities as Economic Stimuli. To optimize the potential of certain public facilities and policies to stimulate ancillary economic growth that is desirable because they are environmentally clean, diversify the economy (i.e., not visitor - dependent), pay decent wages, and demand skills and intellect that challenge Kona's existing and upcoming workforce. Policy ECON-1.1: Hospital as Stimulus for Healthcare Industry. Kona needs a new hospital to replace its existing outdated and out -of -place facility. The new hospital should be located on Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) for optimum accessibility by automobile or transit. To encourage the private sector to negotiate a site for the hospital, the TOD in which 4-128 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT the hospital decides to locate within shall be automatically designated a Regional Center TOD if the Official Kona Land Use Map has designated it as a Neighborhood TOD. As a Regional Center TOD, there would be incentives for medical offices and other hospital -related businesses to develop in the vicinity. Action ECON-1.1a: Develop Request for Proposal (RFP) for new hospital, negotiate with candidates, and select new site (DOH, PD, private, 1-2). Action ECON-1.1 b: Develop medical center TOD master plan and rezone as a Regional Center TOD (DOH, PD, private, 1-2). Policy ECON-1.2: Civic Center as Stimulus for Office and Retail Development. The proposed civic center should be master planned within the context of an overall TOD master plan in order to have the civic center function as an inviting and attractive town center, and to properly capture the potential secondary business demands generated by the numerous ' County employees working at the civic center as well as the residents drawn to the civic center to conduct business. ' Action ECON-1.2a: Develop TOD master plan with the civic center as the heart of the town center and rezone as a Commercial TOD (DPW, PD, 2-3). ' Policy ECON-1.3: NELHA as Stimulus for Energy and Research Industry NELHA has paradoxical missions: is it a research institution that requires State subsidy or a self-sustaining commercial operation. Are the diverse uses of the cold, pristine, deep ocean water its focus or ' is the innovative energy research that may use the deep ocean water or other ocean resources as well as non -ocean energy research its focus. The Kona CDP encourages the State and NELHA's board of directors to balance NELHA's complex mission in order to make it a world- class renewable energy research center with close ties to the proposed West Hawaii University. To offset research subsidies, the plan supports commercial development of the mauka NELHA area by businesses incubated at the NELHA's research area. The proposed frontage road would provide convenient access by residents and visitors to this proposed commercial area. ' Action ECON-1.3a: Encourage DBEDT and NELHA Board of Directors (BoD) to reevaluate and publicly articulate NELHA's short- and long-term business plan (DBEDT, NELHA, 1-2). Action ECON-1.3b: Develop a master plan for the commercial development of the mauka area of NELHA and obtain entitlements (DBEDT, NELHA, 1-2). Action ECON-1.3c: Design and construct the frontage road to complement and 9 9 p implement the commercial master plan (NELHA, private, DPW, PD, 5-10). Policy ECON-1* University as Workforce Development. The synergistic relationshi of a university or community college at West Hawaii with the hospital, NELHA, and Design Center KONA CDP 4-129 CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS will provide opportunities for the West Hawaii residents to obtain the necessary education and training to fill jobs in the emerging skill areas of healthcare, energy, agriculture and urban design. Action ECON-1.4a: Work with the State, university system, and the community to finalize decisions regarding the mission and size of the new university at West Hawaii (UH, PRIV, on- going). Action ECON-1.4b: Develop a master plan and program funds for the design and construction of the campus (UH, private, 3.5). Action ECON-1.4c: Develop the TOD master plan for the surrounding areas of the university in coordination with the adjoining Palamanui project (UH, private, 3-5). Action ECON-1.4d: Formalize the relationships between the Hawaii Community College and the Design Center, NELHA, and the healthcare industry (UH, NELHA, DC, on-going). Policy ECON-1.5: Food industry catalysts. Support the expansion of the Keahole Agricultural Park to provide affordable farm lots that emphasize local food production. The proximity of the Park to the new university (for research and technical support), the airport (for exporting), and the urban villages (for direct marketing such as farmers' markets) makes this area a unique opportunity. Policy ECON-1.6: Conservation as a viable business option. Support the evolving refinement of the concept of ecosystem services to encourage private owners to manage or restore their lands in their natural state (See Policies ENV -1.3 and ENV -1.4). Policy ECON-1.7: Redevelopment as Economic Stimuli. The County shall work with the Kailua Village Improvement District, the Chamber of Commerce and other Stakeholders to develop the Kailua Village Redevelopment District Plan and the Rural Towns' redevelopment plans (See Policy LU — 2.4). The plans shall address: ■ Infrastructure improvements and public safety ■ Infill and Brownfield Development ■ Multi modal transportation ■ Mixed-use development opportunities • Affordable and workforce housing 4-130 KONA CDP CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACT/ONS ® Public Parking ECONOM/C DEVELOPMENT Policy U;UN-7.5: tco-industrial ParK. To encourage the feasibility testing of the concept of an eco -industrial park, which is�'.� a community of firms that exchange and make use of each other's byproducts, there shall be a floating Project District } called the Eco -Industrial Park that shall be r, '�`�� available to areas within the Urban Area`� zoned MG ML or MCX. The County , would assist by funding experts to work with the developer to create a master plan ' and marketing scheme, to expedite permit Rendering of Eco -Industrial Park COH approvals, and to coordinate with the ' County's Solid Waste Division and other interested parties. On a smaller scale, a community program shall recognize efforts by individual businesses to modify their practices to reduce waste and/or substitute with recoverable materials. Action ECON-1.8a: Establish a pool of expertise and information on the eco - industrial park concept (R&D, 3.5). Action ECON-1.8b: Establish a reuse center to refurbish and sell used appliances and materials (In progress by OHCD and Catholic Social Ministries). ' Action ECON-1.8c: Establish a community recognition program for green businesses (Being done by Chamber of Commerce). ' Objective ECON-2. Strengthen and Encourage New Agricultural -Related Endeavors. To enhance existing and encourage new agriculturally -related endeavors. ' Policy ECON-2.1: Explore and provide opportunities to support, promote, or enhance Kona's agricultural industry. Action ECON-2.1a: The Count will work with Kona's Agricultural Community Y 9 to make recommendations for priorities such as (R&D, DOA, COMM., on-going): 1. Market research for potential export crops in North and South Kona. 2 Language assistance to enable non-English speaking farmers to market their crops. 3. Agricultural industry training for current and new farmers. 4. Establishment of processing facilities in order for farmers to increase opportunities to develop value-added products. 1 KONA CDP 4-131 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CHAPTER 4 GOALS, OBJECTIVES, POLICIES, AND ACTIONS 5. Encouragement local institutions (e.g., school cafeterias) to purchase locally produced food. 6. New "crop incubator" projects. 7. Centralized data center to serve as a clearinghouse for information on available Kona agricultural products, services, and markets. 8. Establishment of a commercial kitchen and drying facility to encourage increased diversity in value-added products. 9. Expand the County's "green waste" nutrients recycling program and purchase a tub grinder for the Kona Green Waste Processing Facility. 10. Programs and events to support and promote agriculture in Kona. Action ECON-2.1b: Create and adopt a county Agricultural Tourism program/policy (R&D, DOA, COMM., 2.3). Action ECON-2.1c: In partnership with the agriculture community in Kona, the County will establish a "Local Grown" program for agriculture products (R&D, DOA, COMM., UH, 1-2). 4-132 KONA CDP ACTIONPLAN CHAPTER 5 ' With the growth of the population around the Island, it has been increasingly clear that regional approaches are necessary to effectively implement many of the broad Objectives identified within the County General Plan's Elements. The County General Plan, approved in 2005, marked a new era in ' government for the County of Hawaii because it established the program serving to develop Community Development Plans around the Island. The Kona CDP is not expected to provide all the solutions What the drafting and adoption of the Kona CDP, or any of the Island's CDPs, does is provide a major step in the increased regionalization of the Island's planning so that we may become more effective in addressing both the character of the region ' as well as the needs of the local residents. The Kona CDP contains Goals, Objectives, Policies, and Actions that are targeted to be implemented within Kona. Some of the Actions will be enacted by the adoption of the Kona CDP by the Hawaii County Council. Others will require subsequent activities, appropriation of funding, community-based program development, participation by private business and/or other government agencies. ' Due to the Kona -specific nature of this Kona CDP as a County legal policy document, it will be very important over the planning horizon of the Kona CDP to monitor, assess, and facilitate progress being made toward the implementation of all the Policies and Actions. The structure and staffing of the ' Planning Department will need evolve to provide for the long-range planning oversight that will be necessary to implement and administer the Kona CDP. In addition, due to the focus of the County Planning Commission as a regulatory body, as well as the enormous task that oversight Kona -specific ' policies will require, there is the need for creating of a regional Implementation Committee (IC) dedicated specifically to monitoring and facilitating Kona CDP Policy implementation. ' 5.1 FINANCING PLAN There shall be a financing plan to identify alternative funding sources for infrastructure, public facilities and services, and other initiatives identified in the Kona CDP. Upon completion of the financing plan, ' the Implementation Committee shall recommend appropriate actions. 5.1.1 Scope of the Financing Plan The financing plan shall address, at a minimum, the following: e 1 Financing Policies. Articulate the financing policies, such as when special assessments or taxes are appropriate compared with general obligation bonds, who would merit special treatment under certain funding mechanisms (e.g., affordable housing units), and the ' acceptable maximum tax burden. 2. Build -out Rate. Use the latest available information to project the build -out of the planning area, which the County will provide upon discussions with landowners and developers. 1 KONA CDP 5-1 CHAPTER 5 ACT/ON PLAN 3. Funding Needs. Provide cost estimates for the infrastructure, facilities, and services listed in the following section. Develop a phasing plan based on the build -out rate and financial feasibility analysis. To ensure concurrency, critical infrastructure (i.e., roads, sewer, and water) shall be in place at the time of projected occupancy. 4. Alternative Funding Sources. Consider at a minimum the appropriateness of following funding sources: a. General fund current revenues; b. General obligation bonds; c. Revenue bonds (including redevelopment authority bonds); d. Land -secured financing (improvement districts, community facilities districts); e. Business improvement districts (services and facilities); f. Development fees (e.g., DWS facilities charges); g. User fees; h. Impact fees (examine the potential uses of this source if an impact fee ordinance has not been adopted); i. Tax -increment financing, and/or other means to earmark portions of property tax revenues generated from the planning area for specific improvements or services; j. Grants and donations; k. Reimbursement programs (formal mechanisms to reimburse initial developers or public agencies for upfront funding). 5.1.2 Funding List The following funding list is compiled from Chapter 4 and not ordered in priority. 1. Programs a. Design Center setup (See Policy LU -4.1) b. Civic Center TOD master planning program (See Policy ECON-1.2) c. Kailua Village Redevelopment Planning Program (See Policy LU -2.3) d. Rural Towns Redevelopment Planning Program (See Policy LU -3.1) e Open Space Network program (See Policy ENV -2.1) f. Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program (See Policy ENV -1.2) g. Anchialine Ponds and Nearshore Water Quality Management and Monitoring Program (See Policies ENV -1.11 and ENV -1.12) h. Urban Stormwater management Program (See Policy PUB -4.7 i. Cultural Resources Inventory (See Policy CR -1.1) j. Kona Cultural Resources Committee and Cultural Landscape Report support (See Policy CR -1.1) 52 KONA CDP 0 ACTION PLAN 2. Capital improvements and equipment CHAPTER 5 a. Transportation i. Roads (See Policies TRAN-1.2, TRAN-1.5, TRAN-6.2, and Figure 4-3 Official Transportation Map) 1. Kahului-Keauhou Parkway 2. Mamalahoa Bypass 3. Keanalehu Street–Manawale'a Street 4. Keohokalole Highway (Mid -Level Road) a. Phase I: Palani Road to Kealakehe Parkway b Phase II:Kealakehe Parkway to Hina Lani Street c Phase III: Hina Lani Street to Kaiminarn Drive 5. Kamanu Street Extension 6. La'aloa Street Extension 7. Lako Street Extension 8. Nani Kadua Street Extension a. Makai section (Kuakini Highway to Alii Drive) b. Mauka section (Hualalai Road to Kuakini Highway) 9. Kealaka'a Street Extension 10. Hienaloli Street Extension 11. University Drive 12. Frontage Road 13. Kuakini Highway Extension 14. Kakalina Street Extension 15. Queen Ka'ahumanu Highway, Phase II (Kealakehe Parkway to Airport) 16. Kealakehe Parkway Extension to Kealaka`a Street ii. Buses—add new buses to improve existing service and for new routes as proposed roads are completed. (See Policy TRAN-1.4) iii. Rural paratransit (See Policy TRAN-5.1) iv. Park & Ride Facilities (See Policy TRAN-3.8) 1. Makaeo Village 2. Captain Cook v. Transit Stations (See Policies TRAN-1.6 and TRAN-3.8) 1 Kailua or Makaeo Village hub 2. TODs vi. New bus maintenance facility (See Policy TRAN-1.4) KONA CDP 53 CHAPTER 5 ACTION PLAN vii. County parking lots/structures (See Policy TRAN-4.3) 1. Kailua Village 2. TODs viii. Safe Routes to School improvements (See Policy TRAN-3.5) ix. Trails and bikeways—to be determined by Open Space Network Plan (See Policies TRAN-3.6, b. Water (See Policy PUB -4.1) i. Source ii. Storage iii. Transmission c. Wastewater (See Policies PUB -4.4, PUB -4.5, and PUB -4.6) i. Kealakehe WWTP Expansion ii. New natural system WWTP iii. Sewer system expansion iv. Kahalu`u sewer extension v. Wastewater reclamation system d. Drainage (See Policy PUB -4.7) i. Flood mapping ii. Drainageways-- to be determined by Urban Stormwater Management Program e. Housing(See Policy HSG -1.1) i. Setup costs for Kona Housing Non -Profit ii. Kona Housing Trust Fund Financing program f. Parks (See Policy PUB -6.2) i. Regional park—new Kealakehe park ii. District park—upgraded Old Airport Park and new district park in S. Kona iii. Community parks—located approximately every two miles in the Kona UA iv. Neighborhood parks—financing to be determined by TOD/TND master plans v. Performing arts center/auditorium (if not part of regional park) g. One -Stop Community Resource Center w/ senior recreational center (See Policies PUB -3-2 and PUB-& 1) h. Open Space acquisitions (See Policies ENV -3.1, ENV -3.Z and ENV -3.3) i. Setup costs for Kona Treasures Fund ii. Candidate acquisition properties to be identified in Open Space Network Map i. Civic Center (See Policy ECON-1.2) 5-4 KONA CDP ACT/ON PLAN CHAPTER 5 j. Fire (See Policies PUB -2.3 and PUB44) i. New Makalei fire station, plus equipment and additional operational cost ii. New South Kona fire station, plus equipment and additional operational cost ' iii. Captain Cook expansion (currently in design phase) iv. New lifeguard stations, plus additional operational cost k. Police (See Policies PUB -2.1 and PUB -2.2) i. New South Kona police station (County is in the process of acquiring land) ii. Relocation of North Kona police station iii. Helicopter ' 1. Courthouse—relocate courthouse to Civic Center (See Policy PUB -2.1) ' m. Solid Waste-- Relocate transfer station n. Schools—financing of new schools within the TODs and TNDs to be determined by the TOD/TND master plans (See Policy PUB -6.6) o. University (See Policy ECON-1.4) ' p. Medical Center (See Policy ECON-1.1) ' 3. Services a. Maintenance of drainageways (See Policy ENV -1.8) ' b. Right-of-way landscape maintenance (See Policy TRAN-3.3) c. Pathways maintenance (See Policy ENV -2.1) d. Repaving upgrades for bike and pedestrian improvements (See Policy TRAN-3.4) e. 4 police officers/1000 residents (See Policy PUB -2.1) f. Parks maintenance (See Policy PUB -7.2) t 5.1.3 Financing Districts Map In order to track the creation of financing districts such as community facilities districts, improvement districts, tax increment financing districts, business improvement districts, and redevelopment districts, ' such districts shall be included on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map (Figures 4-10a to 4- 10c) upon formation by ordinance. 5.2 IMPLEMENTATION Empowerment at the community level increases local access to decision making, thereby stimulating civic engagement. Broader civic engagement increases the overall knowledge and skill capacity of the community and this increasing capacity provides effective input and creates energy to enable the plan to evolve and adapt to the changing community needs. Therefore, this chapter sets forth a recommended community-based structure created to ensure the implementation of the Kona CDP. This requires several things 1 KONA CDP 5-5 CHAPTER 5 ACTIONPLAN There is a community-based entity serving as the steward of the CDP, the "keeper of the flame", in terms of the plan ; This entity is composed of representatives from the CDP planning area; and This entity keeps itself apprised of local land use issues. 5.2.1 Organizational Structure and Membership The recommended structure is to establish an appointed committee to be administered and staffed by the Planning Department. This Implementation Committee (IC) would consist of nine members with at least three members being residents of South Kona. In addition to the nine members, one representative each from the Design Center, the Kona Housing Non -Profit, the Kona Treasures Fund, and the Kona Cultural Resources Committee shall serve as ex -officio members of the Implementation Committee. The selection of the members shall be guided by the following criteria: ■ "Can do" attitude with optimism moderated by realism ■ Open-minded when considering whether the old ways may no longer work ■ Willing and able to work with and collaborate with people who may have different points of view ■ Respect and appreciate other cultures besides their own ■ Willing to work with government by collaborating and building partnerships ■ Ability to see the "big picture" — consider and include more than one's own agendas. Cultural competence in Hawaii's multi -cultural society. ■ Knowledge of the challenges of living and working in the distinctly different parts of Kona (North and South Kona Districts) ■ Connected with the community and know the people in the community. Although guided primarily by the above criteria, the selection shall also strive to balance representation of the following interests: ■ Environment; ■ Housing; ■ Hawaiian Heritage ■ Cultural Resources or Activities ■ Landowners/Developers ■ Business or Financing ■ Public Safety or Health ■ Education ■ General, including elderly, youth, or other interests. 5.2.2 Duties The Implementation Committee (IC) shall serve as the official advocate for the Kona CDP. In addition to partnering with County government, the IC shall strive to stimulate and provide guidance for community-based participation in the implementation of the Kona CDP goals, objectives, policies and actions. The timeline specified in the Implementation Matrix shall guide the establishment of the IC's priorities. The IC shall adopt rules of procedure. 5-6 KONA CDP ACT/ON PLAN CHAPTER 5 ' A. Plan implementation duties i. Receive periodic updates from County Departments at least once per year regarding Kona ' CDP implementation based on the Implementation Matrix; ii. Make recommendations on Kona CDP official map amendments; iii. Respond to public questions on the Kona CDP or forward questions to the proper agencies ' for response, iv Initiate and coordinate actions for which the community has assumed responsibility; v. Advocate for action if implementation stalls; vi. Annually evaluate progress on Kona CDP actions and assess the need to update/amend policies; vu. Review and revise the indicators on an annual basis, or as otherwise necessary; ' viii. Hold annual "town" meetings to discuss implementation issues, progress, and need for changes; ix. Assist in the education of government and the community regarding the Kona CDP - specific policies adopted for the planning area. B. Budgetary duties ' i. For any "block" CIP appropriations to the CDP planning area, establish priorities and monitor progress based on the Kona CDP, ii. For the annual County -wide CIP Budget, provide a list of priorities to the Planning ' Department as input in the preparation of the Budget; iii. For the annual County -wide Operational Budget, provide recommendations to the relevant departments as input in the preparation of the Budget ' iv. Assist the County in implementing the funding plan C. Regulatory Updates t i. The Planning Commission(s) has the responsibility for regulatory decision-making, which is very time-consuming. The role of the IC should be to focus on proactive implementation of the Kona CDP, and not to be consumed by reacting to every permit application. ' Nevertheless, it is important for the IC to be aware of pending and approved applications. For this purpose, the Planning Department should provide a report to the IC at intervals desired by the IC of all pending and approved permits processed by the Planning ' Department located within the Kona CDP planning area 5.2.3 Annual and Comprehensive Review ' With support from the Planning Department, the IC shall prepare an annual report to the community outlining the progress and obstacles in implementing the Kona CDP. The Report shall cover, at a minimum, the following: A. Summary report card based on the Kona CDP Implementation Matrix and the Indicators P identified in Chapters 5 and 6; ' B Accomplishments, for the year and cumulative; C. Major issues or challenges, for the year and cumulative; KONA CDP 5-7 CHAPTER 5 ACT/ON PLAN D. Recommended amendments to the plan with a determination on whether an amending ordinance should be processed immediately or should be accumulated with other pending recommendations to be addressed in the next comprehensive update. 5.3 IMPLEMENTATION MATRIX The Implementation Matrix provides a list of the actions needed to implement the Kona CDP, by element. The matrix indicates the type of actions that will be required to implement the policies, and the completion time of the actions to be initiated. The IC shall have the authority to approve updates to the matrix on an annual basis, or as otherwise necessary, to keep the responsibilities and actions current and effective. County implementation of the actions will be dependent upon available funding. Acronyms/Abbreviations App. Applicant BUS. Businesses CD Civil Defense COE US Army Corps of Engineers COMM Community-based Organization DATA County Data Systems DBEDT State Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism DEM County Department of Environmental Management DC Design Center DOA State Department of Agriculture DOE State Department of Education DOH Department of Health DOT State Department of Transportation DHHL State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands DLNR State Department of Land & Natural Resources DPW County Department of Public Works DWS County Department of Water Supply Fin. County Finance Department HCCRC Hawaii County Cultural Resources Commission HELCO Hawaii Electric and Light Company HHFDC Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation KCC Kona Chamber of Commerce KCRC Kona Cultural Resources Committee KVBID Kailua Village Business Improvement District KVDC Kailua Village Design Commission Mayor's County Mayor's Office MT County Mass Transit Agency NELHA Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii NPS National Park Service OA County Office of Aging 5-5 KONA CDP ACTION PLAN Acronvms/Abbreviations (continued OHCD County Office of Housing and Community Development OSC County Open Space Commission OSP Office of State Planning PATH People's Advocacy for Trails Hawaii PC County Planning Commission PD County Planning Department PR County Department of Parks & Recreation QLT Queen Ldi`uokalani Trust R&D County Research & Development SHPD State Historic Preservation Division State State agency SWCD Soil Water Conservation District TNC The Nature Conservancy UH University of Hawaii CHAPTER 5 KONA CDP 5-9 CHAPTER 5 ACTION PLAN This page intentionally left blank. 5-10 KONA CDP SECTION 4.1 TRANSPORTATION TRAN-1 2a Design and construct the Keohokalole Highway in functional sections0 FIN" MIN r ON Phase I Palarn Road to Kealakehe Parkway a) Design Ready ✓ PD b) Construction Ready ✓ DPW c) Construct ✓ DOT, DPW Phase II - Kealakehe Parkway to Hma Lan[ Street a) Design Ready ✓ al / FOR PD b) Construction Ready ✓ DPW c)Construct-----------— ----- ✓ DPW Phase III - Hina Lani Street to Kaiminam Drive a) Design Ready /MEMO,/ H ✓ PD b) Construction Ready ✓ DPW c) Construct ✓ DPW Phase IV - Kaimmam Drive to University Drive a) Design Ready W211 W ✓ VAIIIII WE 2 /y Private b) Construction Ready c) Construct TRAN-14a Establish bus routes on existing streets along the designated Secondary Transit Route ✓ Private ✓ ✓ Private MT TRAN-14b Establish bus routes on proposed streets as they are built along the Secondary Transit Route TRAN-1 4c Provide bus maintenance facility in the Kona UA to support the expanded bus service ✓ MT ✓ MT TRAN-1 5a Design and construct frontage Road ✓ E PD, DOT Phase I - Airport to Hulikoa a) Coordinate design and intersections with the DOT's Queen Kaahumanu Highway widening b) Coordinate financing with public and private owners ✓ PD, Fin c) Obtain permit approvals ✓ PD Phase II - National Park Service section 1/0011/101/11 M/ owlI;IAWIIIIIIWIIA ✓ PD, NPS a) Determine alignment withm 300 -foot ROW or NPS property Phase Ill - Connect Kuakin[ Highway extension a) Coordinate financing and construction with DLNR/DHHL and GILT ✓ PD, DPW, DLNR, DHHL, QLT TRAN-16a Determine the location, design, and function of malar transit hub IRAN -1 6Determine funding and construction schedule ✓ MT, PD ✓ MT, PD TRAN-1 6c Identify Kailua urban transit routes, including phasing and transfer routes TRAN-1 7a Establish a route to Kailua or Makaeo Village with enhanced frequency and in coordination with rural paratransit service ✓ ✓ MT MT TRAN-1 7b Master plan transit station in 000rdiation with Rural Town redevelopment ✓ MT, PD TRAN-3 4a Identify high priority retrofits and coordiate with Department of Public Works TRANS 4b Obtain Department of Public Works repaving and repair project schedule and coordinate retrofits in conjunction with those projects ✓ PD, DPW ✓ PD, DPW TRAN-3 8a Master plan, design, and construct park and ride facilities ✓ MT TRAN-3 8b Coordinate inter -modal connection with Kona International Airport Master Plan TRAN-3 8c Investigate beach service options TRAN-4 3a Identify centralized public parking as part of the TOD Village Master Plans ✓ ✓ MT, PD, DOT I IMT PD, developer TRAN4 3b Identify centralized public parking as part of the Kailua Redevelopment Plan ✓ PD, KVBID TRAN-5 lb Commence shuttle service using mini -vans and small buses ([ a Hand[ -Van) TRAN-6 2a Develop financing plan for streets according to the priorities list in Pol[cyTRAN-6 2 TRAN-3 2a Determine staffing and equipment requirements for landscaping maintenance program TRAN-3 2b Identify financing tools for maintenance programs through public financing plan ✓ ✓ ✓ MT PD, DPW, Fin DPW, PD ✓ DPW, PD, in TRAN-3 2c Implement financing plan for maintenance programs ✓ DPW, PD, Fin TRAN-3 5a Identify high priority routes in coordination with State Department of Education, State Department of Transportation, and County Department of Public Works ✓ DPW, DOE, DOT TRAN-3 6 Designate multi -modal paths (pedestrians, bicycle) TRAN-41a Implement rideshare program for County employees ✓ ✓ MT, Mayor's Office TRAN-41 b Identify major employers to inflate TDM programs ✓ MT TRAN-4 2a Evaluate work shifts for major employers in relation to existing bus schedules and routes ✓ MT TRAN-4 2b Request major employers to contribute toward subsidizing commuter transit service ✓ Businesses TRAN-4 3c Investigate appropriate parting fees ✓ PD TRAN-5 la Establish fares for seniors, disabled, students, and general public ✓ MT TRAN-51c Modify shared nde taxi program to use coupons for the first nine miles and to allow starting the ✓ MT meter after nine miles la Adopts Official Transportation Network Map 3a General locations of TODs have been determined by the Official Land Use Map la Amends Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to incorporate connectivity standards FA iemems or cedes sections in Chap 23, Div 4 TRAN-2 2a Update the Official Transportatom Network Maps with intersection locations as they are ✓ pD, R&D, DC determined through preliminaryengineering reports or other plans and/or studies ✓ PD TRAN-31 Complete on-going effort to revise COH Street Standards ✓ PD TRAN-3 3a Designates the reclaimed wastewater zone on Figure 4-10c Official Public Facitlies and ✓ R&D, PD Services Ma ✓ TRAN-3 3b Establish list of recommended vegetation, in consultation with Kona Outdoor Circle, as an ✓ R&D, PD amendment to the COH Street Standards ✓ PD, DPW TRAN-3 7a Develop criteria for selecting and determing appropriate traffic calming tools as part of the on- ✓ PD going revision of the COH Street Standards ✓ DPW, PD TRAN-61a Adopts Concurrency Map ✓ ✓ Supplements HCC sec 25 LU4 3a Assign and train staff ✓ 2-46 SECTIOK4.2,LAND_OSE - - LU -2 3b Initiate redevelopment plan for Kailua Village Consider the establishment of redevelopment authority, pursuant to HRS Chapter 53 (Urban Renewal), Partner Nth the Kadua Village Business ✓ PD, KVDC, KVBID Improvement Distirct program in preparing ther redevelo LU -26a Negotiate the respective cost-shanng of the appropriate public facilities ✓ DC, Applicants LU -26b Program funding of major transit routes, transit stations, and major parks within urban core in ✓ coordination with Dr000sed TOD build out ✓ ✓ PD, Fin LU31 b Prepare town master plan(s) T ✓ PD, MT, Town Entity LU -3 2b Prepare village master plan(s) i T ✓ PD, MT, Village Entity LU -21b Conduct public workshop to educate the community, including landwoners, developers, and the ✓ pD, R&D, DC public about TOD/TND Villages LU -31a Initiate community organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public, on the opportunities of TODs/TNDs for each of the rural towns ✓ R&D, PD LU -3 2a Initiate community organization effort, including landowners, developers, and public, on the opportunities of TODs/TNDs for each of the rural villages ✓ R&D, PD LU41a As an option, consider budgeting and hiring independent contractor(s) to determine the structure of the Design Center and to establish a pilot program During this interim period the independent contractor ✓ PD will provide recommendations to the PI LU -41b Create and fund positrons to staff the Design Center ✓ PD LU4 3a Assign and train staff ✓ PD LU -1 1a Adopts Official Kona Land Use Map ✓ LU -12 Defines Urban Area ✓ LU -13a County shall work with State to identify lands that may be appropriate to reclassify from Agriculture to Rural, consistent with the Kona CDP Policies ✓ State, PD LU -15a Review rezoning and SMA applications pursuant to Policy LU -14 Supplements criteria for ✓ State Land Use, rezoning, and SMA LUA 5b Identify priority shorelines for increased setback as part of Policy ENV -21 Open Space Network ✓ Program PD, PR Policy LU -1 7 17 -mile protected coastline Supplements cntena for ✓ State Land Use, rezoning, Supplements HCC Chap Policy LU -21a Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to define TODs and TNDs ✓ 25, Art 6, Div 4 (Project Districts LU -21c Work with landowners, through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with Village ✓ PD Design Guidelines Policy LU -2 2 TODITND Components Supplements HCC Chap ✓ 25, Art 6, Div 4 (Project Districts LU -2 3a Official Land Use Map shows general locations of TODs ✓ 2 1 a & 2 3a duplicative LU -2 4a Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to establish TOD floating zone project district Supplements HCC Chap ✓ 25, Art 6, Div 4 (Project Districts) LU -2 5a Adoption of Village Design Guidelines ✓ LU -2 5b Continually improve and refine the Village Design Guidelines ✓ PD, DC/PD Policy LU -2 7 Traditional Neighborhood Development (TND) Floating Zone Established Supplements HCC Chap ✓ 25, Art 6, Div 4 (Project Districts) LU -28a Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to create a TND overlay zone for existing zoned lands within the Supplements HCC Chap specified residential and commercial zoning districts ✓ 25, Art 6, Div 1 (Planned Unit Development) LU -2 8b Review subdivision and plan approval applications pursuant to requirements for parks, housing, ✓ PD street standards, wastewater, and concurrent LU -2 8c Review conventional rezoning applications pursuant to Policy LU -2 8 (1)(b) ✓ PD LU -3 3a Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code and Chapter 23 Subdivision Code to establish Clustered Rural Supplements HCC Chap Subdivision PUD ✓ 25, Art 6, Div 1 (Planned Unit Development) LU -3 4a Adopts Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines ✓ LU -3 4b Continually improve and refine the guidelines ✓ PD, DC/PD LU -34c Work with the State to allow individual home sites smaller than one acre on lands classified as ✓ PD, OSP Agricultural to increase the flexibility of the Clustered Rural Subdivision Program LU -35a Review subdivision application or land with existing zoning Ag -1a do Ag -5a and FA pursuant to ✓ PD Policy LU -3 5 LU -3 5b Work with landowners through the Design Center to encourage proposals consistent with ✓ PD Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines Policy LU -3 6 Subdivision on Agnculturally-Zoned Land Served by a Private Water System ✓ Supplements Ping Dept Rule 22 (Water Vanances) LU -3 7a Reviewing Agricultural Employee Housing proposals pursuant to Policy LU -3 7 Guides interpretation of ✓ Ping Dept Rule 13 (Farm Dwellings) LU -38a Review rezoning applications with higher burden of justification pursuant to Policy LU -3 8 Supplements amendment ✓ criteria in HCC sec 25-2- 40 LU -4 2 Amends Chapter 25 Zoning Code to require mandatory Design Center review ✓ SECTION 4 3 ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES ENV -1 1 a Compile available GIS environmental data and make it available to the public ✓ PD, DATA ENV -1 2a Organize the Kona Mauka Watershed Partnership ✓ PD ENV -1 2b Budget and hire contractor to coordinate and prepare Kona Mauka Watershed Management ✓ PD Program ENV -12c Implement Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ PD ENV -1 3a Identify, inform, educate affected public agencies to participate in the preparation of the Kona ✓ PD Mauka Watershed Management Program ENV -14a Identify, inform, educate affected private landowners to participate in the preparation of the Kona ✓ PD Mauka Watershed Management Program ENV -1 4b Develop and establish Ecosystems Services Incentives and financing program, through Kona ✓ PD Mauka Watershed Management Program ENV -1 6a Enact appropriate mechanisms pursuant to Policy 12 Kona Mauka Watershed Management ✓ PD Program ENV -1 7a Develop priorities and finanang strategies to improve accuracy and comprehensiveness of flood ✓ DPW mapping ENV -1 7b Budget and hire contractor to study feasibility of regional stormwater management systems,such ✓ DPW, PD as flow ways ENV -1 7c Identity comdors to be recommended for public open space pursuant to Policy 2 2 Open Space ✓ PD, DPW Network Program ENV -18a Establish guidelines for Adopt-a-Comdor Program ✓ DPW ENV -1 11 a Budget and hire contractor to verify and update anchialme inventory and prepare anchialine ✓ PD, USACE and management program ENV -1 12a Hire consultant to prepare Water Quality Monitoring Guidelines ✓ PD, DPW, DOH ENV -1 12b Set up water quality monitoring station locations PD, Community ✓ Organization, UH Sea Grant, DOH ENV -1 12c Organize and train community base water quality team PD, Community ✓ Organizations, UH Sea Grant, DOH ENVA 13a Develop appropriate educational tools for residents and visitors and marketing plan to use them ENV -21a Budget and hire consultant to prepare Open Space Network Program ✓ PD, PR, OSP, DLNR, TNC, NPS ENV -2 lb Coordinate with Ala Kahakai Trail Program ✓ PD, PR, OSP, DLNR, TNC, NPS ENV -3 la Identify high priority areas for acquisition pursuant to Policy ENV -21 Open Space Network ✓ PD, PR, OSC, DLNR Program ,ENV -32a Develop a financing strategy as part of the Public Facilities Financing Program JPD ENV -3 3a Establish Kona Treasures Fund as tax deductible organization ✓1 jPD,KCC ENV -3 3b Provide funding and staff support as well as public marketing campaign ✓ I 1PD.KCC all permit applications the Ping Dept ENV -19a Supports Chapter 27 pursuant to Policy ENV -19 ✓ Policy ENVA 10 Non -Degradation of Anchialme Ponds I I I Supplements SMA and ✓ shoreline setback criteria SECTION 4.4 CULTURAL RESOURCES CR -1 1 b Identify by GPS Coordinates all existing historic trail alignments ✓ PD, KCRC, SHPD, NPS CR -1 1c On a continuing basis, identify by GPS coordinates, all cultural resource sites, recommend for ✓ PD, KCRC, SHPD reservation by SHPD and KCRC and incorporate in County's GIS database CR -1 ld Budget sufficient County funding to provide for administrative and technical support to KCRC to ✓ PD, KCRC complete its duties listed in Poli CR -1 1 CR -1 le Establish a work plan to accomplish the duties in Policy CR -1 1 ✓ KCRC, PD CR -1 1f Prepare Cultural Landscape Report ✓ KCRC, PD CR -21a The County shall apply for certification as a Certified Local Government (CLG) under the National Historic Preservation CLG Program in order to be eligible to apply for and receive preservation funding ✓ KCRC, PD administered through SHPD CR -2 2a The County shall convene workshop(s) that would include government agency representatives, cultural repesentatives and other stakeholders to review and make recommendations on the current ✓ HCCRC programs intended to protect cultural resources and othe CR -2 2b The County shall recommend amendments to appropriate ordinances to incorporate the stewardship and protection of historic sites, bwdlings and artifacts (Grubbing and Grading, Subdivision ✓ HCCRC Code) CR -2 2c The County shall recommend amendments to appropriate ordinances to incorporate the appropriate use and implementation of native plants in the landscaping of public facilities such as schools, ✓ HCCRC government buildings, and parks CR -31a Ensure the existence of and support for public and private entities that further the betterment of ✓ public and private Kanaka Maoli I agencies, community CR -3 lb Increase fluency in Kanaka Maoli language ✓ public and private a encies, community CR -31c Sponsor cross -sector dialogue on Kanaka Maoli culture and island values ✓ public and private a encies, commum CR -31 d Protect Kanaka Maoli intellectual property and related traditional knowledge ✓ public and private CR -3 le Provide Kanaka Maoli cultural education for residents, visitors and the general public-, ✓ public and private OHCD HSG - b 1 Sponsor a design contest and retain the winner to prepare pre -approved plans for starter a enaes, community CR -3 2a Increase the number of educators who teach cultural and historic education ✓ ✓ public and private Kona Non -Profit homes, accessory units, or other appropriate housing types a envies, community CR -3 3a Provide Kanakam Maoli mentors with opporunities to pass on Hawaiian culture and knowledge to ✓ public and privete the next generation of Kanaka Maoli and others ✓ agencies, community CR -3 3b Perpetuate Kanaka Maoli food production associated with land and ocean traditions and practices ✓ Agreements executed between the developer and OHCD and incorporated as deed covenants public and private agencies, community CR -3 5a Apply the ahupuaa concept in action plan for the Kona Mauka Watershed Management Program ✓ ✓ public and private Kona Non -Profit income -qualified households agencies, community SECTION 4.5 HOUSING HSG - a Establish the Kona Non -Profit ✓ OHCD HSG - b 1 Sponsor a design contest and retain the winner to prepare pre -approved plans for starter ✓ Kona Non -Profit homes, accessory units, or other appropriate housing types HSG - b 2 Draft standard first right of refusal provision to be included in the Affordable Housing ✓ Kona Non -Profit Agreements executed between the developer and OHCD and incorporated as deed covenants HSG - b 3 Exercise rights of first refusal and purchase Chapter 11 units from developers to rent or lease to ✓ Kona Non -Profit income -qualified households HSG - b 4 Establish programs in coordination and to supplement island -wide programs IKona Non -Profit HSG - c 1 The County and the community should encourage State agencies currently developing OH, na Non -Profit, affordable projects to revive their projects for consistency with the policies to provide affordable rentals, mix ✓ DHHL HHFDC of housing types, and perpetual affordability st HSG - c 2 The Kona Non -Profit should coordinate with the pertinent State and County agencies to inventory potential public lands that are suitable for housing development and mtiate project planning or ✓ Kona Non -Profit, DLNR ensure land banking for affordable housing purpose HSG -c 3 The County or Kona non-profil should explore privatization options with the State housing agency ✓ OHCD, Kona Non -Profit HSG - d 1 TODrrND mixed affdble hsg regmt, TOD/TND preemption of ohana dwelling, Project District Supersedes HCC Chap Affordable Hsg Floating Zone 25, Art 6, Div 3 (ohana ✓ dwellings), supplements Div 4 (Project Districts) HSG - d 2 Additional Chap 11 credits for workforce hsg, disabled, elderly, live/work units, 11 density Supplements HCC sec 11 bonus, resale restrictions ✓ 5(c) (credits), -8 (density bonus), -14 (resale restrictions) HSG - e New private development are encouraged to creatively provide low cost/affordable housing and meet certain needs especially critical to Kona The Design Center should help to increase awareness of ✓ DC/PD these policies and stimulate creativity to meet SECTION 46 PUBLIC FACILTIES, INFRASTRUCTURE & SERVICES PUB - 21 a Plan a new North Kona Police Station to be located within the Honokohau Village TOD and ✓ Police program for design and construction funding PUB -211b Coordinate with the State to relocate the circuit and district courts to the Honokohau Village ✓ State Judiciary, PD TOD PUB -21c Design and construct the relocated South Kona Police Station The County is in the process of✓ Police acquiring a site PUB -23a Existing and proposed fire stations meet the level of service for the Urban Area A new fire ✓ Fire station is needed in South Kona in the vicinity of the Hookena PUB - 2 4a Identify proposed lifeguard stations on the Official Public Facilities and Services Map ✓ Fire, PD PUB - 2 6a Identify additional disaster shelters and critical facilities where defeaent ✓ State and County CD PUB -32a Plan, design, and construct information center/activity center for the disabled and elderly ✓ OA PUB -34c Continue to implement curb ramp program for streets and sidewalks and parks and recreation ✓ DPW, PR program facilities PUB -41a Update, as necessary, DWS's master plan for Kona to support future growth in the TODs ✓ DWS Policy - 4 2 South Kona Water System ✓ PUB - 4 3d Update the Kona water system master plan to incorporate agricultural water component ✓ DWS PUB -44b DeveloD a sewer Dlan to service the Kahaluu area ✓ DEM PUB - 4 4c Update the sewerage master plan to service the entire Urban Area with priority to the TODs and the areas within approximately 1 mile of the shoreline ✓ DEM PUB - 4 5a Master plan the expansion of the Kealakehe Wastewater Treatment Plant ✓ DEM PUB - 4 5b Master plan the development of a new wastewater treatment plant servicing north of Hina Lam Street that considers the feasibilityof natural treatments stems ✓ DEM PUB -45c Master plan a comprehensive wastewater reclamation system to maximize reuse ✓ DEM PUB -46a Future wastewater reuse areas shall be identified on Figure 4-10c Official Public Facilities and Servcies Map -Waste Management ✓ DEM, PD Pub -5115 Master plan concept and financing for new natural sysytem wastewater treatment facility and relocated transfer station/recycling station/recyclingcenter, obtain DLNR approval to use State land ✓ DEM PUB - 6 2a Identify deficiencies to the park system described in Policy PUB -6 2 JPR, PD PUB - 6 2b Establish a master plan for expansion and improvement of the Old Airport as a district park ✓ PR, PD PUB -62c Begin the process to find a location and funding for the Kona Civic Auditorium Invite public input regarding design requirements and references ✓PIR, PD PUB - 6 2d Prepare master plan for Kealakehe Regional Park JPR, PD PUB - 6 2e Begin the process to find location, acquire site, prepare master plan and fund a South Kona District Park (includingintegrated communityservices center ✓ PR, PD PUB -71a Use charrettes to the extent practicable in the design process of County facilities to involve the community, broaden the design input with multi -disciplinary expertise, and stimulate creativity ✓ DPW, PD PUB -71b Update the community at milestones in the design process such as the end of the schematic, desi In develo Iment, and re -bid construction documents ehases ✓ DPW, PD PUB -21d Support the addition of manpower for policing efforts MEE ✓ police PUB -22a Support for the community policing program should continue ✓ Police PUB -22b In villages, consider reinstating the bicycle patrols ✓ Police PUB -22c Through a Business Improvement District or other organization, partner with downtown businesses to enhance security and orderliness ✓ KVID PUB - 2 2d Develop a public safety audit checklist and conduct neighborhood and downtown safety walks Police, KVBID, to identify potential crime spots or unsafe areas ✓ Neighborhood Watch lOrganization PUB -25a Identify motor vehicle related fatalities and injuries ✓ Police, DOT, DOH, traffic safety or anizabons PUB -25b Improve data collection, assessment, and dissemination of information ✓ isafety Police, DOT, DOH, traffic organizations PUB -2 5c Encourage an integrated planning and design process for improvements in roads, emergency Police, DOT, DOH, traffic medical services, and public transportation ✓ safety organizations PUB -31a Coordinate with the County of Hawaii Healthcare Crisis Plan ✓ Mayor's Office PUB -34a Continue to work with the police department to assist inaccessible parking enforcement ✓ Police PUB -34b Offer educational programs to sensitize residents to the chanllenges of the blind, deaf, or wheel- chair bound persons ✓ One stop center PUB -43a Develop policies and plans to provide water for agricultural use, and amend DWS Rules accordingly ✓ DWS PUB - 4 3b Develop an irrigation best practices cerhfication program JSWCD PUB - 4 3c Develop an application form to facilitate venfcation of the agricultural dedication and irrigation best practices certification ✓ DWS PUB -44a Identify the violators and enfore the sewer hookup requirements ✓ DEM PUB -47a Hire a consultant to develop Stormwater Management Program and Guidelines, incentives, and education/training program, such as LID ✓ DPW PUB- 4 7b Implement the education and training program, adopt and publicize the incentives, adopt and enforce the Guildelines ✓ DPW PUB -51a Find entreprenuer(s) for biofuel crop I ✓ JR&D PUB - 6 3a Establish in cooperation with the State DOE, joint use of school facilities for recreatinal and community use ✓ PR, DOE, PD Policy PUB - 6 4 Environment as Public Realm and Classroom See Actions ENV - 21 and CR -1 1e 111 OEM/ PUB -65 Consider 1% of public facilities construction budget to be allocated for public art at new County facilibes ✓ IC Policy PUB - 6 6 Important Role of Schools in Creating a Sense of Community ✓ PR, DOE, PD PUB -72a Develop a maintenance level of service for parks and streetscapes to establish a baseline nvnnn4�finn ✓ PR, DPW PUB -72b Encourage adopt -a -park and adopt -a -street civic participation to meet the level of services PR, expectations ✓ community/neighborhood associations PUB -7 2c Provide for upgrading and maintenance to the public facilities in critical need of attention ✓ PR, DPW PUB - 7 2d Increase outside lighting at public restrooms ✓ PR, DPW PUB -72e Open existing public restrooms that are currently closed, and provide for more public restrooms ✓ PR, DPW in strategic locations PUB - 7 2f Initate a process to establish a monthly, scheduled maintenance review of public restooms in I I I ✓ I I I IPR, DPW PUB -81a The County shall work with the community to establish One -Stop Community Resource Center I I I I I ✓ I IR&D, community PUB - 81 b Increase funding for the Healing Our Island Program ENGY-1 4b Install photovoltaic systems to power deepwell pum;t,hounty Kona wells ✓ DWS ENGY-14c Pilot installation of power generating -pressure reducn Kona are in progress ✓ Policy ENGY-17 County Lead by Example R&D PUB -81c Increase transportation options, especially small vans, in order to reduce rural isolation and increase access to programs, jobs and activities PD, DPW-BDermittin a encies to expedite processorPolicy ✓ ✓ Kona non-profit ENGY-1 3a Work with lenders to publicize available mortgage programs R&D, MT PUB -81d Increase demand -response transportation through the use of small vans in order to increase accessibility to drug and alcohol treatment and programs PUB -81e Increase the number of therapeutic living programs and facilities lenders ENGY-1 4a Finance a leak detection program for the Kona water systems ✓ DWS Policy ENGY-1 5 Distributed energy and Other Innovative Technology Support ✓ ✓ Policy ENGY-1 6 Alternative Fuel for Keahole Power Plant R&D, MT R&D, MT, OA PUB -81f Develop a de-tox program in Kona ECON-1 1 aDevelop RFFff new hospital,negotiate with candida�and�fflewe ✓ ECON-1 1 b Develop medical ceNter TOD master plan and rezone as commercial TOD ✓ DOH, PD, private ECON-1 2a Develop TOD master plan with the civic cneter as the heart of the town center and rezone as community/non-profit PUB -81g Establish a youth intake center to provide more immediate intervention for youth in Kona ✓ community/non-profit PUB - 8 1 h Expand partnerships among substance abuse treatment providers and improve coordination and integration of services ✓ community/non-profit PUB - 8 2a Provide demand -response transportation (e g small vans) for the elderly, youth, and disabled ✓ R&D, MT PUB - 8 2b Expand partnerships among providers and improve coordinahn and integration of services for residents with disabilities or special needs ✓ community/non-profit, OA PUB -82c The County provide anew homeless shelter and opportuniby for transitional living to low ✓ OA Policy PUB 1-1 Official Public Facilities and Services Map ✓ PUB -22e Incorporate in the Village Design Guidelines crime prevention through enwommental design ✓ PD principles Policy PUB -3 3 Preventive Health through Walkable Communities ✓ Incorporated in Village Design Guidelines PUB -41b Amend DWS Rules as necessary to support the Kona CDP land use policies ✓ DWS Policy PUB -61 Gathering Places ✓ Incorporated in Village Design Guidelines Policy PUB -6 2 Neighborhood park dedication requirements ✓ Supersedes HCC Chap 8 (Park Dedication) SECTION 4 7 ENERGY ENGY-1 4b Install photovoltaic systems to power deepwell pum;t,hounty Kona wells ✓ DWS ENGY-14c Pilot installation of power generating -pressure reducn Kona are in progress ✓ DWS Policy ENGY-17 County Lead by Example ✓ County Departments ENGY-1 1 a Provide a standard logo label to stick onto the title ping plans to alert the Kona PD, DPW-BDermittin a encies to expedite processorPolicy ENGY-1 2 Energy Saving Renovation for Existing Reside ✓ Kona non-profit ENGY-1 3a Work with lenders to publicize available mortgage programs ✓ Credit Unions and other lenders ENGY-1 4a Finance a leak detection program for the Kona water systems ✓ DWS Policy ENGY-1 5 Distributed energy and Other Innovative Technology Support ✓ HELCO Policy ENGY-1 6 Alternative Fuel for Keahole Power Plant ✓ HELCO SECTION 4 8 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ECON-1 1 aDevelop RFFff new hospital,negotiate with candida�and�fflewe ✓ DOH, PD, private ECON-1 1 b Develop medical ceNter TOD master plan and rezone as commercial TOD ✓ DOH, PD, private ECON-1 2a Develop TOD master plan with the civic cneter as the heart of the town center and rezone as ✓ DPW, PD commercial TOD i MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRESS CHAPTER 6 6. MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRESS An "indicator" is something that helps you understand where you are, which way you are going, and how far you are from where you want to be. The Kona CDP Community Indicators will serve as an annual information resource to provide a snapshot of current community conditions and trends based on selected quantitative data gathered from a variety of sources. The indicators were selected based on the following factors. ■ They are relevant. They tell us something basic and fundamental to the long term cultural, environmental, economic or social health of our community ■ They reflect community values. The crucial role of an indicator is to reflect the community's values that resonate with the citizens of Kona. ® They are attractive to local media. The press publicizes them and uses them to analyze community trends and the implementation plan. • They are statistically measurable. Data exist or can be developed that is relevant to our geographic area. ® They are reliable. You must be able to trust what the indicator shows and preferably indicators can be measured over time so that you have comparable data and can track trends. The report card will be published annually based on trends: + Good trend or progress �l No change or holding steady - Bad trend or no action lGeneral Demographic Indicators a "Snapshot" of who we are. The first are general trend indicators which will give us a demographic snapshot of our community. 1. Indicator: Population growth trend for North Kona, South Kona, and relative to the County ■ Data source: U.S. Census Bureau 2. Indicator: Ratio of full time residents to part time residents ■ Data source: State Department of Taxation 3 Indicator: Ethnic diversity ® Data source: U.S. Census Bureau and County Research & Development. 4. Indicator: Median household income ■ Data source: U.S. Census Bureau and County Research & Development KONA CDP 6-1 MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS CHAPTER 6 AND PROGRESS The following indicators are organized to reflect the eight (8) Guiding Principles identified by the citizens of Kona throughout the planning process. +Guiding Princlile 1!. Protect Kona's natural resources and culture: Natural Resources Indicators: Areas of natural and cultural significance protected. 1. Indicator: Number of acres of federal, state, county, and privately -owned open space that are permanently protected for conservation. ■ Data source: State Department of Land & Natural Resources Land Division and Land Use Commission, State Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism, and County Planning Department 2. Indicator: 80% of Kona's residents have access to public Open Space within walking distance from their homes. ■ Data source: County Open Space Network Program Water quality monitoring guidelines are met or exceeded for Kona's nearshore waters. 1. Indicator: Measurement of nearshore water quality for fecal coliform, nutrients and coral reef health ■ Data source: County Water Quality Monitoring Program, Department of Health Clean Water Branch 2. Indicator: Number of anchialine ponds inventoried and protected. ■ Data source: County Planning Department, U.S. Army Corp of Engineers Agricultural lands are maintained. 1. Indicator: Acreage of Kona land zoned farmland. ■ Data source: Initiate GIS layer for ag use based on property tax and inventory system for permanent open space. State Department of Land & Natural Resources Land Division, State Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism, and County Planning Department, County Real Property Tax & Assessment Office 2. Indicator: Number of Kona farmers markets and average number of agricultural vendors. ■ Data source: Kona Farm Bureau New building is energy efficient 1. Indicator: Annual number of EnergyStar, LEED or Hawaii BuiltGreen certified buildings. Data source: Hawaii Electric and Light Company, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Department of Energy, Building Industry Association of Hawaii (Hawaii BuiltGreen), State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism 2. Indicator: Number of existing homes retrofitted with solar heating. ■ Data source: Hawaii Electric and Light Company 6-2 KONA CDP ' MON/TORING EFFECT/VENESS AND PROGRESS CHAPTER 6 Recycling is maximized and solid waste is decreased. ' 1. Indicator: Measurement of solid waste generation per capita ■ Data source: County Department of Environmental Management ' 2. Indicator: Measurement of pounds recycled per capita • . Data source: County Department of Environmental Management ' Cultural Resources Indicators: ' Cultural resources and historic trails are mapped and protected. 1. Indicator: Number of archeological sites and number of linear miles of historic trails mapped and protected. ■ Data source: State Historic Preservation Division, County Kona Cultural Resources Committee 2. Indicator: Number of cultural resources, including sites and trails protected by management plans/easements or other tools. ■ Data source: County Open Space Network, County Planning Department, State Historic Preservation Division, and County Kona Cultural Resources Committee 3. Indicator: Number of people enrolled in Hawaiian language classes ■ Data source: DOE & Kamehameha Schools Guiding Principle 2. Provide connectivity and transportation choices. ___J ' 1 1 KONA CDP 6-3 Traffic congestion is decreased on major thoroughfares due to the creation of alternative routes and methods of transportation. 1. Indicator: Number of linear miles of new roadways. ' Data source: County Planning Department and Data Management, Required Concurrency Roads (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3) or Kona CDP Implementation Committee, State Department of Transportation ' 2. Indicator: Number of shared -use paths and bike routes. ■ Data source: County Planning Department and Data Management, Required Concurrency ' Roads (Table 4-1 and Figure 4-3) or Kona CDP Implementation Committee, State Department of Transportation 3. Indicator: Number of people riding the bus per day. ■ Data source: County Mass Transit Agency 4. Indicator: Number of Public Transit "Stations" and sheltered stops. ■ Data source- County Mass Transit Agency 1 1 KONA CDP 6-3 MONITORING EFFECT/VENESS CHAPTER 6 AND PROGRESS iGuding Rrinci�l� 3. Provide housing choices. ��� �_� - - ��� � ��_ There are a range of housing options available for Kona residents. 1. Indicator: Residents live within 30 minutes drive time from employment. ■ Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Research & Development 2. Indicator: Housing costs are no more than 30% of annual household income. ■ Data source: U.S. Census Bureau, County Research & Development 3. Indicator: Number of new affordable housing units built. ■ Data source: County Housing and Community Development, Public Housing Authority, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation Housing assistance is provided to our most vulnerable citizens; the elderly, disabled and homeless. 1. Indicator: Number of units directed to homeless, senior and disabled residents. ■ Data source: County Housing and Community Development, Hawaii Public Housing Authority, Hawaii Housing Finance and Development Corporation guiding Princlg1e4, Provide recreation; opportunities— A range of recreational opportunities are available to residents of Kona to foster a healthy lifestyle. 1. Indicator: The Number of regional, district, community and neighborhood parks established as outlined in the plan. ■ Data source: County Department of Parks & Recreation, County Department of Public Works, State Department of Land & Natural Resources State Parks Division, State Department of Land & Natural Resources Forestry & Wildlife Division, National Park Service 2. Indicator: Number of cultural and environmental festivals, programs, and community-based, volunteer projects. ■ Data source: County Department of Research & Development, State Department of Business, Economic Development, & Tourism, State Department of Agriculture, and Kona Farm Bureau 3. Indicator: Number of Hales or "gathering places" available for public use. ■ Data source: County Department of Parks & Recreation 4. Indicator: Number of cultural sites open to the public. ■ Data source: County Department of Parks & Recreation, County Open Space Network Program, State Department of Land & Natural Resources, National Park Service 6-4 KONA CDP MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRESS CHAPTER 6 Guiding_ Principle 5. Direct future_growth patterns ' Growth is directed to mixed-use compact villages. p g 1 Indicator: Number of land -use proposals that meet Village Project District Standards ■ Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) ' 2. Indicator: Number of new development projects that voluntarily adopt the plan guidelines. ■ Data source. County Planning Department (Design Center) ' 3. Indicator: Number of land use approvals that meet Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines. ■ Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) ' 4. Indicator: Number of approvals of "infill developments" connected to existing communities ■ Data source: County Planning Department (Design Center) ' Guiding Principle 6. Provide infrastructure and essential facilities concurrent with, growth. 1. Indicator: Number of sites selected for new public facilities ' ■ Data source. County Department of Public Works, County Department of Parks & Recreation, County Department of Planning 2. Indicator: Recommended minimum standards for public services, fire and police are met. ■ Data source: County Mayor's Office, County Fire Department, County Police Department Guiding Principle 7. Encourage a diverse and vibrant economy.�� The agricultural character of Kona is maintained. 1 Indicator: GE Taxes paid on local agriculture production ■ Data source- State Department of Agriculture Sustainable Industries Indicators ' 1. Indicator: Number of local businesses able to pay a living wage (FTE median income) ■ Data source: State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism, County Research and Development 2. Indicator: Number of locally owned and operated businesses. ■ Data source: State Department of Business, Economic Development & Tourism u 1 1 KONA CDP 6-5 MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS CHAPTER 6 AND PROGRESS Guiding Pciincipie 8: Promote effective governance ��� � � ����� ��^ �� Kona has the local authority to guide implementation of the plan and it's components (i.e. Design Center, Kona Cultural Resources Committee, Kona Housing Non -Profit, Kona Housing Trust Fund, etc.). 1. Indicator: Implementation of Policies and Actions included in the Kona CDP Implementation Matrix on schedule. ' ■ Data source: County Planning Department and Kona CDP Implementation Committee 6-6 KONA CDP MONITORING EFFECTIVENESS AND PROGRESS This page intentionally left blank. CHAPTER 6 1 KONA CDP 6-7 GLOSSARY CHAPTER 7 I Action — A specific requirement or recommendation, such as the creation of a project or program, intended to implement a policy or achieve an objective. Brownfield — Land previously used for industrial purposes or certain commercial uses that may be contaminated by low concentrations of hazardous waste or pollution and has the potential to be reused once it is cleaned up. Commercial Village — A village intended for mixed use, higher density residential, retail, commercial, employment, and/or regional one -of -a -kind facilities such as major civic, medical, education, and entertainment facilities. Density — The ratio of the dwelling units to the gross land area in which they are located. Density Transfer — The transfer of allowable dwelling units from one parcel of land to another, in exchange for open space. Development Agreement — A written agreement for specified periods of time between the County, any governmental entity or agency made a party thereto, and any person having a legal or equitable interest in real property for the purpose of vesting the right to develop such property in accordance with laws, ordinances, resolutions, rules, and policies of any governmental entity or agency made party to ' the agreement in effect at the time such agreement is executed, and for the purpose of delineating development requirements that may include, but are not limited to, affordable housing, design standards, water allocations, dedications of real or personal property, on-site and off-site infrastructure ' and other development related improvements and government services, which shall be approved by resolution of the County Council and executed by the Mayor on behalf of the County. Environmental Assessment (EA) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — An informational document prepared in compliance with Chapter 343, Hawaii Revised Statutes, that discloses the environmental and social impacts of a proposed action on the community and state, measures ' proposed to minimize adverse effects, and provides alternatives to the action. Extensive Agriculture — LUPAG designation for lands not classified as Important Agricultural Land. Includes lands that are not capable of producing sustained, high agricultural yields without the intensive application of modern farming methods and technologies due to certain physical constraints such as soil composition, slope, machine tillability and climate. Other, less intensive, agricultural uses such as grazing and pasture may be included in the Extensive Agriculture category. Flood Corridors — Includes FEMA's Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) 100 -year floodplains and planned flow ways Flow Way — Proposed man-made drainage or designated channels. KONA CDP 7-1 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY Goal — A goal is a desired outcome expressed in simple terms. It should describe the desired end state. Greenbelt or Greenway — Areas of largely undeveloped, wild, agricultural land surrounding or neighboring urban areas. Greenfield — An area that is undeveloped or used for agriculture. Refers only to undeveloped open space within the Kona Urban Area between TODs, TNDs and infill. Important Agricultural Lands — LUPAG designation for lands with better potential for sustained high agricultural yields because of soil type, climate, topography, or other factors. Important agricultural lands were determined by including the following lands: ■ Lands identified as "Intensive Agriculture" on the 1989 General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide Maps. ■ Lands identified in the Agricultural Lands of Importance to the State of Hawaii (ALISH) classification system as "Prime" or "Unique" ■ Lands classified by the Land Study Bureau's Soil Survey Report as Class B "Good" soils. There are no Class A lands on the Island of Hawaii. ■ Lands classified as at least "fair" for two or more crops, on an irrigated basis, by the U.S.D.A. Natural Resource Conservation Service's study for suitability for various crops. ■ In North and South Kona, the "coffee belt," a continuous band defined by elevation, according to input from farmers. ■ State agricultural parks. Infill —Land development within the general boundaries of existing urban/suburban areas that were previously left undeveloped. Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG) — The County of Hawaii General Plan LUPAG Map indicates the general location of various land uses in relation to each other. Makai — towards the sea. Mauka — inland, upland, towards the mountain. Mixed Use — A land use pattern that integrates compatible residential, commercial, industrial, office, institutional, or other land uses. Neighborhood Village — A village intended for residential, public/civic uses, or small scale neighborhood oriented commercial uses. The commercial uses are of a small scale and are intended to serve the needs of the village residents. Objective — An objective is a desired endpoint that leads toward accomplishing a goal. 72 KONA CDP GLOSSARY CHAPTER 7 Open Space — Undeveloped land or water body which is free of structures and equipment, except for those incidental to the land's open space uses. Open space may include the following: flood protection, creating a sense of special separation fro incompatible land uses, areas for agricultural operations, passive recreation, active recreation, conservation uses, or historical site preservation. Pedestrian Way — A public right-of-way through a block between lots for pedestrian traffic, which may also be used as a utility easement, and which has a maximum width of twenty feet Policy — A deliberate plan of action to guide decisions and achieve rational outcomes. Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission — The Commission will be made up of nine members who are appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council. The purpose of the Commission is to develop an island -wide prioritized list of qualifying lands worthy of preservation. The Commission will explore methods of funding land acquisition and make recommendations and will emphasize land acquisitions where the County's contribution can be leveraged to obtain State, Federal and/or private funds. Rural Area — Areas outside of the Kona Urban Area Secondary Area — The area extending approximately % mile from the outer edger of the village core of the TOD. Lower density housing and other auto -oriented uses are located here. The secondary areas take advantage of the services within the core area through an interconnected street system with easy access to transit by foot, bike, or car. Secondary areas will be primarily comprised of standard single- family and multi -family neighborhoods. Traditional Neighborhood District Floating Zone (TND) — A new type of Project District for areas zoned agriculture within the Kona Urban Area. Transit Oriented Development Floating Zone (TOD) — Mixed use developments located at strategic points along a regional transit system. TODs consist of moderate and high density housing, along with complementing public uses, jobs, retail and services. Urban Area — The Kona Urban Area spans from the Kona International Airport to Keauhou. The ' majority of future growth shall be directed within this area. Village Core — A concentration of development within a neighborhood that includes identified residential, retail, office, public spaces, and public/civic uses. The village core includes the % mile area from a transit station. KONA CDP 73 CHAPTER 7 GLOSSARY This page intentionally left blank. 7-4 KONA CDP 1 REFERENCES CHAPTER 8 ACP -Visioning & Planning Ltd. and The Environmental Simulation Center. Public Involvement ' Johnson, Jeremiah, Dan Leistra, Jules Opton-Himmel, and Masom Smith. Hawaii County Baseline Energy Analysis. May 10, 2006. ' Kamakau, Samuel M Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii (Revised Edition). The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu, Hawaii 1961. 1 KONA CDP 8-1 Summary: Process and Results. November 23, 2006 ' Allen, William. "Restoring Hawaii's Dry Forests." Bioscience, Dec. 2000, Volume 50. Number. 12. American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials A Policy on Geometric Design of ' Highways and Streets. Fifth Edition, 2004. Bauer, Glenn. A Study of the Ground -Water Conditions in North and South Kona and South Kohala ' Districts 1991-2002. September 2003 County of Hawaii. 2006 County of Hawaii Databook. 2007. Count of Hawaii Planning Department. Count of Hawa6 General Plan. February 2005. Y 9 P Y ry County of Hawaii Planning Department. Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan: County Action Plan. August 14, 2006 ' County of Hawaii Agriculture: Livestock" www hawaii-county com/bigislandag/livestock html 1997. Davies, Michael, Claire Gagne, Zenke Hausfather and Dawn Lippert. Analysis and Recommendations ' for the Hawaii County Energy Sustainability Plan. Prepared for the Hawaii County Council. October 3, 2007 ' Ellis, William Journal of William Ellis. Advertiser Publishing Co., Ltd, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1963. Green, Linda Wedel. A Cultural History of Three Traditional Hawaiian Sites on the West Coast of ' Hawaii Island. U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service Denver Service Center. September 1993. http.//www.nps qov/history/history/online__books/kona/history htm ' Hawaii Business Directory 2006, Directories USA, Omaha, NE. James, Sarah and Torbirn Lahti. The Natural Step for Communities: How Cities and Towns Can Change to Sustainable Practices 2004 ' Johnson, Jeremiah, Dan Leistra, Jules Opton-Himmel, and Masom Smith. Hawaii County Baseline Energy Analysis. May 10, 2006. ' Kamakau, Samuel M Ruling Chiefs of Hawaii (Revised Edition). The Kamehameha Schools Press, Honolulu, Hawaii 1961. 1 KONA CDP 8-1 CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES Kelley, Jack. "Shifting Paradigms for West Hawaii" Hawaii Island Journal, Dec. 4, 2004 www hawaiisalandiournal com/2004/12b04b.html Kona Historical Society's Kona Historic Ranch and Store. Kona (Hawaii) Historical Society — Kona Historic Ranch and Greenwell Store. Undated. Leakey, Roger, "Agroforestry. Tree -based Polycultures," www agroforestry net/events/afwkshp2006/virtualwkshps html#Anchor-Agenda-11481) Leone, Diana. "Native Bat Forces Review of Timber Harvesting," Honolulu Star Bulletin, Dec. 12, 2002 Maly, Kepa. Malama Pono I Ka `Aina — An Overview of the Hawaiian Cultural Landscape. 2001. Oki, Delywn. Geohydrology and numerical simulation of the ground -water flow system of Kona, Island of Hawaii. U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources Investigations Report 994073. U.S. Geological Survey, Honolulu, HI. 1999. Personal Communication. Chief Lawrence Mahuna, County Police Department, December 17, 2007. Personal Communication. Ruby McDonald, State Office of Hawaiian Affairs. April 28, 2008. Reinecke, J.E. Survey of Sites on West Hawai`i. File Manuscript, Department of Anthropology, Bishop Museum, Honolulu, Hawaii. 1930. Smart Growth Network. Getting to Smart Growth: 100 Policies for Implementation, http://smartgrowth.or.g. State of Hawai'i, Department of Business, Economic Development, and Tourism, Office of Planning. Hawaii Statewide GIS Program. http://hawaii.gov/dbedVgis✓ State of Hawaii, Department of Health. Guidelines for the Treatment and Use of Recycle Water. May 15, 2002. State of Hawaii, Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Task Force. Hawaii 2050 Sustainability Plan. January 2008. University of Hawai'i College of Tropical Agriculture and Human Resources (CTHAR). "Characteristics of Hawaii's Retail Forest Industry in 2001, " Economic Issues, Feb 2006. University of Hawaii, Department of Geography. Atlas of Hawaii. The University Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Third Edition 1998. U.S. Census Bureau, Hawaii Census 2000. http://www.census.gov 8-2 KONA CDP REFERENCES CHAPTER 8 Zelinka, A. and D. Brennan, Safescape: Creating Safer, More Livable Communities Through Planning ' and Design. Chicago. Planners Press, American Planning Association, 2001. 1 KONA CDP 8-3 CHAPTER 8 REFERENCES This page intentionally left blank. 8-4 KONA CDP I ATTACHMENT A Official Map Metadata � Y ( � , l ' e _ � r _ ,. v � f � �� j � � L � le'. � �^ ` U ` � r u � e � ` � ' �' M l _ � • ` 1 � � � � � �t r r � � r �C , ' � '` 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Metadata for Official Maps Kona CDP Some of the GIS layers appear on several of the Official Maps. Usually, a layer is 'official' on only one of the Official Maps, and informational on other maps. To distinguish its status, the following table indicates on which map the layer is a `Policy Layer" (i.e., official) and which map the layer is just informational. Policy Layer. Official information on the map that require an amendment to the plan to add, delete, or relocate records. Changes that improve the accuracy of the information are considered "updates" rather then amendments. Information Layer: Background information that automatically update with any changes to the Policy Layers, or otherwise do not need a plan amendment to change the information. Layer Official Maps Transportation Network Concurrency Land Use Public Facilities and Services Proposed Roads Policy Policy Information Major Transit Line Policy Information Information Transit Stops/Stations/Hub Policy Information Pedestrian -Bike Paths Policy Urban Area, Rural Town TODs Information Information Policy Information TOD Type Information Information Policy Concurrency Zone Policy Public Facilities (separate layers by facility) Policy Financing Districts Policy Existing Roads (Street Centerline Information Information Information Information Parcels Information Information Information I Information er me: � Pro ed Roads,J , Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map and the Kona CDP Official Concurrency Map. This layer identifies major future roads proposed in the General Plan or Kona CDP process. Major roads include arterials, major collectors, minor collectors, and other important connectors. The purposes to identify these future corridors are: 1) to preserve the corridor by incorporating the right-of-way in applicable permit approvals; 2) to provide notice to potentially affected owners; and 3) to plan these improvements, as appropriate, in the capital improvements program. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide. File Name: Proposed Roads Layer Type: Polyline Source: The General Plan polylines were copied from the County of Hawaii Planning Department's General Plan roads shapefile. The polylines for the Kona CDP roads were generally drawn connecting two points following background information (e.g., proposed developer's site plans) where available. Attributes: FID Internal software number Name Name of the road Source Whether the road is proposed from the General Plan (GP) or Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) Concurrency Area Identifies the concurrency zone in which the road is located for the Official Concurrency Map ID_1 Roadway segment identification number Class Roadway classification: Arterial Collector, major Collector, minor Connector, unclassified Status Status of the proposed roadway: A — Conceptual: The alignment is conceptual, just connecting two endpoints. For planning purposes, a study corridor of at least four times the right-of-way width is recommended within which to locate the actual alignment. B — Preliminary: Preliminary engineering and environmental surveys have been conducted (or are in process) to more definitively set the alignment. For planning purposes, a study corridor of at least two times the right-of-way width is recommended within which to locate the actual alignment. C — Final: Construction plans have been completed (or are in process) and the right-of-way has been subdivided or legally defined by metes and bounds (or is in the process of subdivision approval). Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. 2 date vs. Amendment I Date Description of Modification Created 2008 [LayerName:� Trtnsiine°�77 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map. This layer identifies major transit (bus) routes, proposed or existing. Major transit routes include trunk routes (the highest headways in the region) and secondary routes (connects major destinations but the headways may not be as high as trunk routes). The layer does not include feeder or commuter routes, although in the future all routes could be added. The purposes to identify these major transit routes are: 1) to integrate transportation and land use planning; 2) to factor transit i service in prioritizing future roads; and 3) to plan and budget for the capital and operational resources to expand the transit system. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide, although it could be the basis for a Countywide ' transit routes database ' File Name: Proposed Transit Lines Layer Type: Polylines 1� Source: The polylines for the designated transit routes were either "traced" from the County of Hawaii street centerline shapefile (for existing roads) or the Proposed Roads shapefile. As changes are made to the alignments of the Proposed Roads, the transit routes should be updated to "trace" the modified alignment. Attributes: FID Internal software number Type Trunk or Secondary Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department, County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 elame�_ Transit Sia sly tion n Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map. ' This layer identifies major transit stops (pullout with shelter), stations (building), or hub (station that serves as central transfer point among routes that intersect at the hub). The layer only identifies those stations/stops/hub along the trunk or 3 secondary routes; it does not include stops along feeder or commuter routes, although in the future all stops could be added. The purposes to identify these major transit stops/stations/hub are: 1) to integrate transportation and land use planning, especially in the planning of walkable villages that center the pedshed on a transit stop/station; and 2) to plan and budget for the capital and operational resources to build and maintain these facilities. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide, although it could be the basis for a Countywide transit routes database. File Name: Transit Stops_Stations_Hubs Layer Type: Point Source: The location of the points were based on the approximate locations of the TOD villages. These points will need to be updated as the actual type and locations of these transit facilities are determined. Attributes: FID Internal software number Type Hub, Station, or Stop; Baseyard Location TOD or other descriptive location Route Trunk or Secondary Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department, County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Transportation Network Map. This layer identifies the bike and pedestrian network. It is intended to be updated as part of the Kona Open Space Network Program that will create a comprehensive hubs (destination areas) and links system. The purposes to identify these bike and pedestrian facilities as part of the overall transportation network system are: 1) to ensure the planning of new roads incorporate the appropriate type of bike and pedestrian facilities; 2) to facilitate the retrofitting of existing roads when the roads are repaved or otherwise improved; and 3) to plan these improvements, as appropriate, in the capital improvements program in terms .19 of a network system rather than piecemeal. This layer is designed to serve as the Countywide database for bike and pedestrian facilities. File Name: Pedestrian Bike Paths Layer Type Polyline Source: Kona CDP: The planning data was primarily based on input from PATH which modified the Bike Plan Hawaii (State of Hawaii, September 2003). Lines were digitized by the County of Hawaii Planning Department by using the "tracing" or "copy parallel lines" on the COH centerline feature or the Na Ala Hele trails feature. Where centerlines or trails features were absent, lines followed background USGS or flood hazard features. The location of the lines are conceptual. For example, some of the lines may fall outside of the right-of-way where, in fact, the actual facility is meant to be constructed within the right-of-way. The width between the lines were set arbitrarily at 30' from either side of the centerline. Attributes: FID Internal software number Name Name of the street or trail. If no name, the default is "Connector". Type Shoulder. Open section streets where stabilized shoulder is designed for non-exclusive use by bicycles and legal mopeds. Intersections have dedicated bicycle space marked. Shared: Streets shared by vehicles and bicycles (no bike lane striping) where lane is wide enough or route is signed. Lane: Bike lane for exclusive use of bicycles and legal mopeds. No motor scooters or motorcycles. No parking. Path: Multi -use path for pedestrians and bicyclists. Special path for steep topography labeled as Path -s (switchback) Ped -x: Routes for exclusive use by pedestrians. 'Y'= SW (sidewalk) or T (trail) Jurisdiction Ownership and maintenance by (S)tate, (C)ounty, (0)ther, or (U)ndetermined Cost Class Bike Plan Hawaii classification to distinguish magnitude orders of funding required. Cost Estimate Cost estimate Priority Level Priority established by Bike Plan Hawaii or to be determined by the Kona Open Space Network Program or other CDP process Status Existing. Existing conditions are adequate. For trails, needs to be open to the public. If a trail physically exists but access rights or improvements needed, then considered "Proposed". N1 Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer Is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Land Use Map. This layer defines the geographical extent of the Urban Area and Rural Town TODs, as defined in the Kona CDP. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide. File Name: Urban—Rural Boundary Layer Type: Polygon L Existing -repave: Street exists but shoulder stabilization and/or striping improvements need to be coordinated with future repaving. Existing -redevelopment: Street exists but substantial improvements needed (e.g., add sidewalk and curb). Existing -sign: Existing conditions adequate; just need signage. Proposed: Needs to be constructed or opened to the public. Underway: Under construction. Proposed in Bike Plan Hawaii, but may be duplicative, outdated, or otherwise unnecessary and should be evaluated through the Kona Open Space Network Program or other CDP process. Route No. Route identification number Length Miles CDP Name of CDP, if referenced in the CDP Source Hawaii Bike Plan (BP) PATH PATH>BP: PATH modified Bike Plan Hawaii NAH: Included in Na Ala Hele inventory Notes Miscellaneous comments ID Identification Number Official Yes (included as part of an Official Map); No (no official status) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer Is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Land Use Map. This layer defines the geographical extent of the Urban Area and Rural Town TODs, as defined in the Kona CDP. This layer is specific to the Kona CDP and not Countywide. File Name: Urban—Rural Boundary Layer Type: Polygon L Source: The Urban Area polygon "traces" the LUPAG boundaries for an area spanning from Kona International Airport to Keauhou, makai of Mamalahoa Highway, designated urban expansion, high density, medium density, low density, resort note, resort area, and industrial area. It excludes the area designated resort node in Kaupulehu and the medium and low density area in Holualoa. The Rural Town TODs polygon traces the LUPAG boundaries for medium and low density areas from Honalo to Captain Cook. Attributes: FID Type Responsible agency to update Internal software number Urban Area or Rural Town TODs County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Land Use Map. This layer approximately locates the TODs, as defined in the Kona CDP. File Name: TOD Type Layer Type: Polygon Source: The TOD polygons were created by "buffering" the Transit Hub/Station/Stop points at a radius distance of 0 5 mile at 0.25 mile intervals. This layer should be updated as each TOD is defined by metes and bounds through Project District rezoning approval. Attributes. FID TOD Name Type Responsible agency to update Internal software number Name of the TOD Village Type of TOD: Regional Center or Neighborhood County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 7 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Concurrency Map. This layer identifies the concurrency zones and works together with labeled road ' segments from the Proposed Roads layer that are subject to the concurrency requirements. An accompanying table relates the specific concurrency zones to the labeled road segments. Although concurrency requirements apply Countywide ' through the zoning code, this layer applies only to the Kona CDP planning area. File Name: Concurrency Zone ' Layer Type: Polygon Source: The extent of the polygons were developed through the CDP process based on ' judgements on the development area that would be served by particular road segments. The boundaries of the polygons "trace", where applicable, parcel ' boundaries or street centerlines. Attributes: FID Internal software number ' Concurrency Zone Concurrency Zone Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Lifeguard Stations Layer Type: Point Source: The Department of Parks and Recreation provided the initial data for existing lifeguard stations. The Fire Department, who took over the lifeguards from the U Department of Parks and Recreation, will assess the need for lifeguard stations. This layer should be updated when the results of that study are available. Attributes: FID Facility_N District TMK Status Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Existing, Proposed County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Fire Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Fire Station Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps. Attributes. FID Internal software number Station—Na Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location No_of Emp Number of employees Fire _Oper—Fire operations EMS _Oper Emergency Medical Service Operations HAZMAT_Op Hazardous Material Operations Rescue _Ope Rescue operations Aero _Med_ Aero Medical Operations Twenty four 24 -Hours Type Full -Time or Volunteer Facility No -of -vol Number of Volunteers Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) E Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Fire Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Layer Type: Source: Attributes: Police Station Point County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Map FID Station Na District TMK No of Man Comments Status Type Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Number of Manpower Miscellaneous comments Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Station or Sub -Station County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Police Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose 10 of this layer is to serve as a tool for healthcare planning and also land use planning since a hospital has the potential to serve as a catalyst for health-related businesses. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name- Hospital Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number Facility—Na Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location Acute beds ---- Long—term_ Long Term Care Total beds Total number of rooms Medical—SU Medical/Surgical Critical—C Critical Care Obstetric Obstetrician Care Pediatric Pediatrician Neonatal_I ----- Psych Psychiatric Care Skilled—Nu Skilled Nursing Intermed_ Intermediate Care Snf icf ----- Acute snf ----- Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description. This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for emergency response planning This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Emergency Shelters Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Civil Defense, Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Facility Name of the facility District Judicial district Location Street Address TMK Tax Map Key Location Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Civil Defense Agency. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services 12 Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to track the various types of financing districts as they are created by ordinance. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Financing District Layer Type: Polygon Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Unique record number DistNo Official District Number assigned by ordinance Date Formed Effective date of ordinance forming the district OrdEst Ordinance Number for ordinance establishing the district OrdEnd Ordinance Number for ordinance terminating the district Purpose Types of improvements and/or services authorized to be funded Status Active (still collecting assessments or taxes), Closed (paid up), Default Name Name of the district or subdivision 12 Type ID (improvement district), CFD (community facilities district), BID (business improvement district), TIF (tax increment financing district), RD (redevelopment district) I Responsible agency to update. County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Financing Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. ■ File Name: County Park Layer Type: Point Source: Attributes: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Map FID Facility_N District TMK Total Area Developed Facility_T Classification Status Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Name of the facility Judicial district Tax Map Key Location Total Area Developed Area Facility Type (Camping Site, Beach Park, Ballfields, Gym, Playground, Community Center, Courts) Regional, District, Community, Neighborhood, Beach, Facility (e.g., swimming pool), Passive Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -13 (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department with Department of Parks and Recreation. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. 13 Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to coordinate services with the State. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Courthouse Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID ID Name District Status Responsible agency to update: Internal software number Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Name of the facility Judicial district Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created A H12008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Civic Center Layer Type: Point 14 Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID ID Name District Status I enc Responsible a to update: P agency P Internal software number Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Name of the facility Judicial district Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool to coordinate land use planning with the State, especially since schools are a primary community asset and affect transportation planning. This layer includes public, private, charter, and university. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: School Layer Type Point Source- County of Hawaii Planning Department Attributes: FID Internal software number School—Nam Name of the facility District Judicial district University University Design_Enr Design Enrollment Grade—Level Grade levels SY_98_99_E School Year Enrollment TMK Tax Map Key Location Comments Miscellaneous Comments Enrollment Enrollment Count FTE_Enroll Full -Time Equivalent Enrollment Type Public, Private, Charter 15 Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -13 (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created A ri12008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to coordinate services with the State. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Library Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps Attributes: FID Internal software number Area Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Perimeter Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Library_ Arc ID (for Arc/Info use) Library—ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Facility—Nam Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location Population Population Served Registered Registered Borrowers Size of Ma Size of Material Collection Circula Circulation Intra-Libr Intra Library Loans Library—PR Library Programs/Attendance Reserves_ Reserves/Holds Public—S -- Comments Miscellaneous Comments Mobilecnt Size of Material Collection - Bookmobile Mobilecirc Circulation—Bookmobile Illt000ther ---- 16 Illfrmother ---- Avwkuse Usings During an Average Week Avwkrefqst Reference Questions in Average Week Responsible agency to update- County of Hawaii Planning Department Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to guide regulatory permit conditions as well as serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be specific to Kona. File Name: Priority Sewer Area Layer Type: Polygon Source: One mile zone from the shoreline determined by "buffering" using the shoreline of the County Planning Department's "Coastline" shapefile. Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Buff -Dist One -mile priority area Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with the Department of Environmental Management. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. The primary purpose of this layer is to coordinate streetscape and other 17 landscaping planning as well as serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be specific to Kona. File Name: Wastewater Re -use Area Layer Type: Polygon Source: Polygon created by "tracing" the Mid -Level Road (Proposed Roads layer), Palani Road (street centerline layer), and parcel layer boundaries. Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 Description: This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map. It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: WWTP Layer Type: Point Source: County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps Attributes: FID Internal software number ID Arc Internal Number (for Arc/Info use) Treatment Level Advanced Primary, Secondary, Tertiary Type Lagoon, Mechanical Effluent Disposal Outfall, Injection Wells, Reuse Design Capacity in mgd Status Existing -A (adequate capacity), Existing -B (need expansion or replacement in next 10 yrs), Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -B (location in vicinity) 18 Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with Department of Environmental Management Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created April 2008 Description This layer is a Policy Layer on the Kona CDP Official Public Facilities and Services Map It is also one of the Facilities Map in the General Plan. The primary purpose of this layer is to serve as a tool for capital improvements programming. This layer is intended to be maintained as a Countywide database. File Name: Solid Waste Layer Type- Point Source. County of Hawaii Planning Department, General Plan Facilities Maps Attributes: FID Internal software number Facility—Nam Name of the facility District Judicial district TMK Tax Map Key Location Comments- Miscellaneous Comments Parcel Siz Parcel Size in acres No of Chu Number of chutes Distance_T Distance to landfill Type Landfill, Transfer Station, Composting Facility, Sort Station Status Existing, Proposed -A (location confirmed), Proposed -6 (location in vicinity) Responsible agency to update: County of Hawaii Planning Department with Department of Environmental Management. Modifications after the adoption of the Kona CDP will be tracked in the following table. Update vs. Amendment Date Description of Modification Created Aril 2008 19 - ` ATTACHMENT B Village, Design Guidelines ' ATTACHMENT B ' VILLAGE DESIGN GUIDELINES ARTICLE 1. GENERAL....................................................................................... ' 11. AUTHORITY ........................................................ . ............... 1.2. INTERPRETATION................................................................................. 1.3. INTENT........................................................................................ 1.4. WARRANTS AND VARIANCES .................................... .......... ARTICLE 2. PROCESS.......................................................................... 2.1. APPLICABILITY ........................................... ................... 2.2. ORGANIZATION OF THE CODE .................................... .... ARTICLE 3. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS -NEW VILLAGES .................... .11 INSTRI1CTInNS _... ---.--............................................... .................. .. ' 3.2 VILLAGE UNIT TYPES...... ....................................................... 3.3. TRANSECT ZONES ........................................... .................. .... 3.4_ CIVIC 70NFS 3.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS............................................................... 3.6. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STANDARDS ............. ........ 3.7 DENSITY CALCULATIONS..................................................... 3.8. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS ....................... ARTICLE 4. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS-- INFILL .................................... 41 MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS ....................... 9 ..................... 9 ....................10 ...........11 ...........11 .................................12 ........... ..................12 ................................14 .................................15 .................................17 17 . 4.2. ................................................................... VILLAGE UNIT TYPES.............................................................................................17 4.3. TRANSECT ZONES......................................................................................................17 4.4. CIVIC ZONES...........................................................................................................18 4.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS....................................................................................................18 4.6. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS.........................................................18 4.7. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS (PRE- EXISTING CONDITIONS)..................................................................................................19 ARTICLE 5. BUILDING SCALE PLANS..................................................................................20 5.1. INSTRUCTIONS.......................................................................................................20 5.2. BUILDING DISPOSITION.........................................................................................21 5.3. BUILDING CONFIGURATION......................................................................................21 5.4. BUILDING CONFIGURATION.....................................................................................22 5.5. BUILDING FUNCTION................................................................................................23 5.6. PARKING AND DENSITY CALCULATIONS.............................................................24 5.7. PARKING LOCATION STANDARDS.........................................................................25 5.8. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS..........................................................................................26 ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS AND'TABLES...............................................................................26 ARTICLE 7. DEFINITIONS.......................................................................................................27 ARTICLE 1. GENERAL 1.1. AUTHORITY 1.1.1. These guidelines were adopted as one of the instruments of implementation of the Kona Community Development Plan (KCDP) to provide standards of development for Traditional Neighborhood Design (TND) and Transit -Oriented Design (TOD) villages. This is a form -based code, meaning it envisions and encourages a certain physical outcome at the community, BLOCK, or building level. This form is compact, walkable, and mixed-use, and is meant to be comfortable, safe, and ecologically sustainable. 1.1.2. The basis of these guidelines is the SmartCode version 9.0 published by the New Urban Publications Inc. It has been "calibrated" to fit with the Kona CDP. The SmartCode embodies the state of knowledge of regulating design to result in compact walkable villages, and the intent is to take advantage of the collective knowledge of other jurisdictions who use the SmartCode as well as future updates by the authors of the SmartCode. 1.1.3. The Planning Director may amend these guidelines with approval by the Kona Implementation Committee to improve calibration of these guidelines to the local conditions and update with advances in the state of knowledge. 1.2. INTERPRETATION 1.2.1. Provisions of this Code are activated by "shall' when required; "should" when recommended; and "may" when optional. 1.2.2. Capitalized and underline terms used throughout this Code are defined in Article 7 Definitions of Terms. Those terms not defined in Article 7 shall be accorded their commonly accepted meanings. 1.3. INTENT The intent and purpose of these guidelines are to enable, encourage, and qualify the implementation of the following policies: 1.3.1. THE REGION a. That the region retain its natural and visual character derived from topography, coastlines, and other natural features. b. That growth strategies encourage infill and redevelopment in parity with new communities. c. That development contiguous to urban areas be structured in the pattern of infill TND and be integrated with the existing urban pattern. d. That development non-contiguous to urban areas be organized in the pattern of TND or RCD. e. That AFFORDABLE HOUSING should be distributed throughout the region to match job opportunities and to avoid concentrations of poverty. 2 f. That transportation corridors be planned and reserved in coordination with 3 land use. g. That green corridors be used to define and connect the urbanized areas. h. That the region include a framework of transit, pedestrian, and bicycle ' systems that provide alternatives to the automobile. 1.3.2. THE VILLAGE a That Villages and REGIONAL CENTERS be compact, pedestrian -oriented ' and MIXED USE. b. That ordinary activities of daily living occur within walking distance of most dwellings, allowing independence to those who do not drive. ' c That interconnected networks of transportation corridors be designed to disperse traffic and reduce the length of automobile trips. d That within neighborhoods, a range of housing types and price levels be ' provided to accommodate diverse ages and incomes. e That appropriate building DENSITIES and land uses be provided within walking distance of transit stops. ' f. That CIVIC, institutional, and COMMERCIAL activity impart a focused town center and gathering place. ' g. That schools could be sized and located to enable children to walk or bicycle to them. h. That a range of OPEN SPACE including parks, squares, and playgrounds should be distributed within neighborhoods and villages ' i. That the growth of the village stays within a defined edge and thereby helps to establish a compact sense of place. t1.3.3 THE BLOCK AND THE BUILDING a. That buildings and landscaping contribute to the physical definition of transportation corridors as CIVIC places. b. That development adequately accommodate automobiles while respecting the pedestrian and the spatial form of public areas. ' c. That the design of streets and buildings reinforce safe environments, but not at the expense of accessibility d. That architecture and landscape design grow from local climate, topography, ' building practice and fit with Kona's history and lifestyle e. That buildings provide their inhabitants with a clear sense of geography and climate through energy efficient methods. f. That CIVIC BUILDINGS and public gathering places be provided as locations that reinforce community identity and support self-government. g. That CIVIC BUILDINGS be distinctive and appropriate to a role more important than the other buildings that constitute the fabric of the village. h. That the preservation and renewal of historic buildings be facilitated, to affirm the continuity and evolution of society. i That the harmonious and orderly evolution of urban areas should be secured through form -based guidelines or codes. 3 1.4. WARRANTS AND VARIANCES 1.4.1. There shall be two types of deviation from the requirements of these guidelines: ' Warrants and Variances. Whether a deviation requires a WARRANT or VARIANCE shall be determined by the Planning Director. 1.4.2. A WARRANT is a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision of these guidelines but is justified by the provisions of Section 1.3 Intent. The Planning Director shall have the authority to approve or disapprove ' administratively a request for a WARRANT. 1.4.3. A VARIANCE is any ruling on a deviation other than a WARRANT. VARIANCES shall be granted only in accordance with the procedures for zoning code variances. 1.4.4. The request for a VARIANCE shall not subject the entire application to public notice, but only that portion necessary to rule on the specific issue requiring the relief. 1.4.5. The following standards and requirements shall not be available for WARRANTS or VARIANCES because they tend to seriously subvert the desired outcome of compact, walkable and diverse communities: a. The maximum dimensions of traffic lanes. (See Table 2A.) b. The required provision of REAR ALLEYS and REAR LANES. c. The minimum BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITIES. (See Table 11 b.) d. The permission to build ACCESSORY BUILDINGS. e. The minimum requirements for parking. (See Table 7.) ARTICLE 2. PROCESS 2.1. APPLICABILITY 2.1.1. Types of Applications. These guidelines apply to two levels of scale: a village plan for a Project District rezoning application for the entire TND/TOD meeting the requirements of Article 3; and a site plan for a subdivision or building permit approval within an approved TND/TOD meeting the requirements of Article 5 and Hawaii County Code section 25-6-46 (review and approval of Project District site plans). 2.1.2. Pre -Application. An applicant may discuss informally the intent of the proposed plan with the Design Center. No fees shall be collected for Pre -Application Conference, its purpose being to familiarize the Planning Department with the proposed Plan and the applicant with the development procedures in the KCDP planning area. The applicant should share sketch plans and data showing existing site conditions and the proposed layout and development of the plan. The purpose and intent of the Pre -Application Conference allows both parties to identify potential challenges, opportunities and items that need to be addressed. 4 ' 2.1.3. Charette. Where desired or required to have multi -disciplinary input ut from various agencies and/or the public to formulate the community or budding scale site plan, the Design Center may assist the applicant to organize this meeting(s). 2.2. ORGANIZATION OF THE CODE 2.2.1. Determine Scale of the Plan. For an applicant preparing a rezoning application for a Project District, go to Article 3 for guidelines to prepare a village scale plan. For ' an applicant desiring to build within an approved TOD or TND Project District, go to Article 5 to prepare a building scale plan to submit for subdivision or site plan approval ' 2.2.2. Steps to Prepare a Village Scale Plan. The village scale plan is adopted by ordinance as part of the Project District rezoning, and thereby becomes a ' Regulating Plan. The Planning Director may administratively approve minor adjustments to the plan. Major changes must be adopted legislatively as an amendment to the rezoning ordinance ea. Determine the VILLAGE UNIT Types There are two village unit types. a TND and a RCD. Either type may qualify as a TOD A TOD has a transit station at ' its center and allows for a higher density. The Kona CDP Land Use Map determines the VILLAGE UNIT type as follows: ' i. Intended Growth Areas. Future growth is directed to the TOD villages along the main and secondary transit routes. The Land Use Map identifies TODs that are intended as neighborhood villages (TND/TOD) and regional centers (RCD/TOD). For guidelines relating to the TODs, go to Article 3. ii. Infill Growth Areas. Most of the TODs are New Communities. However, the Land Use Map also identifies existing communities intended to be redeveloped—the Kailua Village Redevelopment TOD and the Rural ' Towns TODs. Additionally, smaller projects adjacent to existing development are encouraged—these types of New Communities are called Infill TNDs. For guidelines relating to INFILL Redevelopment or 1 Infill New Communities, go to Article 4. iii. Controlled Growth Areas. Areas outside of the TODs identified on the Land Use Map but within the designated Urban Area may also be developed as TNDs. If this area is already urban -zoned (RS, RM, RD, CG, CV, CN, MCX), the applicant follows the PUD procedure to have the e village scale plan approved. If the area requires rezoning, then the applicant follows the procedures for a Project District rezoning as set forth in the Kona CDP. If the project qualifies as an INFILL TND, then go to tArticle 4; otherwise, go to Article 3. iv. Open Areas. Village scale plans should identify open spaces when applicable. There are two types of open spaces: 5 1) Preserved Open Space. The Preserved Open Space consists of the Sensitive Resources identified on the Environmental Resources Map that are to be protected from development in perpetuity. 2) Reserved Open Space. The Reserved Open Space consists of the Greenbelt area surrounding TODs and TNDs established by transferring density (TDR). b. Allocate Transect Zones. TRANSECT ZONES (T -ZONES) organize the density, complexity, and intensity of the land use within the TND or RCD village. The operating principle is that there is an urban core with a main center focus such as a transit station and plaza. This urban core area, which is spatially defined based on walkable distances called PEDESTRIAN SHEDS, has the highest density, complexity, and intensity of uses. The land uses transition to less dense uses moving away from the center. Table 1 describes the TRANSECT ZONES. The TRANSECT ZONES that correspond to the urban core, secondary area, and greenbelt referred to in the Kona CDP are as follows: L Urban Core 1) T-5 Urban Center 2) T-4 General Urban ii. Secondary Area: T-3 Suburban iii. Greenbelt: GB Greenbelt A7 2.2.3. Steps to Prepare a Building Scale Plan. An applicant would submit a preliminary plan, have that reviewed, then a final plan. The final plan would add landscaping details. a Determine the Building Disposition (i e , lot configuration and building placement relative to setbacks). Note that setbacks (Table 11 g and Table 11 h) are provided as ranges. They thus act as build -to lines, but with a degree of flexibility. In general, they become shallower as the TRANSECT ZONES become more urban. A zero lot line streetwall is often desirable in the most urban conditions, because it strongly defines the street space. However, these guidelines specify a 6 -foot minimum front setback in T4 so that private frontage can accommodate stoops, porches, private planters and gardens, sidewalk signs, outdoor seating, cafe tables, and other ENCROACHMENTS. The side setbacks in T4 and T5 are zero minimum to allow ROWHOUSES and TOWNHOUSES. b. Determine the Building CONFIGURATION (i.e., building form). The form of a ' building is determined by its height and type of PRIVATE FRONTAGE. The PRIVATE FRONTAGE occupies the front setback area or encroaches into the SIDEWALK area within the right-of-way. The range of depth of a LOT within which certain elements are permitted is called a LAYER (see Table 14). The design principle is to bring the buildings closer to the streets to create an inviting streetscape and put "eyes on the streets" to create a safer ambience. ' The maximum height of buildings should be proportional to the street width to avoid an enclosed "canyon" effect. c. Determine the Building Function. The permitted uses are flexible to encourage a mixing of uses horizontally (among buildings, lots, BLOCKS and vertically (within buildings). The range of uses become increasingly flexible ' from the T-3 to the T-5 Zones. The uses are grouped into the following categories: RESIDENTIAL, LODGING, OFFICE, RETAIL, CIVIC, and Other. The Other category includes certain types of uses that are discouraged within the TNDs or RCDs, such as automobile -dependent uses (e.g., automobile service, drive-through facilities, shopping centers), industrial uses, and ' agricultural uses. d. Calculate the Parking Requirements and Density Rights. The Buildable DENSITY is determined by the actual parking requirements. The parking requirements are determined by the Building FUNCTIONS and allows for shared parking among mixed Building FUNCTIONS. The provision for T5 that retail spaces under 1500 square feet are exempt from parking requirements is included as it encourages the kind of smaller independent shops that contribute to urban vitality. It also helps keep existing small -lot Main Street downtowns legal for rebuilding without the need for conjoining lots. And it ' maintains commercial sidewalks free of curb cuts for off-street parking. Once the parking requirements are calculated, then the density by Budding FUNCTION can be determined. The EFFECTIVE PARKING may be increased in TODs to effectively increase the permitted density. ' ACCESSORY UNITS are not included in the density calculation to encourage this residential use. ' e. Develop the Landscaping Plan. The landscaping standards regulate the extent of paving, lawns, and trees. Note the requirement that in T4, trees in ' the private frontage are required to match trees in the public frontage (see Table 4 PUBLIC FRONTAGES). While this may seem like an unnecessary effort to control private choice, consider that trees in the private frontage are ' actually a major part of the viewshed of the public frontage, and contribute to the shade of the public realm. Many trees in older neighborhoods that contribute to their distinctive character are actually growing on the private ' frontage. While it may seem odd that lawn is permitted BY RIGHT in T4 but not in T3 where lawns have reigned in the past, the rationale is that a lawn is not a natural type of planting, and is not considered environmentally , sustainable in large areas. (It requires fertilizers that run off into streams or the aquifer.) Therefore it is allowed in the more urban (less natural) Transect Zone where lots are smaller and yards more intensely used, which is where lawn ' outperforms other species. GROWTH POLICY Articles 3 & 4 CommunityScale Plans Article 5 Building Scale Plans COMMUNITY TYPE TRANSECT ZONES STANDARDS OPEN SPACE Open Space, Preserved Sensitve Resources GB- Greenbelt Budding Disposition Budding Configuration Budding Function Parking Standards Architectural Standards Environmental Standards Landscape Standards Open Space, Reseryed Greenbelt NEW COMMUNITIES (Article 3) TOD TND- Neighborhood Village T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone RCD- Regional Center T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone Outside TOD TND- Neighborhood Village T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone EXISTING COMMUNITIES (Article 4) TOD- Redevelopment RCD- Regional Center T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone TND -Infill TND- Neighborhood Village T3- Suburban Zone T4- General Urban Zone T5- Urban Center Zone N ARTICLE 3. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS—NEW VILLAGES 3.1. INSTRUCTIONS 3.1.1. Structure the site using one or several PEDESTRIAN SHEDS, which should be located according to existing conditions, such as traffic intersections, adjacent developments, and natural features. The site or any New VILLAGE UNIT (TND. RCD/TOD) within it may be smaller or larger than its PEDESTRIAN SHED. Note*ln Section 3, New Communities refer to stand-alone development, as compared to "Infill" connected to existing development, so no, don't replace with Villages 3.1.2 Adjust the PEDESTRIAN SHEDS as necessary to include land falling between or outside them, but the extent of each shall not exceed the acreage limit specified in Section 3.3 for the applicable Village Unit type. An ADJUSTED PEDESTRIAN SHED becomes the boundary of a VILLAGE UNIT. 3.1.3. Allocate the areas of TRANSECT ZONES (T -Zones) (Section 3.4) within the boundaries of each VILLAGE UNIT as appropriate to its type. TND may vary in size If the site is larger than a STANDARD PEDESTRIAN SHED, one TND may be adjoined by another. RCD may also vary greatly in size. This provision gives the planner leeway to structure any site up to 640 acres as either one large RCD or as a smaller RCD adjoined by one or more TNDs. Even though the entire planning area would be within the LONG PEDESTRIAN SHED of the transit stop, the market would dictate whether TND, with its lower density and T-3 housing types, would be more suitable to fill out the parcel than the higher density T -zones of the RCD pattern. See Sections 3.3 and 3.4 and Table 11a. 3.1.4. Assign CIVIC ZONES shall according to Section 3.5. 3.1.5. Assign SPECIAL DISTRICTS, if any, according to Section 3.6. 3.1.6. Layout the THOROUGHFARE network according to Section 3.7. 3.1.7. Calculate DENSITY and determine the greenbelt area according to Section 3.8. 3.1.8. Remnants of the site outside the ADJUSTED PEDESTRIAN SHED(s) shall be assigned to TRANSECT ZONES or CIVIC SPACE by WARRANT or SPECIAL DISTRICT by VARIANCE. 3.2. VILLAGE UNIT TYPES 3.21. TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (TND) a. A TRADITIONAL NEIGHBORHOOD DEVELOPMENT (TND) shall be permitted within the TOD neighborhood, existing urban zoned areas, infill areas, or other remaining areas within the Urban Area. b. A TND shall be structured by one Standard or LINEAR PEDESTRIAN SHED and shall be no fewer than 80 acres and no more than 160 acres. c. A TND shall include TRANSECT ZONES as allocated on Table 11a. d. Larger sites shall be designed and developed as multiple Communities, each subject to the individual TRANSECT ZONE requirements for its type as allocated on Table 11 a. The simultaneous planning of adjacent parcels is encouraged. e. In the T-4 General Urban Zone, a minimum Residential mix of three Building Disposition types (none less than 20%) shall be required, selected from Table 6. 3.2.2 REGIONAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT (RCD) a. A REGIONAL CENTER DEVELOPMENT (RCD) shall be permitted within the TOD regional center. b. An RCD shall be structured by one LONG PEDESTRIAN SHED or LINEAR PEDESTRIAN SHED and shall consist of no fewer than 80 acres and no more than 640 acres. c. An RCD shall include TRANSECT ZONES as allocated on Table 11a. d. For larger sites, an RCD may be adjoined without buffer by one or more TNDs, each subject to the individual TRANSECT ZONE requirements for TND as allocated on Table 11 a. The simultaneous planning of adjacent parcels is encouraged. 3.2.3. TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) a. Any TND or RCD designated as TOD are permitted the higher DENSITY represented by the EFFECTIVE PARKING allowance in Section 5.9.2d. 10 ' 3.3. TRANSECT ZONES ' 3.3.1. TRANSECT ZONES shall be assigned and mapped on each New Village Plan according to the percentages allocated on Tables 2 and 14a. ' 3.3.2. A Transect Zone may include any of the elements indicated for its T -zone number throughout this Code, in accordance with Intent described in Table 1 and the metric standards summarized in Table 11. ' 3.4. CIVIC ZONES 3.4.1. GENERAL a. CIVIC ZONES dedicated for public use shall be required for each VILLAGE UNIT and designated on the New Village Plan as CIVIC SPACE (CS) and CIVIC BUILDING (CB). b. CIVIC SPACE Zones are public sites permanently dedicated to Open Space. c CIVIC BUILDING Zones are sites dedicated for buildings generally operated by not-for-profit organizations dedicated to culture, education, religion, government, transit and municipal parking, or for a use approved by the Legislative body. ' d. A CIVIC ZONE may be permitted by WARRANT if it does not occupy more than 20% of a PEDESTRIAN SHED, otherwise it is subject to the creation of a SPECIAL DISTRICT. See Section 3.6. ' e Parking for CIVIC ZONES shall be determined by WARRANT. CIVIC parking lots may remain unpaved if graded, compacted and landscaped. ' 3.4.2. CIVIC SPACE (CS) a. Each PEDESTRIAN SHED shall assign at least 5% of its URBANIZED area to CIVIC SPACE. b. CIVIC SPACES shall be designed as generally described in Table 10, approved by WARRANT, and distributed throughout TRANSECT ZONES as described in Table 11 e. c. Those portions of the GB Greenbelt that occur within a development parcel shall be part of the CIVIC SPACE allocation and should conform to the CIVIC ' SPACE types specified in Table 10a or 13b. d. Each PEDESTRIAN SHED shall contain at least one MAIN CIVIC SPACE. The MAIN CIVIC SPACE shall be within 800 feet of the geographic center of ' each PEDESTRIAN SHED, unless topographic conditions, pre-existing THOROUGHFARE alignments or other circumstances prevent such location. A MAIN CIVIC SPACE shall conform to one of the types specified in Table ' 10b, 13c, or 13d. e. Within 800 feet of every LOT in RESIDENTIAL use, a CIVIC SPACE designed and equipped as a playground shall be provided. A playground shall conform to Table 10e. f. Each CIVIC SPACE shall have a minimum of 50% of its perimeter enfronting a THOROUGHFARE, except for playgrounds. g. CIVIC SPACES may be permitted within SPECIAL DISTRICTS by WARRANT. h. Parks may be permitted in TRANSECT ZONES T4 and T5 by WARRANT. 3.4.3. CIVIC BUILDINGS (CB) a. The owner shall covenant to construct a MEETING HALL or a Third Place in proximity to the MAIN CIVIC SPACE of each PEDESTRIAN SHED. Its corresponding PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall be equipped with a shelter and bench for a transit stop. b. One CIVIC BUILDING LOT shall be reserved for an elementary school. Its area shall be one (1) acre for each increment of 100 dwelling units provided by the Village. c. Plan, with a minimum of three (3) acres. The school site may be within any TRANSECT ZONE. Any playing fields should be outside the PEDESTRIAN SHED. d. One CIVIC BUILDING LOT suitable for a childcare building shall be reserved within each Pedestrian Shed. The owner or a homeowners' association or other community council may organize, fund and construct an appropriate building as the need arises. e. CIVIC BUILDING sites shall not occupy more than 20% of the area of each PEDESTRIAN SHED. f. CIVIC BUILDING sites should be located within or adjacent to a CIVIC SPACE, or at the axial termination of a significant Thoroughfare. g. CIVIC BUILDINGS shall not be subject to the standards of Article 5. The particulars of their design shall be determined by WARRANT. h. CIVIC BUILDINGS may be permitted within SPECIAL DISTRICTS by WARRANT. 3.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS 3.5.1. SPECIAL DISTRICT designations shall be assigned to areas that, by their intrinsic size, FUNCTION, or CONFIGURATION, cannot conform to the requirements of any TRANSECT ZONE or combination of zones. Conditions of development for SPECIAL DISTRICTS shall be determined in public hearing of the Legislative Body and recorded on Table 13. 3.6. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDOR STANDARDS 3.6.1. GENERAL a. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS are intended for use by vehicular and pedestrian traffic and to provide access to LOTS and OPEN SPACES. b. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall generally consist of vehicular lanes and PUBLIC FRONTAGES. c. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall be designed in context with the urban form and desired design speed of the TRANSECT ZONES through which they pass. The PUBLIC FRONTAGES of TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS that pass from one TRANSECT ZONE to another shall be 12 adjusted accordingly or, alternatively, the TRANSECT ZONE may follow the alignment of the THOROUGHFARE to the depth of one LOT, retaining a single PUBLIC FRONTAGE throughout its trajectory. d. Within the more urban TRANSECT ZONES (T3 through T5) pedestrian comfort shall be a primary consideration of the THOROUGHFARE. Design conflict between vehicular and pedestrian movement generally shall be decided in favor of the pedestrian. e The THOROUGHFARE network shall be designed to define BLOCKS not exceeding the size prescribed in Table 11 c. The perimeter shall be measured as the sum of LOT FRONTAGE LINES. BLOCK perimeter at the edge of the development parcel shall be subject to approval by WARRANT. f. All TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall terminate at other TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS, forming a network. Internal TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS shall connect wherever possible to those on adjacent sites. Cul-de-sacs shall be subject to approval by WARRANT to accommodate specific site conditions only. g. Each LOT shall ENFRONT a vehicular THOROUGHFARE, except that 20% of the LOTS within each TRANSECT ZONE may ENFRONT a PASSAGE. h. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS along a designated B -GRID may be exempted by WARRANT from one or more of the specified PUBLIC FRONTAGE or PRIVATE FRONTAGE requirements See Table 4 i. Standards for PATHS and BICYCLE TRAILS shall be approved by WARRANT. j. The standards for TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS within SPECIAL DISTRICTS shall be determined by VARIANCE. 3.6.2. VEHICULAR LANES a. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS may include vehicular lanes in a variety of widths for parked and for moving vehicles, including bicycles. The standards for vehicular lanes shall be as shown in Table 2A. b. A bicycle network consisting of BICYCLE TRAILS, BICYCLE ROUTES and BICYCLE LANES should be provided throughout as defined in Article 7 Definitions of Terms and allocated as specified in Table 11d. BICYCLE ROUTES should be marked with Sharrows. The village bicycle network shall be connected to existing or proposed regional networks wherever possible. 3.6.3. PUBLIC FRONTAGES a. GENERAL TO ALL ZONES i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE contributes to the character of the TRANSECT ZONE, and includes the types of SIDEWALK, CURB, planter, bicycle facility, and street trees. ii. PUBLIC FRONTAGES shall be designed as shown in Table 3A and Table 3B and allocated within TRANSECT ZONES as specified in Table 11d. b. SPECIFIC TO ZONES T3 i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall include trees of various species, naturalistically clustered, as well as understory. 13 ii. The introduced landscape shall consist primarily of native species requiring minimal irrigation, fertilization and maintenance. Lawn shall be permitted only by WARRANT. c. C. SPECIFIC TO ZONES T4, T5 i. The introduced landscape shall consist primarily of durable species tolerant of soil compaction. d. SPECIFIC TO ZONE T4 i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall include trees planted in a regularly -spaced ALLEE pattern of single or alternated species with shade canopies of a height that, at maturity, clears at least one STORY. e. SPECIFIC TO ZONE T5 i. The PUBLIC FRONTAGE shall include trees planted in a regularly -spaced ALLEE pattern of single species with shade canopies of a height that, at maturity, clears at least one STORY. At RETAIL FRONTAGES, the spacing of the trees may be irregular, to avoid visually obscuring the shopfronts. ii. Streets with a Right -of -Way width of 40 feet or less shall be exempt from the tree requirement. 3.7. DENSITY CALCULATIONS 3.7.1. This section operates by referencing Table 11 a and Table 11 b (Summary Table), and Table 7 and Table 8 (Building FUNCTION and Parking Calculations). The code requires a minimum amount of dwelling units to be exchanged for other FUNCTIONS (LODGING, OFFICE, or RETAIL. The exchange is subject to approval as a WARRANT, and cannot exceed in any event 50% of the total number of dwelling units permitted for the applicable TRANSECT ZONE. The density calculations, which are inherently complex, operate at the village scale, while a further determination of local density occurs at the building scale. These calculations allow adjustment according to the site and market conditions. The sequence of calculations is as follows: a. In the process of preparing the Village Plan, allocate an area of land to each TRANSECT ZONE as permitted by Table 11a. The table shows a range of ratios for each VILLAGE UNIT type that, once the plan is complete, become fixed allocations appearing on the permitting documents, both graphically on the plan and also listed as the number of acres of each TRANSECT ZONE. b. Using the acreage of these TRANSECT ZONES, including the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS but not the CIVIC ZONES, calculate from Table 11 b the BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY. Note that the "BY RIGHT" density is much lower than the "By TDR" density. This encourages the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS from lands that should remain open, in order to achieve the higher allowable density. c. Establish the requisite degree of mixed use by translating a ratio of the overall BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY to "Other FUNCTIONS" as specified on Table 11 b and Section 3.8.5. These densities become part of the permit, appearing as fixed numbers and allocated by TRANSECT ZONES on the Village Plan. 14 ' d. When the lots and buildings are subsequently being designed according to Article 5, the localized density is determined. See Section 5.9 DENSITY and ' Parking Calculations. 372 All areas of the New Village Plan site that are not part of the T-1 Preserved Sector ' shall be considered cumulatively the NET SITE AREA, The NET SITE AREA shall be allocated to the various TRANSECT ZONES according to the parameters specified in Table 11 a 3.73. DENSITY shall be expressed in terms of housing units per acre as specified for the area of each TRANSECT ZONE by Table 11 b. For purposes of DENSITY ' calculation, the TRANSECT ZONES include the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS but not land assigned to CIVIC ZONES (CS and CB). Twenty percent (20%) shall be in the AFFORDABLE HOUSING range. 3.7.4. The BASE DENSITY of the VILLAGE UNIT may be increased by the TRANSFER OF DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS (TDR) up to the amount specified for each Zone by Table 11 b An increase in housing units by TDR shall be factored in when meeting the AFFORDABLE HOUSING requirements. ' 3.7.5. Within the percentage range shown on Table 11 b for Other FUNCTIONS, the housing units specified on Table 11 b shall be exchanged at the following rates - a. For LODGING: 2 bedrooms for each unit of NET SITE AREA DENSITY. ' b. For OFFICE or RETAIL: 1000 square feet for each unit of NET SITE AREA DENSITY. 3.7.6. The number of units exchanged shall be subject to approval by WARRANT. 3.7.7 The housing and other FUNCTIONS for each TRANSECT ZONE shall be subject to further adjustment at the building scale as limited by Table 7, Table 8 and Section 5.9. ' 3.8. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 3.8.1. New and Redevelopment Village Plans shall include a REGULATING PLAN ' consisting of one or more maps showing the following for each VILLAGE UNIT in the plan area, in compliance with the standards described in this Article: a. TRANSECT ZONES B. CIVIC ZONES c. THOROUGHFARE network d. SPECIAL DISTRICTS, if any e. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS, if any f. Numbers of WARRANTS or VARIANCES, if any. 3.8.2. A New or Community Village Plan may designate any of the following SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS: 1 15 a. A differentiation of the TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS as A -GRID and B - GRID. Buildings along the A -GRID shall be held to the highest standard of this Code in support of pedestrian activity. Buildings along the B -GRID may be more readily considered for WARRANTS allowing automobile -oriented standards. The FRONTAGES assigned to the B -GRID shall not exceed 30% of the total length of FRONTAGES within a PEDESTRIAN SHED. b. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended RETAIL FRONTAGE requiring or advising that a building provide a SHOPFRONT at SIDEWALK level along the entire length of its PRIVATE FRONTAGE. The SHOPFRONT shall be no less than 70% glazed in clear glass and shaded by an awning overlapping the SIDEWALK as generally illustrated in Table 4 and specified in Article 5. The first floor shall be confined to RETAIL use through the depth of the second LAYER. (Table 14d) c. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended GALLERY FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building provide a permanent cover over the SIDEWALK, either cantilevered or supported by columns. The GALLERY FRONTAGE designation may be combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. d. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended ARCADE FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building overlap the SIDEWALK such that the first floor FACADE is a colonnade. The ARCADE FRONTAGE designation may be combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. e. A designation for Coordinated FRONTAGE, requiring that the PUBLIC FRONTAGE (Table 3A) and PRIVATE FRONTAGE (Table 4) be coordinated as a single, coherent landscape and paving design. f. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended Terminated Vista locations, requiring or advising that the building be provided with architectural articulation of a type and character that responds visually to the location, as approved by the Design Center. g. A designation for Cross BLOCK Passages, requiring that a minimum 8 -foot - wide pedestrian access be reserved between buildings. h. A designation for Buildings of Value, requiring that such buildings and structures may be altered or demolished only in accordance with Municipal Preservation Standards and Protocols. 16 IARTICLE 4. VILLAGE SCALE PLANS-- INFILL ' 4.1. MINIMUM AREA REQUIREMENTS 4.1.1. The owner of a parcel, or abutting parcels, consisting of 20 acres or more of ' contiguous lots abutting existing development within the Urban Area as approved by the Design Center shall prepare a village plan to regulate, at minimum, an area the size of the Pedestrian Shed commensurate with its Village Unit type as listed ' in Section 4 2, even if it overlaps adjacent parcels. Both the site and plan area should connect and blend with surrounding urbanism 4.2. VILLAGE UNIT TYPES 4.2.1. Infill Regulating Plans shall encompass the Village Unit types below. The ' allocation percentages of Table 11 a do not apply a TND. An INFILL TND should be assigned to neighborhood areas that are predominantly residential with one or more MIXED USE CORRIDORS or ' centers. An INFILL TND shall be mapped as at least one complete Standard Pedestrian Shed, which may be adjusted as a NETWORK PEDESTRIAN SHED, oriented around one or more existing or planned Common ' Destinations. The edges of an INFILL TND should blend into adjacent neighborhoods and/or a downtown without buffers. b. RCD. The INFILL RCDs consist of the Redevelopment areas identified on the Land Use Map—Kailua Village TOD and the Rural Towns TODs. These areas include significant OFFICE and RETAIL uses as well as government and other CIVIC institutions of regional importance. These INFILL RCD may be mapped ' as at least one complete LONG or LINEAR PEDESTRIAN SHED, which may be adjusted as a NETWORK PEDESTRIAN SHED, oriented around an ' important MIXED USE CORRIDOR or center. The edges of these INFILL RCDs should blend into adjacent neighborhoods without buffers. As TODs, the higher DENSITY represented by the EFFECTIVE PARKING allowance in ' Section 5.9.2d apply. 4.3. TRANSECT ZONES 43.1. TRANSECT ZONE standards for INFILL REGULATING PLANS should be calibrated by means of a survey of exemplary existing and intended conditions, as identified in a process of public consultation and subject to the approval of the Design Center. Metrics shall be recorded on Table 11 and Tables 12A -C. 43.2. A TRANSECT ZONE shall include elements indicated by Article 3, Article 5, and Article 6. 17 4.4. CIVIC ZONES 4.4.1. GENERAL a. Infill Plans should designate CIVIC SPACE Zones (CS) and CIVIC BUILDING Zones (CB). b. A CIVIC ZONE may be permitted by WARRANT if it does not occupy more than 20% of a PEDESTRIAN SHED, otherwise it is subject to the creation of a SPECIAL DISTRICT. See Section 4.5. c. Parking provisions for CIVIC ZONES shall be determined by WARRANT. 4.4.2. CIVIC SPACE ZONES (CS) a. CIVIC SPACES shall be generally designed as described in Table 10, their type determined by the surrounding or adjacent TRANSECT ZONE in a process of public consultation subject to the approval of the Design Center. 4.4.3. CIVIC BUILDING ZONES (CB) a. CIVIC BUILDINGS shall be permitted by WARRANT in any TRANSECT ZONE. b. CIVIC BUILDINGS shall not be subject to the Requirements of Article 5. The particulars of their design shall be determined by WARRANT. 4.5. SPECIAL DISTRICTS 4.5.1. Areas that, by their intrinsic size, FUNCTION, or CONFIGURATION, cannot conform to the requirements of any TRANSECT ZONE or combination of zones shall be designated as SPECIAL DISTRICTS by the Planning Director in the process of preparing an Infill Plan. Conditions of development for SPECIAL DISTRICTS shall be determined by the Design Center and recorded on Table 13. 4.6. MANDATORY AND SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS 4.6.1. Infill Regulating Plans shall consist of one or more maps showing the following: a. The outline(s) of the PEDESTRIAN SHED(s) and the boundaries of the Village Unit(s) b. TRANSECT ZONES and any CIVIC ZONES within each PEDESTRIAN SHED, assigned according to an analysis of existing conditions and future needs c. a Thoroughfare network, existing or planned (Table 2A, Table 26, Table 3A, and Table 3B) d. any SPECIAL DISTRICTS (Section 4.5) e. any Special Requirements (Section 4.7) f. a record of any WARRANTS or VARIANCES. 4.6.2. An Infill Village Plan may designate any of the following Special Requirements: a. A differentiation of the transportation corridors as A -GRID and B -GRID. Buildings along the A -GRID shall be held to the highest standard of this Code 18 ' in support of pedestrian activity. Buildings along the B -GRID may be more readily considered for Warrants allowing automobile -oriented standards. The ' FRONTAGES assigned to the B -GRID shall not exceed 30% of the total length of FRONTAGES within a PEDESTRIAN SHED. b Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended RETAIL FRONTAGE ' requiring or advising that a building provide a SHOPFRONT at SIDEWALK level along the entire length of its PRIVATE FRONTAGE. The SHOPFRONT shall be no less than 70% glazed in clear glass and shaded by an awning ' overlapping the SIDEWALK as generally illustrated in Table 4 and specified in Article 5. The first floor shall be confined to Retail use through the depth of the ' second LAYER. (Table 14d.) c. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended GALLERY FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building provide a permanent cover over the SIDEWALK, either cantilevered or supported by columns. The GALLERY FRONTAGE designation may be combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation. d. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended ARCADE FRONTAGE, requiring or advising that a building overlap the SIDEWALK such that the first floor Facade is a colonnade. The ARCADE FRONTAGE designation may be ' combined with a RETAIL FRONTAGE designation e. A designation for Coordinated FRONTAGE, requiring that the PUBLIC FRONTAGE (Table 3A) and PRIVATE FRONTAGE (Table 4) be coordinated as a single, coherent landscape and paving design. f. Designations for Mandatory and/or Recommended Terminated Vista locations, requiring or advising that the building be provided with architectural articulation of a type and character that responds visually to the location, as approved by the Design Center. g. A designation for Cross BLOCK Passages, requiring that a minimum 8 -foot - wide pedestrian access be reserved between buildings. h. A designation for Buildings of Value, requiring that such buildings and structures may be altered or demolished only in accordance with Design Center approval. 4.7. SPECIAL REQUIREMENTS RELATED TO REDEVELOPMENT PLANS (PRE- EXISTING CONDITIONS) 4.7.1 Existing buildings and appurtenances that do not conform to the provisions of this Code may continue in the same use and form until a Substantial Modification occurs or is requested, at which time the Design Center shall determine the provisions of this Section that shall apply. 4.7.2. Existing buildings that have at any time received a certificate of occupancy shall not require upgrade to the current Building Code and when renovated may meet the standards of the code under which they were originally permitted (to be negotiated by the Design Center with the Building Division). 19 4.7.3. The modification of existing buildings is permitted BY RIGHT if such changes result in greater conformance with the specifications of this Code (to be negotiated by the Design Center with the Building Division). 4.7.4. Where buildings exist on adjacent LOTS, the Design Center may require that a proposed building match one or the other of the adjacent Setbacks and heights rather than the provisions of this Code. 4.7.5. Any addition to or modification of a Building of Value that has been designated as such by the Local Preservation Organization or to a building actually or potentially eligible for inclusion on a state, local or national historic register, shall be subject to approval by the Local Preservation Organization. 4.7.6. The restoration or rehabilitation of an existing building shall not require the provision of (a) parking in addition to that existing or (b) on-site stormwater retention/detention in addition to that existing. Existing parking requirements that exceed those for this Code may be reduced as provided by Tables 10 and 11. Inf"Plan - Fu0 %1 op N3 haw ARTICLE 5. BUILDING SCALE PLANS 5.1. INSTRUCTIONS 5.1.1. LOTS and buildings located within a New, Redevelopment, or Infill Village Plan governed by this Code and previously approved shall be subject to the requirements of this Article. 5.1.2. Building and site plans submitted under this Article shall show the following, in compliance with the standards described in this Article: a. For preliminary site and building approval: 20 — Building Disposition — Building CONFIGURATION — Building FUNCTION — Parking Location Standards b. For final approval, in addition to the above. — Landscape Standards — Signage Standards — Special Requirements, if any 5.1.3. SPECIAL DISTRICTS that do not have provisions within this Code shall be governed by the standards of the pre-existing zoning. 5.2. BUILDING DISPOSITION 5.2 1. SPECIFIC TO ZONES T3, T4, T5 a. Newly platted LOTS shall be dimensioned according to Table 11f and Tables 12A -C b. Building DISPOSITION types shall be as shown in Table 6 and Table 11 i. c. Buildings shall be disposed in relation to the boundaries of their Lots according to Table 11 g, Table 11 h, and Tables 12A -C. d. One Principal Building at the FRONTAGE, and one Outbuilding to the rear of the Principal Building, may be built on each LOT as shown in Table 14c. e. LOT coverage by building shall not exceed that recorded in Table 11f and Tables 124C. f. Facades shall be built parallel to a rectilinear PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE or to the tangent of a curved PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE, and along a minimum percentage of the FRONTAGE width at the SETBACK, as specified as FRONTAGE Buildout on Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. g. Setbacks for Principal Buildings shall be as shown in Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. In the case of an Infill LOT, Setbacks shall match one of the existing adjacent SETBACKS. SETBACKS may otherwise be adjusted by WARRANT. h. Rear SETBACKS for Outbuildings shall be a minimum of 12 feet measured from the centerline of the REAR ALLEY or REAR LANE easement. In the absence of REAR ALLEY or REAR LANE, the rear SETBACK shall be as shown in Table 11 h and Tables 12A -C. i. To accommodate slopes over ten percent, relief from front Setback requirements is available by WARRANT. 5.3. BUILDING CONFIGURATION 5.31 Specific to zones T3, T4, T5 a Newly platted LOTS shall be dimensioned according to Table 11f and Tables 12A -C. b. Building Disposition types shall be as shown in Table 6. c. Buildings shall be disposed in relation to the boundaries of their LOTS according to Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. 21 d. One PRINCIPAL BUILDING at the FRONTAGE, and one ACCESSORY UNIT to the rear of the PRINCIPAL BUILDING, may be built on each LOT as shown in Table 14c. e. LOT coverage by building shall not exceed that recorded in Table 11f and Tables 12A -C. f. Facades shall be built parallel to a rectilinear PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE or to the tangent of a curved PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE LINE, and along a minimum percentage of the FRONTAGE length at the SETBACK, as specified on Table 11 g and Tables 12A -C. g. SETBACKS for PRINCIPAL BUILDINGS shall be as shown in Table 11g and Tables 12A -C. In the case of an INFILL LOT, Setbacks shall match one of the existing adjacent SETBACKS. SETBACKS may otherwise be adjusted by the Final Site Plan. h. Rear SETBACKS for ACCESSORY UNITS shall be a minimum of 12 feet measured from the centerline of the REAR ALLEY easement. In the absence of REAR ALLEY, the rear SETBACK shall be as shown in Table 11 h and Tables 12A -C. i. To accommodate slopes over ten percent, relief from front SETBACK requirements may be considered as a Special Condition. 5.4. BUILDING CONFIGURATION 5.4.1. General to zones T3, T4, T5 a. The PRIVATE FRONTAGE of buildings shall conform to and be allocated in accordance with Table 4 and Table 11 j. b. Buildings on corner LOTS shall have two PRIVATE FRONTAGES as shown in Table 14. Prescriptions for the second and third LAYERS pertain only to the PRINCIPAL FRONTAGE. Prescriptions for the first LAYER pertain to both FRONTAGES. c. The first STORY of all FACADES should be glazed with clear glass no less than 30%. d. Building Heights, SETBACKS, EXPRESSION LINES, and EXTENSION LINES shall conform to Table 5 and Table 11 j. e. Stories may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first floor COMMERCIAL FUNCTION, which shall be a minimum of 11 feet and may be a maximum of 25 feet. A single floor level exceeding 14 feet, or 25 feet at ground level, shall be counted as two (2) stories. Mezzanines extending beyond 33% of the floor area shall be counted as an additional STORY. f. In a PARKING STRUCTURE or garage, each level counts as a single STORY regardless of its relationship to habitable Stories. g. Height limits do not apply to ATTICS or raised basements, masts, belfries, clock towers, chimney flues, water tanks, or elevator bulkheads. 5.4.2. Specific to zones T3, T4, T5 22 a. The minimum size of a dwelling within a PRINCIPAL BUILDING shall be 300 sq ft in interior space. ACCESSORY UNITS may be any size, not to exceed 900 sq ft. 5.4.3. Specific to zone T3 a. No portion of the PRIVATE FRONTAGE may encroach the SIDEWALK. b. Open lanais may encroach the first LAYER 50% of its depth. (Table 14d) c. Lanais and bay windows may encroach the First LAYER 25% of its depth. 5.4.4. Specific to zone T4 a. Lanais and bay windows may encroach the first LAYER 50% of its depth. (Table 14d) 5.4.5. Specific to zones T5 a. Awnings, ARCADES, and GALLERIES may encroach the SIDEWALK to within two feet of the CURB but must clear the SIDEWALK vertically by at least 8 feet b. Maximum Encroachment heights (EXTENSION LINES) for ARCADES shall be as shown on Table 5. c. Entryway steps, lanais, and bay windows may encroach the first LAYER 100% of its depth. (Table 14d) d. Loading docks and service areas shall be permitted on FRONTAGES only as a Special Condition e. In the absence of a building FACADE along any part of a FRONTAGE LINE, a STREETSCREEN shall be built co -planar with the Facade. f. STREETSCREENS should be between 3.5 and 8 feet in height. The STREETSCREEN may be replaced by a hedge or fence by WARRANT. STREETSCREENS shall have openings no larger than necessary to allow automobile and pedestrian access. g. A first level RESIDENTIAL or LODGING FUNCTION shall be raised a minimum of 2 feet from average SIDEWALK grade. 5.5. BUILDING FUNCTION 5.5.1. General to zones T3, T4, T5 a. Buildings in each TRANSECT ZONE shall conform to the FUNCTIONS on Table 7 and Table 9 and Table 11 k. FUNCTIONS that do not conform shall require approval by Warrant or Variance as specified on Table 9. 5.5.2. Specific to zone T3 a. Accessory FUNCTIONS of Restricted LODGING or Restricted OFFICE shall be permitted within an ACCESSORY UNIT. See Table 7. 5 5 3. Specific to zones T4, T5 a Accessory FUNCTIONS of Limited LODGING or Limited OFFICE shall be permitted within an ACCESSORY UNIT. See Table 7. 23 5.5.4. Specific to zones T5 a. First STORY COMMERCIAL FUNCTIONS shall be permitted. b. Manufacturing FUNCTIONS within the first Story may be permitted by Variance. 5.6. PARKING AND DENSITY CALCULATIONS 5.6.1. Specific to zone T3 a. Buildable DENSITY on a LOT shall be determined by the actual parking provided within the LOT as applied to the FUNCTIONS permitted in Table 7. 5.6.2. Specific to zones T4, T5 a a. Buildable DENSITY on a LOT shall be determined by the sum of the actual parking calculated as that provided (1) within the LOT (2) along the parking lane corresponding to the LOT FRONTAGE, and (3) by purchase or lease from a CIVIC PARKING RESERVE within the PEDESTRIAN SHED, if available. .. b. The actual parking may be adjusted upward according to the SHARED PARKING FACTOR of Table 8 to determine the EFFECTIVE PARKING. The SHARED PARKING FACTOR is available for any two FUNCTIONS within any pair of adjacent BLOCKS. c. Based on the EFFECTIVE PARKING available, the DENSITY of the projected FUNCTION may be determined according to Table 7. d. Within the overlay area of a TRANSIT -ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT (TOD) the EFFECTIVE PARKING may be further adjusted upward by 30%. e. The total DENSITY within each TRANSECT ZONE shall not exceed that specified by an approved Regulating Maps based on Article 3 or Article 4. f. ACCESSORY UNITS do not count toward DENSITY calculations. g. Liner Buildings less than 30 feet deep and no more than two STORIES shall be exempt from parking requirements. 5.6.3. Parking Calculations. The calculations work as follows: a. The required parking for each category of function appears on Table 7. These requirements also apply to the subcategories of Table 9. For those functions that are not covered, the parking is calculated by WARRANT. b. Table 8a (Required Parking) summarizes the parking requirements of Table 7, which determines the amount of parking required for each site or, conversely, the amount of buildings allowed on each site given the parking available. c. In the event of mixed use, the actual parking required is calculated by adding the total number of spaces required by each separate function and dividing the total by the appropriate factor from Table 8b (SHARED PARKING FACTOR). An example of this calculation: The RESIDENTIAL FUNCTION requires 10 spaces while the office portion requires 12 spaces. Independently they would require 22 spaces, but when divided by the sharing factor of 1.4, they would 24 0 0 0 0 0 require only 16 spaces. A second way to calculate: If there are 22 spaces available for RESIDENTIAL and OFFICE, multiplying this by the factor 1.4 gives the equivalent of 30 spaces. Thus buildings are allowed corresponding to 30 parking spaces. When three functions share parking, use the lowest factor so that enough parking is assured. 5.7. PARKING LOCATION STANDARDS 5.7.1. General to zones T3, T4, T5 a Parking shall be accessed by REAR ALLEYS when such are available on the REGULATING MAPS. b. Open parking areas shall be masked from the FRONTAGE by a Building or STREETSCREEN. c. For buildings on B -GRIDS, open parking areas may be allowed unmasked on the FRONTAGE, except for corner lots at intersections with the A -GRID. 5.7.2. Specific to zones T3 a. Open parking areas shall be located at the second and third LOT LAYERS, except that DRIVEWAYS, drop-offs and unpaved parking areas may be located at the first LOT LAYER. (Table 14d) b. Garages shall be located at the third LAYER except that side- or rear -entry types may be allowed in the first or second LAYER. 5.7.3. Specific to zones T3, T4 a. DRIVEWAYS at FRONTAGES shall be no wider than 10 feet in the first LAYER. (Table 213-f) 574 Specific to zone T4 a. All parking areas and garages shall be located at the second or third LAYER. 5.7.5 Specific to zones T5 a All parking lots, garages, and PARKING STRUCTURES shall be located at the second or third LAYER. (Table 14d) b. Vehicular entrances to parking lots, garages, and PARKING STRUCTURES shall be no wider than 24 feet at the FRONTAGE. (Table 26-f) c. Pedestrian exits from all parking lots, garages, and PARKING STRUCTURES shall be directly to a FRONTAGE LINE (i.e., not directly into a building) except underground levels which may be exited by pedestrians directly into a building. d. PARKING STRUCTURES on the A -GRID shall have LINER BUILDINGS lining the first and second STORIES. e A minimum of one bicycle rack place should be provided within the PUBLIC or PRIVATE FRONTAGE for every ten vehicular parking spaces. 25 5.8. LANDSCAPE STANDARDS 5.8.1. General to zones T4, T5 (Table 11) a. Impermeable surface shall be confined to the ratio of LOT coverage specified in Table 11 f. 5.8.2. Specific to zones T3, T4 a. The first LAYER may not be paved, with the exception of DRIVEWAYS as specified in Section 5.10.2 and Section 5.10.3. (Table 14d) 5.8.3. Specific to zone T4 a. A minimum of one tree shall be planted within the first LAYER for each 30 feet of FRONTAGE LINE or portion thereof. (Table 14d) b. Trees shall be a single species to match the species of Street Trees on the PUBLIC FRONTAGE, or as shown on Table 5. c. Lawn shall be permitted BY RIGHT. 5.8.4. Specific to zones T5 a. Trees shall not be required in the first LAYER. b. The first LAYER may be paved to match the pavement of the PUBLIC FRONTAGE. ARTICLE 6. STANDARDS AND TABLES 26 ' ARTICLE 7. DEFINITIONS This Article provides definitions for terms in this Code that are technical in nature or that otherwise ' may not reflect a common usage of the term. If a term is not defined in this Article, then the Planning Director shall determine the correct definition. Items in italics refer to Articles, Sections, or Tables in the SmartCode ' A -Grid. cumulatively, those transportation corridors that by virtue of their pre-existing pedestrian - supportive qualities, or their future importance to pedestrian connectivity, are held to the highest standards prescribed by this Code. See B -Grid. (Syn: primary grid.) Accessory Building. an Outbuilding with an ACCESSORY UNIT ' Accessory Unit: an Apartment not greater than 440 square feet sharing ownership and utility connections with a Principal Budding; it may or may not be within an Outbuilding. See Table 7 and Table 14. (Syn: ancillary unit) ' Adjusted Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian.Shed that has been adjusted according to Section 3.2, creating the regulatory boundary of a Village Unit. ' Affordable Housing: dwellings consisting of rental or for -sale units that have a rent (including utilities) or sales price meeting the requirements of HCC chapter 11 or the Kona CDP. Allee: a regularly spaced and aligned row of trees usually planted along a Thoroughfare or Path. Apartment: a Residential unit sharing a building and a Lot with other units and/or uses; may be for rent, or for sale as a condominium. Arcade: a Private Frontage conventional for Retail use wherein the Facade is a colonnade supporting habitable space that overlaps the Sidewalk, while the Facade at Sidewalk level remains at the FRONTAGE LINE. Attic: the interior part of a building contained within a pitched roof structure. Avenue (AV): a Thoroughfare of high vehicular capacity and low to moderate speed, acting as a short distance connector between urban centers, and usually equipped with a landscaped median. B -Grid: cumulatively, those transportation corridors that by virtue of their use, location, or absence of pre-existing pedestrian -supportive qualities, may meet a standard lower than that of the A -GRID. See A -GRID. (Syn: secondary grid.) BRT: see Bus Rapid Transit. Backbuilding: a single -Story structure connecting a Principal Building to an Outbuilding. See Table 14 Base Density- the number of dwelling units per acre before adjustment for other Functions and/or TDR See Density. Bed and Breakfast- an owner -occupied Lodging type offering 1 to 5 bedrooms, permitted to serve breakfast in the mornings to guests. Bicycle Lane (BL): a dedicated lane for cycling within a moderate -speed vehicular Thoroughfare, demarcated by striping. 27 Bicycle Route (BR): a Thoroughfare suitable for the shared use of bicycles and automobiles moving at low speeds. Bicycle Trail (BT): a bicycle way running independently of a vehicular Thoroughfare. Block: the aggregate of private Lots, Passages, Rear Alleys and Rear Lanes, circumscribed by transportation corridors. Block Face: the aggregate of all the building Facades on one side of a Block. Boulevard (BV): a Thoroughfare designed for high vehicular capacity and moderate speed, traversing an Urbanized area. Boulevards are usually equipped with Slip Roads buffering Sidewalks and buildings. Brownfield: an area previously used primarily as an industrial site. Bus Rapid Transit: a rubber tire system with its own right-of-way or dedicated lane along at least 70% of its route, providing transit service that is faster than a regular bus. By Right: characterizing a proposal or component of a proposal for a Village Plan or Building Scale Plan (Article 3, Article 4, orArticle 5) that complies with the SmartCode and is permitted and processed administratively, without public hearing. See Warrant and Variance. Civic: the term defining not-for-profit organizations dedicated to arts, culture, education, recreation, government, transit, and municipal parking. Civic Building: a building operated by not-for-profit organizations dedicated to arts, culture, education, recreation, government, transit, and municipal parking, or for use approved by the legislative body. Civic Parking Reserve: Parking Structure or parking lot within a quarter -mile of the site that it serves. See Section 5.9.2. Civic Space: an outdoor area dedicated for public use. Civic Space types are defined by the combination of certain physical constants including the relationships among their intended use, their size, their landscaping and their Enfronting buildings. See Table 10. Civic Zone: designation for public sites dedicated for Civic Buildings and Civic Space. Commercial: the term collectively defining workplace, Office, Retail, and Lodging Functions. Common Destination: An area of focused community activity, usually defining the approximate center of a Pedestrian Shed. It may include without limitation one or more of the following: a Civic Space, a Civic Building, a Commercial center, or a transit station, and may act as the social center of a neighborhood. Common Yard: a planted Private Frontage wherein the Facade is set back from the Frontage line. It is visually continuous with adjacent yards. See Table 4. Configuration: the form of a building, based on its massing, Private Frontage, and height. Corridor: a lineal geographic system incorporating transportation and/or Greenway trajectories. A transportation corridor may be a lineal Transect Zone. Cottage: an Edgeyard building type. A single-family dwelling, on a regular Lot, often shared with an ACCESSORY BUILDING in the back yard. 28 ' Courtyard Building: a building that occupies the boundaries of its Lot while internally defining Y 9 9 one or more private patios. See Table 6. ' Curb: the edge of the vehicular pavement that may be raised or flush to a Swale. It usually incorporates the drainage system See Table 3A and Table 36 DDC: Development and Design Center. Density: the number of dwelling units within a standard measure of land area. ' Design Speed: is the velocity at which a Thoroughfare tends to be driven without the constraints of signage or enforcement. There are four ranges of speed- Very Low- (below 20 MPH); Low: (20-25 MPH); Moderate: (25-35 MPH); High: (above 35 MPH). Lane width is determined by desired Design Speed. See Table 2A. Developable Areas. lands other than those in the T-1 Preserved Open Sector Development and Design Center (DDC): A component of the Planning Office assigned to advise on the use of this Code and to aid in the design of the Communities and buildings based on it. Disposition: the placement of a building on its Lot. See Table 6 and Table 14 Dooryard: a Private Frontage type with a shallow Setback and front garden or patio, usually with a low wall at the Frontage Line See Table 4. (Variant: Lightwell, light court.) Drive: a Thoroughfare along the boundary between an Urbanized and a natural condition, usually along a waterfront, Park, or promontory. One side has the urban character of a Thoroughfare, with Sidewalk and building, while the other has the qualities of a Road or parkway, with naturalistic tplanting and rural details. Driveway. a vehicular lane within a Lot, often leading to a garage. See Section 5.10 and Table 213- f. Edgeyard Building. a building that occupies the center of its Lot with Setbacks on all sides. See Table 6. Effective Parking. the amount of parking required for Mixed Use after adjustment by the Shared Parking Factor. See Table 8. Effective Turning Radius: the measurement of the inside Turning Radius taking parked cars into account. See Table 14. Elevation: an exterior wall of a budding not along a Frontage Line. See Table 14. See: Facade. Encroach: to break the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit with a structural element, so that it extends into a Setback, into the Public Frontage, or above a height limit. Encroachment: any structural element that breaks the plane of a vertical or horizontal regulatory limit, extending into a Setback, into the Public Frontage, or above a height limit. Enfront: to place an element along a Frontage, as in "porches Enfront the street." Estate House: an Edgeyard building type. A single-family dwelling on a very large Lot of rural character, often shared by one or more ACCESSORY BUILDINGs. (Syn: country house, villa) Expression Line: a line prescribed at a certain level of a building for the mayor part of the width of a Facade, expressed by a variation in material or by a limited projection such as a molding or balcony. See Table 5. (Syn: transition line.) 29 Extension Line: a line prescribed at a certain level of a building for the major part of the width of a Facade, regulating the maximum height for an Encroachment by an ARCADE Frontage. See Table 5. Facade: the exterior wall of a building that is set along a Frontage Line. See Elevation. Forecourt: a Private Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to the Frontage Line and the central portion is set back. See Table 4. Frontage: the area between a building Facade and _the vehicular lanes, inclusive of its built and planted components. Frontage is divided into Private Frontage and Public Frontage. See Table 3A and Table 4. Frontage Line: a Lot line bordering a Public Frontage. Facades facing Frontage Lines define the public realm and are therefore more regulated than the Elevations facing other Lot Lines. See Table 14. Function: the use or uses accommodated by a building and its Lot, categorized as Restricted, Limited, or Open, according to the intensity of the use. See Table 7 and Table 9. Gallery: a Private Frontage conventional for Retail use wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with an attached cantilevered shed or lightweight colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk. See Table 4. Green: a Civic Space type for unstructured recreation, spatially defined by landscaping rather than building Frontages. See Table 10. Greenfield: an area that consists of open or wooded land or farmland that has not been previously developed. Greenway: an Open Space Corridor in largely natural conditions which may include trails for bicycles and pedestrians. Greyfield: an area previously used primarily as a parking lot. Shopping centers and shopping malls are typical Greyfield sites. (Variant: Grayfield.) Highway: a rural and suburban Thoroughfare of high vehicular speed and capacity. This type is allocated to the more rural TRANSECT ZONES (T-1, T-2, and T-3). Home Occupation: non -Retail Commercial enterprises. The work quarters should be invisible from the Frontage, located either within the house or in an Outbuilding. Permitted activities are defined by the Restricted Office category. See Table 7. House: an Edgeyard building type, usually a single-family dwelling on a large Lot, often shared with an ACCESSORY BUILDING in the back yard. (Syn: single.) Infill: noun - new development on land that had been previously developed, including most Greyfield and Brownfield sites and cleared land within Urbanized areas. verb- to develop such areas. Infill RCD: a Village Unit type within an Urbanized, Greyfield, or Brownfield area based on a Long or Linear Pedestrian Shed and consisting of T4 and/or T-5 Zones. An Infill RCD is permitted BY RIGHT in the Kailua Village TOD and the Rural Towns TODs and is regulated by Article 4. See Section 4.2.3. (Var: downtown.) 30 Infill TND: a Village Unit type within an Urbanized, Greyfield, or Brownfield area based on a Standard Pedestrian Shed and consisting of T-3, T-4, and/or T-5 Zones. An Infill TND is permitted ' By Right (with PUD approval) in the Urban Area outside of TODs with existing urban zoning and is regulated by Article 4. See Section 4.2.2. (Var: neighborhood.) Inn: a Lodging type, owner -occupied, offering 9 to 12 bedrooms, permitted to serve breakfast in the mornings to guests. See Table 7. Layer: a range of depth of a Lot within which certain elements are permitted. See Table 14. Lightwell: A Private Frontage type that is a below -grade entrance or recess designed to allow light into basements. See Table 4. (Syn: light court.) ' Linear Pedestrian Shed: A Pedestrian Shed that is elongated along an important Mixed Use Corridor such as a main street. A Linear Pedestrian Shed extends approximately 1/4 mile from each side of the Corridor for the length of its Mixed Use portion. The resulting area is shaped like a ' lozenge. It may be used to structure a TND, RCD, Infill TND, or Infill RCD (Syn: elongated pedestrian shed.) ' Liner Building: a building specifically designed to mask a parking lot or a Parking Structure from a Frontage. Live -Work: a Mixed Use unit consisting of a Commercial and Residential Function. The Commercial Function may be anywhere in the unit. It is intended to be occupied by a business operator who lives in the same structure that contains the Commercial activity or industry. See Work -Live. (Syn.: flexhouse.) Lodging: premises available for daily and weekly renting of bedrooms. See Table 7 and Table 9. Long Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed that is an average 1/2 mile radius or 2640 feet, used when a transit stop (bus or rail) is present or proposed as the Common Destination. A Long Pedestrian Shed represents approximately a ten-minute walk at a leisurely pace. It is applied to structure an RCD Village Unit type. See Pedestrian Shed. Lot: a parcel of land accommodating a building or buildings of unified design The size of a Lot is controlled by its width in order to determine the grain (i.e., fine grain or coarse grain) of the urban fabric. Lot Line- the boundary that legally and geometrically demarcates a Lot. Lot Width: the length of the Principal Frontage Line of a Lot. Main Civic Space: the primary outdoor gathering place for a community. The Main Civic Space is often, but not always, associated with an important Civic Building. Manufacturing: premises available for the creation, assemblage and/or repair of artifacts, using table -mounted electrical machinery or artisanal equipment, and including their Retail sale. Meeting Hall. a building available for gatherings, including conferences, that accommodates at least one room equivalent to a minimum of 10 square feet per projected dwelling unit within the Pedestrian Shed in which it is located. Mixed Use: multiple Functions within the same building through superimposition or adjacency, or in multiple buildings by adjacency, or at a proximity determined by Warrant. 31 Net Site Area: all developable land within a site including transportation corridors but excluding land allocated as Civic Zones. Network Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed adjusted for average walk times along transportation corridors. This type may be used to structure Infill Village Plans. See Table 14. Office: premises available for the transaction of general business but excluding Retail, artisanal and Manufacturing uses. See Table 7. Open Space: land intended to remain undeveloped; it may be for Civic Space. Outbuilding: an ACCESSORY BUILDING, usually located toward the rear of the same Lot as a Principal Building, and sometimes connected to the Principal Building by a BACKBUILDING. See Table 14. Park: a Civic Space type that is a natural preserve available for unstructured recreation. See Table 10. Parking Structure: a building containing one or more Stories of parking above grade. Passage (PS): a pedestrian connector, open or roofed, that passes between buildings to provide shortcuts through long Blocks and connect rear parking areas to Frontages. Path (PT): a pedestrian way traversing a Park or rural area, with landscape matching the contiguous Open Space, ideally connecting directly with the urban Sidewalk network. Pedestrian Shed: An area that is centered on a Common Destination. Its size is related to average walking distances for the applicable Village Unit type. Pedestrian Sheds are applied to structure Communities. See Standard, Long, Linear or Network Pedestrian Shed. (Syn: walkshed, walkable catchment.) Planter: the element of the Public Frontage which accommodates street trees, whether continuous or individual. Plaza: a Civic Space type designed for Civic purposes and Commercial activities in the more urban Transect Zones, generally paved and spatially defined by building Frontages. Principal Building: the main building on a Lot, usually located toward the Frontage. See Table 14. Principal Entrance: the main point of access for pedestrians into a building. Principal Frontage: On corner Lots, the Private Frontage designated to bear the address and Principal Entrance to the building, and the measure of minimum Lot width. Prescriptions for the parking Layers pertain only to the Principal Frontage. Prescriptions for the first Layer pertain to both Frontages of a corner Lot. See Frontage. Private Frontage: the privately held Layer between the Frontage Line and the Principal Building Facade. See Table 4 and Table 14. Public Frontage: the area between the Curb of the vehicular lanes and the Frontage Line. See Table 3A and Table 3B. RCD: see Regional Center Development. Rear Alley (RA): a vehicular way located to the rear of Lots providing access to service areas, parking, and Outbuildings and containing utility easements. Rear Alleys should be paved from building face to building face, with drainage by inverted crown at the center or with roll Curbs at the edges. 32 ' Rear Lane (RL): a vehicular way located to the rear of Lots providing access to service areas, parking, and Outbuildings and containing utility easements. Rear Lanes may be paved lightly to ' Driveway standards. The streetscape consists of gravel or landscaped edges, has no raised Curb, and is drained by percolation. ' Rearyard Building: a building that occupies the full Frontage Line, leaving the rear of the Lot as the sole yard. See Table 6 (Var: Rowhouse, Townhouse, APARTMENT House) Recess Line: a line prescribed for the full width of a Facade, above which there is a Stepback of a ' minimum distance, such that the height to this line (not the overall building height) effectively defines the enclosure of the Enfronting public space. Var: Extension Line. See Table 5. ' Regional Center: Regional Center Development or RCD. Regional Center Development (RCD): a Village Unit type structured by a Long Pedestrian Shed or Linear Pedestrian Shed, which may be adjoined without buffers by one or several Standard ' Pedestrian Sheds, each with the individual Transect Zone requirements of a TND. RCD takes the form of a high -Density Mixed Use center connected to other centers by transit. See Infill RCD, Table 11 a. (Var: town center, downtown. Syn. Regional Center) Regulating Plan: a Zoning Map or set of maps that shows the Transect Zones, Civic Zones, Special Districts if any, and Special Requirements if any, of areas subject to, or potentially subject to, regulation by these Guidelines. Residential: characterizing premises available for long-term human dwelling. 1 Retail: characterizing premises available for the sale of merchandise and food service. See Table 7 and Table 9. Retail Frontage: Frontage designated on a Regulating Plan that requires or recommends the t provision of a Shopfront, encouraging the ground level to be available for Retail use. See Special Requirements. Road (RD): a local, rural and suburban Thoroughfare of low -to -moderate vehicular speed and capacity. This type is allocated to the more rural Transect Zones (GB -T3). See Table 2A. Rowhouse: a single-family dwelling that shares a party wall with another of the same type and occupies the full Frontage Line. See Rearyard Building. (Syn: Townhouse) Secondary Frontage: on corner Lots, the Private Frontage that is not the Principal Frontage. As it affects the public realm, its First Layer is regulated. See Table 14 Setback: the area of a Lot measured from the Lot line to a building Facade or Elevation that is maintained clear of permanent structures, with the exception of Encroachments listed in Section 5.7. See Table 11g. (Var: build -to -line.) Shared Parking Factor: an accounting for parking spaces that are available to more than one Function. See Table 8. Shopfront: a Private Frontage conventional for Retail use, with substantial glazing and an awning, wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the building entrance at Sidewalk ® grade. See Table 4. Sidewalk. the paved section of the Public Frontage dedicated exclusively to pedestrian activity. 33 Sideyard Building: a building that occupies one side of the Lot with a Setback on the other side. This type can be a Single or Twin depending on whether it abuts the neighboring house. See Table 6. Slip Road: an outer vehicular lane or lanes of a Thoroughfare, designed for slow speeds while inner lanes carry higher speed traffic, and separated from them by a planted median. (Syn: access lane, service lane, frontage road) Specialized Building: a building that is not subject to Residential, Commercial, or Lodging classification. See Table 6. Special District (SD): an area that, by its intrinsic Function, Disposition, or Configuration, cannot or should not conform to one or more of the normative Village Unit types or Transect Zones specified by these Guidelines. Special Districts may be mapped and regulated at the regional scale or the village scale. Special Flood Hazard Area: a designation by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) that may include the V (Velocity) Zones and A Zones where building construction is forbidden, restricted, or contingent upon raising to the Base Flood Elevation. Special Requirements: provisions of Section 3.9, Section 4.7, and Section 5.3 of this Code and/or the associated designations on a Regulating Plan or other map for those provisions. Square: a Civic Space type designed for unstructured recreation and Civic purposes, spatially defined by building Frontages and consisting of Paths, lawns and trees, formally disposed. See Table 10. Standard Pedestrian Shed: a Pedestrian Shed that is an average 1/4 mile radius or 1320 feet, about the distance of a five-minute walk at a leisurely pace. See Pedestrian Shed. Stepback: a building Setback of a specified distance that occurs at a prescribed number of Stories above the ground. See Table 5. Stoop: a Private Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the first Story elevated from the Sidewalk for privacy, with an exterior stair and landing at the entrance. See Table 4. Story: a habitable level within a building, excluding an ATTIC or raised basement. See Table 5. Street (ST): a local urban Thoroughfare of low speed and capacity. See Table 2B and Table 3B. Streetscreen: a freestanding wall built along the Frontage Line, or coplanar with the Facade. It may mask a parking lot from the Thoroughfare, provide privacy to a side yard, and/or strengthen the spatial definition of the public realm. (Syn: streetwall.) See Section 5.7.5f. Substantial Modification: alteration to a building that is valued at more than 50% of the replacement cost of the entire building, if new. Swale: a low or slightly depressed natural area for drainage. T-zone: Transect Zone. TDR: Transfer of Development Rights, a method of relocating existing zoning rights from areas to be preserved as Open Space to areas to be more densely urbanized. 34 TDR Receiving Area an area intended for development that may be made more dense by the transfer of development rights from TDR Sending Areas. ' TDR Sending Area: an area previously zoned for development within a designated Reserved Open Sector (0-2), from which development rights may be transferred to T-4 or T-5 Zones ' Terminated Vista. a location at the axial conclusion of a Thoroughfare. A building located at a Terminated Vista designated on a Regulating Plan is required or recommended to be designed in response to the axis ' TND: Traditional Neighborhood Development, a Village Unit type structured by a Standard Pedestrian Shed oriented toward a Common Destination consisting of a Mixed Use center or ' Corridor, and in the form of a medium-sized settlement near a transportation route See Table 11 a. (Syn: village. Variant: Infill TND, neighborhood.) TOD: Transit Oriented Development. TOD is created by an overlay on all or part of a TND or RCD, or by designation on a Regional Plan, permitting increased Density to support rail or Bus Rapid Transit (BRT) as set forth in Section 5.9.2d. Townhouse: See Rearyard Building. (Syn: Rowhouse) Transect: a cross-section of the environment showing a range of different habitats The rural -urban Transect of the human environment used in the SmartCode template is divided into six Transect Zones. These zones describe the physical form and character of a place, according to the Density and intensity of its land use and Urbanism. Transect Zone (T -zone): One of several areas on a Zoning Map regulated by these Guidelines. Transect Zones are administratively similar to the land use zones in conventional codes, except that in addition to the usual building use, Density, height, and Setback requirements, other elements of the intended habitat are integrated, including those of the private Lot and building and Public Frontage. See Table 1. Transportation Corridor: a way for use by vehicular and pedestrian traffic and to provide access to Lots and Open Spaces, consisting of Vehicular Lanes and the Public Frontage. See Table 2A, Table 2B and Table 14a Turning Radius: the curved edge of a Thoroughfare at an intersection, measured at the inside edge of the vehicular tracking. The smaller the Turning Radius, the smaller the pedestrian crossing distance and the more slowly the vehicle is forced to make the turn. See Table 2B and Table 14. Urban Boundary Line: the extent of potential urban growth as determined by the projected demographic needs of a region. The Urban Boundary Line may be adjusted from time to time. Urbanism: collective term for the condition of a compact, Mixed Use settlement, including the physical form of its development and its environmental, functional, economic, and sociocultural aspects. Urbanized. generally, developed. Specific to the SmartCode, developed at T-3 (Sub -Urban) Density or higher. Variance: a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with either a specific provision or the Intent of this Code (Section 1.3). Variances are granted pursuant to the procedures of the zoning code. See Section 1.5. 35 Village Unit: a regulatory category defining the physical form, Density, and extent of a settlement. The two Village Unit types addressed in this Code are TND and RCD. Variants of TND and RCD for Infill (Article 4) are called Infill TND and Infill RCD. The TOD Village Unit type may be created by an overlay on TND or RCD. Warrant: a ruling that would permit a practice that is not consistent with a specific provision of this Code, but that is justified by its Intent (Section 1.3). Warrants are granted administratively by the Planning Director. See Section 1.5. Work -Live: a Mixed Use unit consisting of a Commercial and Residential Function. It typically has a substantial Commercial component that may accommodate employees and walk-in trade. The unit is intended to function predominantly as work space with incidental Residential accommodations that meet basic habitability requirements. See Live -Work. (Syn: Live -With.) Yield: characterizing a Thoroughfare that has two-way traffic but only one effective travel lane because of parked cars, necessitating slow movement and driver negotiation. Also, characterizing parking on such a Thoroughfare. Zoning Map: the official map or maps that are part of the zoning ordinance and delineate the boundaries of individual zones and districts. See Regulating Plan. 36 SMARTCODE TABLE 1. TRANSECT ZONE DESCRIPTIONS Kona TABLE 1: Transect Zone Descriptions. This table describes of the Intent of each Transect Zone houses, pedestrians occasionally Large and variable front and side yard Setbacks Porches, fences, naturalistic tree planting 1- to 2 -Story with some 3 -Story Parks, Greenways GB GREENBELT ck ,B General Character Natural landscape with some agricultural use c41 Building Placement: Not applicable Type of Civic Space: Frontage Types Not applicable Typical Budding Height. Not applicable frtt Type of Civic Space: Parks, Greenways Typical Building Height: 2- to 3 -Story with a few taller Mixed Use buildings Type of Civic Space: Squares, Greens T-3 SUB -URBAN (SECONDARY AREA) General Character: Lawns, and landscaped yards surrounding detached single-family houses, pedestrians occasionally Large and variable front and side yard Setbacks Porches, fences, naturalistic tree planting 1- to 2 -Story with some 3 -Story Parks, Greenways T-4 GENERAL URBAN Building Placement 0 Frontage Types: 9� Typical Building Height: ii� Type of Civic Space: buildings, presence of pedestrians Building Placement: houses, pedestrians occasionally Large and variable front and side yard Setbacks Porches, fences, naturalistic tree planting 1- to 2 -Story with some 3 -Story Parks, Greenways T-5 URBAN CENTER General Character. Shops mixed with Townhouses, largerApartment houses, Offices, workplace, and Civic buildings, predominantly attached build- ings, trees within the public right-of-way, substantial pedestrian activity Building Placement Shallow Setbacks or none, buildings oriented to street defining Air a street wall Frontage Types: Stoops, Shopfronts, Galleries Typical Budding Height: 3- to 5 -Story with some variation _ Type of Civic Space: Parks, Plazas and Squares, median landscaping iSMARTCODE VERSION 9O sci T-4 GENERAL URBAN General Character: Mix of Houses, Townhouses & small Apartment buildings, with scattered Commercial activity, balance between landscape and buildings, presence of pedestrians Building Placement: Shallow to medium front and side yard Setbacks frtt Frontage Types: Porches, fences, Dooryards Typical Building Height: 2- to 3 -Story with a few taller Mixed Use buildings Type of Civic Space: Squares, Greens T-5 URBAN CENTER General Character. Shops mixed with Townhouses, largerApartment houses, Offices, workplace, and Civic buildings, predominantly attached build- ings, trees within the public right-of-way, substantial pedestrian activity Building Placement Shallow Setbacks or none, buildings oriented to street defining Air a street wall Frontage Types: Stoops, Shopfronts, Galleries Typical Budding Height: 3- to 5 -Story with some variation _ Type of Civic Space: Parks, Plazas and Squares, median landscaping iSMARTCODE VERSION 9O sci TABLE 2A. VEHICULAR LANE DIMENSIONS SMARTCODE I Kona TABLE 2A: Vehicular Lane Dimensions. This table assigns lane widths to Transect Zones The Design ADT (Average Dally Traffic) is the determinant for each of these sections The most typical assemblies are shown in Table 2B Specific requirements for truck and transit bus routes and truck loading shall be decided by Warrant. DESIGN SPEED TRAVEL LANE WIDTH Below 20 mph 8 feet ® ® OU 20.25 mph 9 feet ® ® ® d9 25-35 mph 10 feet 25-35 mph 11 feet Above 35 mph 1 12 feet DESIGN SPEED PARKING LANE WIDTH 20-25 mph (Angle )18 feet 20-25 mph (Parallel) 7 feet 25-35 mph (Parallel) 8 feet Above 35 mph (Parallel) 9 feet DESIGN SPEED EFFECTIVE TURNING RADIUS (See Table 17b) Below 20 mph 5.10 feet 14 20-25 mph 10-15 feet 25-35 mph 15-20 feet Above 35 mph 20-30 feet ® M SC2 o BY RIGHT N BY WARRANT SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 t 0 SMARTCODE TABLE 2B. VEHICULAR LANE & PARKING ASSEMBLIES Kona TABLE 2B: Vehicular Lane & Parking Assemblies. The projected design speeds determine the dimensions of the vehicular lanes and turning radii assembled for Transportation Corridors a NO PARKING t1° it� c PARKING ONE SIDE PARALLEL ADT d PARKING BOTH SIDES PARALLEL ADT e. PARKING BOTH SIDES DIAGONAL ADT 5 Seconds Below 20 MPH rTtgtt1t°r1°� e• ,�e1 I I. I4 Ib 14;4 I 1' 5,000 VPD 18,000 VPD 5 Seconds 8 Seconds 20-30 MPH 25-30 MPH r�Ti e• ,�e1 II I,I 140 Ib 14;41 II I'I 8,000 VPD 20,000 VPD 7 Seconds 10 Seconds Below 20 MPH 25-30 MPH TWO WAY MOVEMENT tr�-g-t t b;4 2,500 VPD a ,�ttsi 1.1 Ib,41 1'1 15,000 VPD 15,000 VPD I 32,000 VPD 11 Seconds 13 Seconds 25-30 MPH ,g 1rt�lgi , 1 „ 15,000 VPDI 22,000 VPD 17 Seconds 20 Seconds 20-25 MPH 25-30 MPH 7'!ly �5' 3 Seconds l 6 Seconds s.,z.1zIz.1z Ib 4 t;tl 32,000 VPD 15 Seconds 35 MPH and above 1 SMARTCODE VERSION 90 vvv TABLE 3A. PUBLIC FRONTAGES - GENERAL SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 3A: Public Frontages - General. The Public Frontage is the area between the private Lot line and the edge of the vehicular lanes. Dimensions are given In Table 3B a. (HW) For Highway: This Frontage has open Swales drained by percolation, Bicycle Trails and no parking The landscaping consists of the natural condition or multiple species arrayed in naturalistic clusters Buildings are buffered by distance or berms b. (RD) For Road: This Frontage has open Swales drained by percolation and a walk- ing Path or Bicycle Trail along one or both sides and Yield parking The landscaping consists of multiple species arrayed in naturalistic clusters c. (ST) For Street: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and Sidewalks separated from the vehicular lanes by individual or continuous Planters, with parking on one or both sides The landscaping consists of street trees of a single or alternat- ing species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee d.(DR) For Drive: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and a wide Sidewalk or paved Path along one side, related to a Greenwayorwaterfront Itis separated from the vehicular lanes by individual or continuous Planters The landscaping consists of street trees of a single or alternating species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee e. (AV) For Avenue: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and wide Sidewalks separated from the vehicular lanes by a narrow continuous Planter with parking on both sides The landscaping consists of a single tree species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee f. (CS) (AV) For Commercial Street or Avenue: This Frontage has raised Curbs drained by inlets and very wide Sidewalks along both sides separated from the vehicular lanes by separate tree wells with grates and parking on both sides The landscaping consists of a single tree species aligned with regular spacing where possible but clears the storefront entrances g. (BV) For Boulevard: This Frontage has Slip Roads on both sides It consists of raised Curbs drained by inlets and Sidewalks along both sides, separated from the vehicular lanes by Planters The landscaping consists of double rows of a single tree species aligned in a regularly spaced Allee LOT► ROW PRIVATE FRONTAGE 01 PUBLIC FRONTAGE SCCSMARICOOE VERSION 9 0 I t ,,y�ww 5 t"A I • s .N, j m iT .r CE_ CF_- " SCCSMARICOOE VERSION 9 0 SMARTCODE TABLE 3B. PUBLIC FRONTAGES - SPECIFIC Kona TABLE 3B: Public Frontages - Specific. This table assembles prescriptions and dimensions for the Public Frontage elements - Curbs, walkways and Planters — relative to specific Transportation Corridors within Transect Zones Table 3B -a assembles all of the elements for the various street types Locally appropriate planting species should be filled in to the calibrated Code R U R A L I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I T R A N S E C T I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I U R B A N TRANSECT ZONE ' Public Frontage Type HW & RD RD & ST ST -DR -AV ST -DR -AV -BV CS -DR -AV -BV CS -DR -AV -BV e. Landscape: The recom- mended plant species (See Table 6) f. Lighting: The recom- mended Public Lighting (See Table 5) SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 C r iJ TABLE 4. PRIVATE FRONTAGES SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 4: Private Frontages. The Private Frontage is the area between the building Facades and the Lot lines SECTION PLAN LOT ► .4 R 0 W LOT ► R.O.W PRIVATE ► 4 PUBLIC PRIVATE ► PUBLIC FRONTAGE 17 FRONTAGE FRONTAGE FRONTAGE a. Common Yard: a planted Frontage wherein the Facade is set back substantially from the Frontage Line The front yard created h • remains unfenced and is visually continuous with adjacent yards, supporting a common landscape The deep Setback provides a buffer from the higher speed Transportation Corridor I I c. Terrace or Lightwell: a Frontage wherein the Facade is set back I _ I d. Forecourt: a Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to b. Porch & Fence: a planted Frontage wherein the Facade is set from the Frontage line by an elevated Terrace or a sunken Light- t • back from the Frontage Line with an attached porch permitted to m well This type buffers Residential use from urban Sidewalks and created is suitable for vehicular drop-offs This type should be Encroach A fence at the Frontage Line maintains street spatialIL allocated in conjunction with other Frontage types Large trees removes the private yard from public Encroachment Terraces are i definition Porches shall be no less than 8 feet deep ' within the Forecourts may overhang the Sidewalks I , I • c. Terrace or Lightwell: a Frontage wherein the Facade is set back I d. Forecourt: a Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to from the Frontage line by an elevated Terrace or a sunken Light- t the Frontage Line and the central portion is set back The ForecourtI • m well This type buffers Residential use from urban Sidewalks and created is suitable for vehicular drop-offs This type should be allocated in conjunction with other Frontage types Large trees removes the private yard from public Encroachment Terraces are i within the Forecourts may overhang the Sidewalks I suitable for conversion to outdoor cafes Syn Dooryard.1. ' I • e. Stoop: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the first Story elevated from the Sidewalk I I m sufficiently to secure privacy for the windows The entrance is usually an exterior stair and landing This type is recommended for ground -floor Residential use I f. Shopfront: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the budding entrance at Sidewalk grade This t II m type is conventional for Retail use It has a substantial glazing on II the Sidewalk level and an awning that should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb Syn Retail Frontage. i I g. Gallery: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the >^ I y ID Frontage line with an attached cantilevered shed or a lightweight �. colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk This type is conventional for Retail use The Gallery shall be no less than 10 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb h. Arcade: a Frontage wherein the Facade is a colonnade that I overlaps the Sidewalk, while the Facade at Sidewalk level remains at the Frontage Line This type is conventional for Retail use The Arcade shall be no less than 12 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb NIL 111 I SCIS SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 d. Forecourt: a Frontage wherein a portion of the Facade is close to the Frontage Line and the central portion is set back The ForecourtI • m created is suitable for vehicular drop-offs This type should be allocated in conjunction with other Frontage types Large trees i within the Forecourts may overhang the Sidewalks I e. Stoop: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the first Story elevated from the Sidewalk I I m sufficiently to secure privacy for the windows The entrance is usually an exterior stair and landing This type is recommended for ground -floor Residential use I f. Shopfront: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the Frontage Line with the budding entrance at Sidewalk grade This t II m type is conventional for Retail use It has a substantial glazing on II the Sidewalk level and an awning that should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb Syn Retail Frontage. i I g. Gallery: a Frontage wherein the Facade is aligned close to the >^ I y ID Frontage line with an attached cantilevered shed or a lightweight �. colonnade overlapping the Sidewalk This type is conventional for Retail use The Gallery shall be no less than 10 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb h. Arcade: a Frontage wherein the Facade is a colonnade that I overlaps the Sidewalk, while the Facade at Sidewalk level remains at the Frontage Line This type is conventional for Retail use The Arcade shall be no less than 12 feet wide and should overlap the Sidewalk to within 2 feet of the Curb NIL 111 I SCIS SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 SMARTCODE TABLE 5. BUILDING CONFIGURATION Kona TABLE 5: Building Configuration. This table shows the Configurations for different budding heights for each Transect Zone It must be modi- fied to show actual calibrated heights for local conditions Recess Lines and Expression Lines shall occur on higher buildings as shown. N = maximum height as specified in Table 11 k 1 Budding height shall be measured in number of 3 Height shall be measured from the average Stones, excludingAtticsand raised basements Enfrontmg Sidewalk grade to the upper - Height limits also do not apply to masts, bel- most eave of a main pitched roof (not fries, clock towers, chimney flues, water tanks, of a dormer), or to the uppermost roof elevator bulkheads and similar structures deck (not the top of parapet) of a flat roof 2 Stories may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished floor, except for a first floor Commercial Func- tion, which shall be a minimum of 11 feet and may be a maximum of 25 feet SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 SC7 TABLE 6. BUILDING DISPOSITION SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 6: Building Disposition. This table approximates the location of the structure relative to the boundaries of each individual Lot, estab- lishing suitable basic budding types for each Transect Zone a. Edgeyard: Specific Types - single family House, cottage, villa, estate house, urban villa A budding that occupies the center of its Lot with Setbacks on all sides This is the least urban of types as the front yard sets it back from the Frontage, while the side yards weaken the spatial definition of the public Transportation Corridor space The front yard is intended to be visually continuous with the yards of adjacent buildings The rear yard can be secured for privacy by fences and a well-placed Backbudding and/or Outbuilding b. Sideyard: SpeaficTypes-Charleston single House, double house, zero -lot -line house, twin A budding that occupies one side of the Lot with the Setback to the other side A shallow Frontage Setback defines a more urban condition If the adjacent budding is similar with a blank party wall, the yard can be quite private This type permits systematic climatic orientation in response to the sun or the breeze If a Sideyard House abuts a neighboring Sideyard House, the type is known as a twin or double House Energy costs, and sometimes noise, are reduced by sharing a party wall in this Disposition c. Rearyard: Specific Types - Townhouse, Rowhouse, Live -Work unit, loft budding, Apartment House, Mixed Use block, Flex Budding, perimeter block A budding that occupies the full Frontage, leaving the rear of the Lot as the sole yard This is a very urban type as the continuous Facade steadily defines the public Thoroughfare The rear Elevations may be articulated for functional purposes In its Residential form, this type is the Rowhouse For its Commercial form, the rear yard can accommodate substantial parking d. Courtyard: Specific Types - patio house A budding that occupies the boundaries of its Lot while internally defining one or more private patios This is the most urban of types, as it is able to shield the private realm from all sides while strongly defining the public Transportation Corridor Because of its ability to accommodate incompatible activities, masking them from all sides, it is recommended for workshops, Lodging and schools The high security provided by the continuous enclosure is useful for crime -prone areas e. Specialized: A budding that is not subject to categorization. Buildings dedicated to manufacturing and transportation are often distorted by the trajectories of machinery Civic buildings, which may express the aspirations of institutions, may be included. SC8 x ��'T"ORA SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 ' SMARTCODE TABLES 7 & 8. BUILDING FUNCTION & PARKING CALCULATIONS Kona TABLE 9: Building Function - General. This table categorizes Building Functions within Transect Zones Parking requirements are correlated to functional intensity For Specific Function and Use permitted By Right or by Warrant, see Table 9 TABLE 8: Parking Calculations. The Required Parking table summarizes the parking requirements of Table 7 for each site or, conversely, the amount of building allowed on each site given the parking available REQUIRED PARKING (See Table 8) _ RESIDENTIAL 1 2 0/ dwelling 1 5/ dewlling 10 / dwelling LODGING 1 0/ bedroom 10 / bedroom 10 / bedroom OFFICE 3 011000 sq ft 3 011000 sq It 2 011000 sq ft RETAIL 4 0/ 1000 sq It 4 0 l 1000 sq ft 3 011000 sq ft CIVIC To be determined by Warrant OTHER To be determined by Warrant SHARED PARKING FACTOR Function with Function RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LODGING LODGING OFFICE 1 OFFICE 11 11 RETAIL 14 1 14 RETAIL I SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 SCQ a. RESIDENTIAL Restricted Residential The number of Limited Residential -The number of Open Residential:The number of dwellings on each Lot is restricted to one dwellings on each Lot is limited by the dwellings on each Lot is limited by the within a Principal Building and one within regwrementofl5parking places for each regwrementofl0parking places for each an Accessory Building, with 2 0 parking dwelling, a ratio which may be reduced dwelling, a ratio which may be reduced places for each Both dwellings shall be according to the shared parking standards according to the shared parking standards under single ownership The habitable (See Table 8) (See Table 8) area of the Accessory dwelling shall not exceed 500 squarefeet b LODGING Restricted Lodging- The number of bed- Limited Lodging- The number of bed- Open Lodging: The numberof bedrooms rooms available on each Lot for lodging is rooms available on each Lot for lodging is available on each Lot for lodging is limited limited by the requirement of 10 assigned limited by the requirement of 10 assigned by the requirement of 10 assigned parking parki ng place for each bedroom, up to five, parking places for each bedroom, up to places for each bedroom Food service in addition to the parking requirement for twelve, in addition to the parking require- may be provided at all times The area the dwelling The Lodging must be owner ment for the dwelling The Lodging must allocated for food service shall be calcu- occupied Food service may be provided be owner occupied Food service may be lated and provided with parking according in the a m The maximum length of stay provided in the a m The maximum length to Retail Function shall not exceed ten days of stay shall not exceed ten days c OFFICE Restricted Office The building area Limited Office: The building area available Open Office. The building area available available for office use on each Lot is for office use on each Lot is limited to the for office use on each Lot is limited by the restricted to the first Story of the Principal first Story of the principal building and/ regwrementof20assignedparking places or the Accessory Building and by the or to the Accessory building, and by the per 1000 square feet of net office space regwrementof30assignedparkingplaces regwrementof30assignedparking places per 1000 square feet of net office space per 1000 square feet of net office space in addition to the parking requirement for in addition to the parking requirement for each dwelling each dwelling d. RETAIL Restricted Retail- The building area avail- Limited Retail: The building area available Open Retail. The building area available ableforRetail use is restricted toone Block for Retail use is limited to the first Story for Retail use is limited bythe requirement corner location at the first Story for each of buildings at comer locations, not more of 3 0 assigned parking places per 1000 300dwelling units and bythe requirement than one per Block, and bythe requirement square feet of net Retail space Retail of 4 0 assigned parking places per 1000 of 4 0 assigned parking places per 1000 spaces under 1500 square feetare exempt square feetof net Retail space in addition to square feet of net Retail space in addition from parking requirements the parking requirement of each dwelling to the parking regwrementofeach dwelling The specific use shall be further limited to The specific use shall be further limited to neighborhood store, orfood service seating neighborhood store, orfood serviceseating no more than 20 no more than 40 e CIVIC [See Table 9 �SeeTable 9 See Table 9 f OTHER See Table 9 See Table 9 See Table 9 TABLE 8: Parking Calculations. The Required Parking table summarizes the parking requirements of Table 7 for each site or, conversely, the amount of building allowed on each site given the parking available REQUIRED PARKING (See Table 8) _ RESIDENTIAL 1 2 0/ dwelling 1 5/ dewlling 10 / dwelling LODGING 1 0/ bedroom 10 / bedroom 10 / bedroom OFFICE 3 011000 sq ft 3 011000 sq It 2 011000 sq ft RETAIL 4 0/ 1000 sq It 4 0 l 1000 sq ft 3 011000 sq ft CIVIC To be determined by Warrant OTHER To be determined by Warrant SHARED PARKING FACTOR Function with Function RESIDENTIAL RESIDENTIAL LODGING LODGING OFFICE 1 OFFICE 11 11 RETAIL 14 1 14 RETAIL I SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 SCQ TABLE 9. SPECIFIC FUNCTION & USE SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 9: Specific Function & Use. This table expands the categories of Table 7 to delegate specific Functions and uses within Transect Zones. Table 9 should be customized for local character and requirements. a. RESIDENTIAL IARAWW"IN f. OTHER- AGRICULTURE _ 19WPOM Mixed Use Block N N N Flex Building N N Apartment Building N N Live/Work Unit N N N 00 Row House N N Duplex House N N Courtyard House N N Sideyard House N N N Cottage N N M House N N N Villa 00 Accessory Unit ® 1 N N h_ LAnGING Hotel (no room limit) ® I M Inn (up to 12 rooms) ® N Bad & BmkW (up to 5 moms) N N N S R 0 hostel 00 !» 00 00 School Dormitory ® ® 1 N c OFFICE r— Office Budding I ® N Live -Work Unit N N N d RETAIL Open -Market Building N N N N Retail Budding N N a Display Gallery N N 00 Restaurant N N p0 Kiosk N N 00 Push Cart N 00 00 Liquor Selling Establishment Library M N Adult Entertainment N Live Theater 00 A CIVIC Bus Shelter N N N N Convention Center 00 Stable N OQ N Conference Center ® 1 N I 00 I N I N 00 N Exhibition Center Shopping Mall Op 00 N Fountain or Public Art N N N N Library N N N Live Theater N N Movie Theater N N Museum 00 N Outdoor Auditonum N N N Parking Structure N N Passenger Terminal U N Playground N N N N Sports Stadium N Surface Parking Lot 00 p0 N Religious Assembly N N N N Grain Storage N Livestock Pen M 00 Greenhouse N 00 00 Stable N OQ 00 Kennell ® 1 N I 00 I N I N f. OTHER. AUTOMOTIVE Gasoline 00 N Automobile Service N Truck Maintenance N Drive -Through Facility (Q N Rest Stop N 0 Roadside Stand N 0 Billboard M Shopping Center 00 Shopping Mall Op f. OTHER: CIVIL SUPPORT Fire Station N N N N Police Station N N N Cemetery Op I Other- Childcare Center N Funeral Home N N N Hospital N 00 N Medical Clinic p0 N N f OTHER: EDUCATION College 00 N f High School F 00 00 N Trade School 00 N Elementary School 00F N N N Other- Childcare Center N 1 N F 717575- 00 f OTHER: INDUSTRIAL Heavy Industrial Facility N Light Industrial Facility N Truck Depot N Laboratory Facility N Water Supply Facility N Sewer and Waste Facility N Electric Substation 0@ 00 m N Wireless Transmitter Oq N Cremation Facility N Warehouse FT7N Produce Storage F -77N Mini -Storage I I I N N BY RIGHT 00 BY WARRANT SC10 SMAPIC(M1E VERSION 9 0 SMARTCODE I Kona 0 1 a. Park: A natural preserve available for unstructured recreation A Park may be independent of surrounding building Frontages Its landscape shall consist of Paths and trails, meadows, waterbodies, woodland and open shelters, all naturalistically disposed Parks may be lineal, following the trajectories of natural Corridors The minimum size shall be 8 acres Larger Parks maybe approved by Warrant as Special Districts in all zones b. Green: An Open Space, available for unstructured recreation A Green may be spatially defined by landscaping rather than building Frontages Its landscape shall consist of lawn and trees, naturalistically disposed The minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 8 acres c. Square: An Open Space available for unstructured recreation and Civic purposes A Square is spatially defined by budding Frontages Its landscape shall consist of Paths, lawns and trees, formally disposed Squares shall be located at the inter- section of important Thoroughfares The minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 5 acres d. Plaza: An Open Space available for Civic purposes and Commercial activities A Plaza shall be spatially defined by budding Frontages Its landscape shall consist primarily of pavement Trees are optional Plazas should be located at the intersec- tion of important streets The minimum size shall be 1/2 acre and the maximum shall be 2 acres e. Playground: An Open Space designed and equipped for the recreation of children A playground should be fenced and may include an open shelter Playgrounds shall be interspersed within Residential areas and may be placed within a Block Playgrounds may be included within parks and greens There shall be no minimum or maximum size TABLE 10. CIVIC SPACE I SMARICODEVERSION 90 SC11 TABLE 11. SMARTCODE SUMMARY SMARTCODE Kona Note Al ments in are subje bration foi text SC 1 ` SMARTCOOE VERSION 9 0 0 r 0 is SMARTCODE TABLE 12A. FORM -BASED CODE GRAPHICS - T3 Kona (see Table 1) BUILDING FUNCTION see Table 7 & Table 9 a Residential restricted use b Lodging restricted use c Office restricted use d Retail restricted use BUILDING CONFIGURATION (see Table 5 a Principal Building 1 2 stories max b Outbuilding LOT OCCUPATION 2 stories max a Lot Width 72 ft min 120 ft max b Lot Coverage 60% max BUILDING DISPOSITION see Table 6 a Edgeyard I permitted b Sldeyard not permitted c Rearyard not permitted d Courtyard not permitted SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BUILDING a Front Setback (P) 24 ft min b Front Setback (S) 12 ft min c Side Setback 12 ft min d Rear Setback 12 It min Frontage Buildout SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING 40% min at setback a Front Setback 204mn+bill selback b Side Setback 3 ft or 6 ft min c Rear Setback 3 ft min PRIVATE FRONTAGES see Table 4) a Common Law permitted b Porch & Fence permitted c Terrace or L C not permitted d Forecourt not permitted e Stoop not permitted f Shopfront & Awning not permitted g Gallery not permitted h Arcade not permitted Refer to Summary Table 11 PARKING REQUIREMENTS See Table 7 & Table 8 or 15 ft from center line of alley Graphics are illustrative only Refer to metrics for Setback and height information "N" stands for any Stories above those shown, up to the maximum Refer to metncs for exact minimums and maximums SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 BUILDING CONFIGURATION 1 Building height shall be mea- sured In number of Stones, exclud- ing Attics and raised basements 2 Stones may not exceed 14 feet^. in height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first Bght� floor Commercial function which N 2 height must be a minumum of 11 ft with fj== no maximum II 1 1 3 Height shall be measured to the eave or roof deck as specified on Table 5 SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BLDG 1 The Facades and Elevations , _ _ _ _ _ _ — — _ T- — _ — — of Principal Buildings shall be I Front (S) distanced from the Lot Imes as I shown Corner Lot 2Facades shall be built along the ►� Front (P) ► Rear Condition Principal Frontage to the minimum specified width in the table a--------------- -------------------------------------- ------a — ►1 Front (P) 0,Rear L Mid -Block I I I Condition Side------- ` --------- — SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING 1 The Elevation of the Outbuilding /( shall be distanced from the Lot Imes asshown--- I -------- -------- ( i I� Corner Lot i Frorlt (P) I Rear I Condition I 1 I ► N 1 ► 20 ft N I ►1------- ------------ ------------L --------------------- ----- � „1- I 1 I I Rer (P) Mid -Block I i I i Condition Side i s--__ -- — _ — — - PARKING PLACEMENT 1 Uncovered parking spaces may be provided within the 2nd and 3rd Layer as shown in the diagram (see Table 14d) 2 Covered parking shall be pro- vided within the 3rd Layer as shown in the diagram (see Table 14d) 3 Trash containers shall be stored within the 3rd Layer — — — r — — — — — — — — — — — — — - I i I i ► loft w ILL i ; t I j ; I I I I 1sl— — E— 4nd- — - — — — — W_ Layer Layer Layer SC13 TABLE 12B. FORM -BASED CODE GRAPHICS - T4 I Lr (see Table 1) BUILDING FUNCTION see Table 7 & Table 9 a Residential limited use b Lodging limited use c Office limited use d Retail limited use BUILDING CONFIGURATION see Table 5 a Principal Building 13 stones max, 2 min b Outbuilding 2 stones max LOT OCCUPATION a Lot Width 18 ft min 96 ft max b Lot Coverage 70% max BUILDING DISPOSITION see Table 6 a Edgeyard I permitted b Sideyard permitted c Rearyard permitted d Courtyard not permitted SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BUILDING a Front Setback (P) 1 6 ft min 18 ft max b Front Setback (S) 6 It min 18 It max c Side Setback Oft min d Rear Setback 3 ft min' Frontage Buildout 60% min at setback SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING a Front Setback 241tmm+bldgseback b Side Setback Oft or 3 ft min c Rear Setback 3 ft min PRIVATE FRONTAGES lsee Table 4 a Common Law not permitted b Porch & Fence permitted c Terrace or L C permitted d Forecourt permitted e Stoop permitted f Shopfront & Awning permitted g Gallery permitted h Arcade not permitted Refer to Summary Table 14 PARKING REQUIREMENTS See Table 7 & Table 8 "or 15 ft from center line of alley Graphics are illustrative only Refer to metncs for Setback and height information "N" stands for any Stones above those shown, up to the maximum Refer to metncs for exact minimums and maximums BUILDING CONFIGURATION 1 Building height shall be mea- sured in number of Stones, exclud- ing Attics and raised basements 2 Stones may not exceed 14 feet to height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first floor Commercial function which must be a minumum of 11 ft with no maximum 3 Height shall be measured to the eave or roof deck as specified on Table 5 SMARTCODE Kona ' X iht SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BLDG ' 1 The Facades and Elevations ' of Principal Buildings shall be distanced from the Lot lines as_ i shown _ _ _ _ f Front (s–) 2 Facades shall be built along the i a I Comer Lot Condition Principal Frontage to the minimum►r e ► specified width in the table t --------------------------- - -------------------- -� � � ►�--- i a i Mid -Bock 1 � Corner Lot ' i Q ► r Condition LL I i L _ — Side SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING ' 1 The Elevations of the Outbuilding shall be distanced from the Lot lines — — -- --- --Front jsj--- asshown f r- _-- j- ^• � � i B � Corner Lot ' I I z I Condition 1 I 20 ft I4 i I9 I i Mid -Block € I I ' r Conditionj IW j I L ` Side J a 3rd Layer ' PARKING PLACEMENT 1 Uncovered parking spaces may be provided within the 3rd Layer as shown in the diagram (see Table 14d) 2 Covered parking shall be pro- vided within the 3rd Layer as shown in the diagram (see Table 14d) 3 Trash containers shall be stored within the 3rd Layer r— —1 — — — — I — — — — — — — — — — — — — rT I 1 I I I I I I J 1st 2nd 04 3rd Layer Layer Layer SC14 SMARICODE VERSION 9 0 SMARTCODE TABLE 12C. FORM -BASED CODE GRAPHICS - T5 Kona (see Table 1) BUILDING FUNCTION (see Table 7 & Table 9) a Residential open use b Lodging open use c Office open use d Retail open use BUILDING CONFIGURATION see Table 5 a Principal Budding 5 stories max, 2 min b Outbuilding LOT OCCUPATION 2 stones max a Lot Width 18 ft min 180 ft max b Lot Coverage 80% max BUILDING DISPOSITION see Table 6 a Edgeyard not permitted b Sideyard permitted c Rearyard permitted d Courtyard permitted SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BUILDING a Front Setback (P) Oft min 12 ft max b Front Setback (S) Oft min 12 ft max c Side Setback Oft min 24 ft max d Rear Setback 3 ft mm* Frontage Buildout SETBACKS • OUTBUILDING 80% min at setback a Front Setback 40 ft max from rear prop b Side Setback 0 ft c Rear Setback 3 ft max PRIVATE FRONTAGES see Table 4 a Common Law not permitted b Porch & Fence not permitted c Terrace or L C not permitted d Forecourt Tpermitted e Stoop permitted f Shopfront&Awning permitted g Gallery permitted h Arcade permitted Refer to Summary Table 11 PARKING REQUIREMENTS See Table 7 & Table 8 * or 15 ft from center line of alley Graphics are Illustrative only Refer to metrics for Setback and height Information "N" stands for any Stones above those shown, up to the maximum Refer to metrics for exact minimums and maximums BUILDING CONFIGURATION 1 Building height shall be mea- sured In number of Stories, exclud- ing Attics and raised basements 2 Stones may not exceed 14 feet in height from finished floor to finished ceiling, except for a first floor Commercial function which must be a minumum of 11 ft with no maximum 3 Height shall be measured to the eave or roof deck as specified on Table 5 4 Expression Lines shall be as shown on Table 5 SETBACKS - PRINCIPAL BLDG 1 The Facades and Elevations of Principal Buildings shall be distanced from the Lot lines as shown 2 Facades shall be built along the Principal Frontage to the minimum specified width In the table SETBACKS - OUTBUILDING 1 The Elevation of the Outbuilding shall be distanced from the Lot lines as shown PARKING PLACEMENT 1 Uncovered parking spaces may be provided within the 2nd and 3rd Layer as shown In the diagram (see Table 14d) 2 Covered parking shall be pro- vided within the 3rd Layer as shown In the diagram (see Table 14d) 3 Trash containers shall be stored within the 3rd Layer — — — — — L — — — — — — — — — — Front(S) e I i i 1 Comer Lot e LL4 Condition e Tlid-Block I a LL ondition e L T side J Front (S� v i I t I I a I I Corner Lot P I2 N4 40ft max 14 Condition I t---------------- -I i Ia I I Mid -Block b I I a ft max ! Condition I ILL j 1 `1 Side 3 f7---i--------------Il e 1 i owl of oLLl �I sal I e L H1st 2nd 3rde— •e • Layer Layer Layer SMARICODE VERSION 9 0 SC 15 TABLE 13. SPECIAL DISTRICT STANDARDS SMARTCODE Kona TABLE 13: Special District Standards. The metrics for each column of this table (SD 1, SD2, etc) are to be filled in for each Special District as they currently exist, or as they are permitted More pages can be added Special Districts that do not have provisions within this Code shall be governed by the standards of the ®I ,�pre-existing zoning I � I I 1 I a ALLOCATION OF ZONES CLD X TND X TOO X Ir BASE RESIDENTIAL DENSITY By Right X By TOR X Other Functions X e BLOCK SIZE Block Perimeter X d THOROUGHFARES HW I X e CIVIC SPACES ge Park X BUILDING Green X Side Setback Square X X Plaza X X Playground X Rearyard 1 LOT OCCUPATION Lot Width X 8 Lot Covera a 1 PRIVATE FRONTAGES Common Yard X Porch S Fence X Terrace or L C X Forecourt X BUILDING k BUILDINI Residential Lodging Office SC16 SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 ge X g SETBACKS PRINCIPAL BUILDING Front Setback X Side Setback X Rear Setback X h BUILDING DISPOSITION Edgeyard X Sideyard X Rearyard x 1 PRIVATE FRONTAGES Common Yard X Porch S Fence X Terrace or L C X Forecourt X BUILDING k BUILDINI Residential Lodging Office SC16 SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 SMARTCODE TABLE 14. DEFINITIONS ILLUSTRATED Kona a. TRANSPORTATION CORRIDORS &FRONTAGES Budding Private Public I Vehicular Public Private Budding Frontage Frontage Lanes Frontage Frontage Private Lot b. TURNING RADIUS I I I I I 2 I 1- Principal Budding 2- Backbuilding ------1------ / 1 -Radius at the Curb � _j 3- Outbuilding 2 -Effective Turning Radius (t 8 ft) d. LOT LAYERS e. FRONTAGE & LOT LINES g. NETWORK PEDESTRIAN SHED SMARTCODE VERSION 9 0 C n 1% ATTACHMENT C Clustered Rural Subdivision Guidelines' , � � d r ,< � �`` a , � 1, � _ 'rn v � j a � � ...r ei `[. � � x ." .., c � � ''�`'' �,t'� a s s � z y r � y r � xc � ,y is b � � I i � �� `� x� f � +F y ' t V 1,= � t` , ~� � ` , � { � ' ; � L � ��� w+}ai t ',' M � � � f' ' ' � Y YF ' - v^ � r � � '� ati�� � � � t � � .. � � by .'��. t � ti ''iP k, '� er ° �, .e � ��, ltla � � y„ `1 ��` r�7d Vc{ r' f ,a KV r � � dJ ''' _ ) { `' � � � A � it e _ ,a . i ' N5 m -` a- f + � i i � V 4 � t1 ' y ' ' J 4 �� �,� �� `u �� .. ��'ta `mac J _, ,, ��� ''���, � �`,� � _�,�`� 's r _ , S�; � 9 � � '� _ � SXsr „�l�Y` n ~ F � � '' `+V��r+ ; ;� � r��_�.' rw ;, y' � r�1i , � �` � �� ^; ? `m�r - ' (V �.r•Fi 'yam �.�+ ' 4Ta � , (� ,� i i4*� � s F �, F �� c. t.4 �' � i ,l r' 1;{''�r' �Y .,-�'^ a» v � � � . i. ,J � 'y' `� } r ",� �r . . � / � ,.0 - � °- � , - � � - � ., �n ', c � v <r �' r nt Q �r_�, LL, i �`T Yl 5 t '4 r r `j ' � r f_�` � ` xf ty i„f ° � ° +ct F ' r' h " e ' i ��`�. h i n s s , ` 1Z t 4 r V \` 1 yw 4 ` +t ' , _ -y � r J ~`}� fk{r ' ; ,f ^ _ , � * ` < _1 �t �Y. � �J` r a r �1 ._ 5��� a? t � � � � V. � _ 2 � ` 1 � ' � t � a � � r s. _ ,4_ + {� M J f r _�' o. J I y ff c y _ 9 r £ _ t _ � � `, r � „ i � 1 � *, 4 `r � ~(�` ' ' y [ � ^' _ � � �' ,r Y l J�k. 1. t $_4 , { i � .Y v5 � ��i.. ` � < � � d � � ... � i � F � ,� '� ' � b h f ` � ^ 1 Cr ` , e a � � ti " ' � ' � �'' f ' �R '� rl • A - � � i "' } ` F � r y r j 3','� ,� r 4 t e ,4�s t. , ✓,. ,r. �1 r. � J � 4� v A j �r I �- � .. r�P��_I r.7 '�. 'y .- n,�` � av � ! i � • L� a . r4 1 .' � J � �` ' y I( . �!` , y � h,' � [ �V,V ^;.'� . a F4 Ili LL� A t a t t , ATTACHMENT C CLUSTERED RURAL SUBDIVISION GUIDELINES 1. Purpose and Intent. It is the purpose of these guidelines to provide a flexible procedure to identify and preserve open space while maintaining the existing density of residential units for the overall site area. "Neutral density" is achieved by allowing smaller individual owned residential lots that include or are adjacent to aesthetically and ecologically important areas. Individually owned residential lots and the importance of preserving rural open space is as follows: A. Protection of significant ecological, cultural, scenic, recreational, and agricultural areas in perpetuity; B. Prevention of flooding, erosion, and water pollution, and protecting the quality and quantity of drinking water; C. Promoting a more compact form of development. 2. Applicability. These guidelines apply to a special type of "Planned Unit Development" (PUD) for North and South Kona for lands outside the Urban Area zoned Agricultural, Intensive Agricultural, Family Agricultural, or Rural -Agricultural. The guidelines supplement the requirements and procedures for PUDs and subdivisions set forth in the Zoning Code, Subdivision Code, and Planning Department Rules. 3. Review Procedure. The following procedures specify the role of the Design Center, and integrate the PUD and subdivision review procedures. A. Pre -Application Meeting at the Design Center. i. Submittals. Be prepared to discuss the following 4 -step process: a) Step 1: Delineation of Open Space Lands. Prepare an Existing Resources and Site Analysis Map (Exhibit 1), prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer, that contains at a minimum the following: 1) Base information i. Property boundaries ii. All watercourses and other hydrologic features iii. Topographic contours of no less than 10 -foot intervals iv. Vegetation characteristics (e.g. Land Cover) v. Existing infrastructure (road, water, sewer, etc.) vi. Existing structures vii. Identification of surrounding zoning, existing land use, and ownership 2) Primary Resource Areas. The lands listed below are considered to constitute lands that serve important ecological purposes and possess beneficial environmental qualities contributing to the health of the local community and shall be conserved and protected to the maximum amount and extent physically possible: i. The 100 -year floodplain and setback buffer as defined in Chapter 27 Floodplain Management, Section 27-18(d)(5) (Ordinance 07-169). ii. Slopes above 35% of at least 5000 square feet contiguous area iii. Populations of endangered or threatened species, or habitat for such species. iv. Important historic sites. 3) Secondary Resource Areas. The following lands are considered to have other intrinsic qualities of value to the community to be protected to the maximum extent possible after all identified Primary Resource Areas have been protected (Primary and Secondary Areas collectively are referred to as "Open Space"): i. Existing healthy, native forests of at least one contiguous acre. ii. Individual existing healthy trees greater than 14 inches caliper measured at diameter at breast height (dbh) iii. Other significant natural features and scenic viewsheds such as ridge lines, peaks and rock outcroppings, particularly those that can be seen from public roads E ' iv. Prime agricultural lands of at least five acres contiguous ' area v. Existing trails that connect the tract to neighboring areas vi. Buffer around the perimeter of the tract a minimum of 25' wide designed at a minimum to provide protection against ' wildfires. b) Step 2: Location of House Sites. Using Exhibit #1 Existing Resources and ' Site Analysis Map as a base, show preliminary site plan (Exhibit #2). House sites should generally be setback from Primary Resources and ' Secondary Resources, taking into consideration the potential negative impacts of residential development on such areas as well as the potential positive benefits of such locations to provide attractive views and visual settings for residences. Exhibits #2-4 do not have to be prepared by a ' licensed surveyor or engineer. c) Step 3: Alignment of Streets and Trails. Using Exhibit #2 as a base, show ' proposed street plan designed to provide vehicular access to each house, complying with the minimum standards for road design set forth in these ' guidelines (see Section 4), and bearing a logical relationship to topographic conditions (Exhibit #3). Impacts of the street plan on ' proposed Open Space lands shall be minimized, particularly with respect to crossing environmentally sensitive areas such as wetlands and ' traversing steep slopes. Street connections shall generally be encouraged to minimize the number of cul-de-sacs and to facilitate access to and from ' homes in different parts of the tract and adjoining parcels. d) Step 4: Drawing in the Lot Lines. Using Exhibit #4 as a base, show lot ' lines to delineate the boundaries of individual residential lots. ii. Site Inspection. Before or after the pre -application meeting, the staff may request that the applicant arrange for a site inspection of the property by the Planning staff and other County officials. The purpose of the site visit is to familiarize local officials with the property's existing conditions and special features, to identify potential site design issues, and to provide an informal opportunity to discuss site 3 design concepts, including the general layout of the designated Open Space lands and potential locations for proposed buildings and street alignments. Comments made by local officials or staff and consultants shall be interpreted as being only suggestive. It shall be understood by all parties that no formal recommendations can be offered, and no official decisions can be made at the site inspection. iii. Meeting Outcomes. As a result of the pre -application meeting, the applicant should have an understanding of the following: a) Whether the Primary and Secondary Resources as shown are complete, accurate, and acceptable; b) Whether the disposition of the Secondary Resources are acceptable; c) Whether the location of the house sites and street layout are acceptable; d) Whether the lot sizes and number of lots are acceptable. B. Site Plan. i. Submittal to the Design Center. a) Site Plan. The applicant shall incorporate any comments from the pre - application meeting, and submit to the Design Center a Site Plan, prepared by a licensed surveyor or engineer. The Site Plan shall be a refinement of Exhibit #4 and meet all the requirements of a Preliminary Plat Map set forth in the Subdivision Code. b) Engineer's Report. Submit a brief report, prepared by a licensed engineer, that discusses the following: 1) Access. Intersection requirements and sight distance for any proposed roads that intersect a County or State road. 2) Water. Proposed water system serving the subdivision (source, storage, transmission, distribution). 3) Wastewater. Proposed wastewater disposal system that meets the minimum requirements set forth in these guidelines. 4) Utilities. Proposed power and communication system. If connecting to grid, confirm adequate capacity. Address whether any existing poles interfere with access or lot layout. 5) Drainage. Estimated stormwater flow generated by the project 4 and method of handling the flow. c) Agency Review. The Design Center shall circulate the Site Plan and Engineers Report to pertinent agencies and receive comments within 30 ' days. d) Draft legal instrument for open space preservation. Submit an instrument ' in draft form meeting the requirements in Section 5(a) below. C. PUD Report. The Design Center shall prepare a report recommending approval or denial ' of the PUD application, and set forth any conditions of approval. The report shall reference and attach the Site Plan, Engineer's Report, and draft legal instrument for open ' space preservation If recommending approval, the Design Center shall instruct the applicant to prepare a preliminary plat map consistent with the approved Site Plan and ' meeting the requirements of the Subdivision Code. D. Preliminary Subdivision Approval. Upon receipt of the preliminary Site Plan, the Design ' Center shall transmit the PUD Report and preliminary Site Plan to the proper section of the Planning Department that reviews subdivisions. The Planning Director shall make a ' decision to issue preliminary subdivision approval within 30 days of receipt of this package from the Design Center The Design Center staff shall monitor the status of review to ' ensure timely processing. ' 4. Standards A. Density and Minimum Lot Size Standards Hawaii Revised Statutes chapter 205 shall ' govern the minimum lot size. The permitted density shall be calculated based on gross density of the existing zoning. ' B. Open Space Standards. At least 40% of the tract shall be protected as Primary or Secondary Resource Areas. Of this protected area, at least 75% should be a contiguous ' area, and to the extent possible adjoin protected areas or candidate future protected areas on neighboring property ' C. Road Standards. The design of private streets within the rural subdivision should seek to: i. Provide an all-weather pervious surface or semi -pervious with a roadway minimum width of 16' and 4' graded shoulder to enable pull -offs. ii. Minimize the number of cul-de-sacs. Where provided, minimize the amount of 5 impervious surface by limiting the internal turning radius to 35 feet. Use grass and vegetation for the inner circle of turn-arounds, rather than paving the entire area. Declare the Home Owner's Association (HOA) responsible for the maintenance of the grassy area by covenant. iii. Provide more than one entrance to the development and interconnect streets. iv. Omit curbs wherever appropriate. v. As an alternative to curbs and gutters, allow runoff from roofs and pavements to pass immediately through grass swales or infiltration basins. Use plant material that will absorb rainwater and act as a natural filter for oil and pollution. vi. Provide marked, pervious paths for non -vehicular traffic within the development and connecting to neighboring residential and commercial areas. D. Wastewater Disposal Standards. The State Department of Health rules, policies, and standards will govern wastewater disposal. Where onsite septic systems are permitted, a septic system draining into a common leach field is permitted provided that a backup leach field area of comparable size is provided should one leach field fail. The common leach fields may be incorporated into the Secondary Resource Areas. 5. Ownership, Preservation, and Maintenance of Open Space. Open Space land shall be preserved and maintained solely for the purposes as specified. A. Legal Instrument. The method for effectuating such preservation and maintenance may be one or a combination of the following: i. Deed of conveyance to a Home Owners Association (HOA). If Open Space is deeded to a HOA, the applicant shall record a declaration of covenants, conditions, and restrictions, which shall include, but not be limited to, all of the following: a) They shall provide that the HOA will maintain and pay taxes on the Open Space. The HOA shall develop a long-term rural plan for maintenance of common areas. This plan should include examples of environmentally friendly landscaping techniques for homeowners, recommend that at least one member of the HOA receive training in or be conversant in, wildlife habitat rural, enhancement, and maintenance, and assist homeowners D with site-specific information about indigenous habitat and diversity of species b) They shall govern the use of the Open Space and restrict its uses to those consistent with the intent of the Open Space as specified in the development plan. c) They shall run with the land in perpetuity. d) They shall provide for a lien on the assessed property to secure collections of assessments levied by the HOA. e) They shall require mandatory membership in the HOA for all homeowners in the subdivision. u. Deed of conveyance to a government entity, which shall state the restrictions governing the use, improvement, maintenance, and preservation of the Open Space as conditions to the deed of conveyance. iii. Deed of conveyance with restrictive covenant or a permanent conservation easement in favor of a bona fide land trust (or other nonprofit) for conservation purposes and restricting development. B. Approval and Recordation All legal instruments used to permanently protect open areas platted within the subdivision shall be executed by the developer and approved by the County prior to approval of the final plat for the development. Upon approval of the final plan and the legal instruments for permanent protection of the rural areas, the County will record said documents with the Bureau of Conveyances or Land Court, as appropriate All fees associated with the recordation of plats and legal instruments will be furnished by the developer of the rural subdivision or their agent. 7 aT & PIN 14 )�Al Kkl- 4o,N.�r OF hq�9 KONA •J9j O.P. MP.11P` Community Development Plan 1 , Volume 2. r Background Information ' Mapping the Future ' KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN ' The ideasr n in p ese ted these ese reports were used as input into the planning process. Some of these ideas have been incorporated into the plan and others were not. These reports have no legal basis and are for information purposes only. Prepared for: County of Hawaii Planning Department Prepared by: Wilson Okamoto Corporation ' May 2008 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 VOLUME 2 Background Information 1. Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results, ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd. and The Environmental Simulation Center, November 23, 2006 2 Working Groups Objectives & Actions, ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd., December 12, 2006 3. Demographic Characteristics of North & South Kona, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, January 2007 4. Kona Regional Profile, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, January 2007 5. Land Use Strategies, The Environmental Simulation Center, July 2007 6. Green Infrastructure Technical Report, The Conservation Fund, February 28, 2007 7. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis, David Paul Rosen & Associates, October 23, 2006 8. Grey Infrastructure Report, Wilson Okamoto Corporation, March 2007 Cover: "Map of the Island of Hawai'i" Hawaii Territory Survey, Walter E. Wall, Surveyor, December 1928. Provided by the Kona Historical Society. 1 1 p PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY: ' PROCESS AND RESULTS ACP -Visioning & Planning, Ltd. and ' The Environmental Simulation Center ' November 30, 2006 n C 1 C C 11 1 1 1 u L Kona Community Development Plan PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT SUMMARY: PROCESS AND RESULTS PREPARED BY ACP -VISIONING & PLANNING, LTD THE ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER NOVEMBER 30, 2006 1 1 D. Mapping the Future Exercise Results Summary D.1 E. How Do We Grow? Part 1 — Review of Scenarios E.1 F. Building Block Preference Survey Results F.1 r 1� I Kona Community Development Plan i Table of Contents 1. Introduction 1.1 2 The Public Involvement Process 2.1 3 The Vision for the Future of Kona 3.1 Appendices A. Summary of Ideas A.1 B. Critical Questions Results Summary B I C Respected Areas and Protected Areas Results Summary C 1 D. Mapping the Future Exercise Results Summary D.1 E. How Do We Grow? Part 1 — Review of Scenarios E.1 F. Building Block Preference Survey Results F.1 r 1� I Kona Community Development Plan i i 1 1 1 t 1. Introduction KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN The Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) is built upon a foundation of ideas generated by the public. Opportunities to gain public input were integrated in the planning process from initiation through project's completion The ideas brought in by the public were used to shape development principles as well as the policy framework for the Community Development Plan. Those ideas have given shape to the community's vision of the future, have helped address issues related to policy and public investments, and have defined how the community wants to grow in the future. ACP — Visioning & Planning designed the public process described in this report and worked closely with the Environmental Sinulation Center (ESC) that provided technical analysis and visualizations used throughout the process. The Wilson Okamoto Corporation, based in Honolulu, and the lead consultant for the CDP provided logistic support. The public involvement process was designed and conducted so that the results of each activity informed the content of succeeding ones This ensured that the public was involved in making all critical decisions for the CDP. Great emphasis was placed on visualizing options and on using images to engage the public in making informed choices. These methods were particularly important because a large part of the public process was dedicated to the issue of future growth of the community. Kona Community Development Plan 1.1 I Visualizations allow participants to a public process to make informed decisions and to understand the implication of choices Introduction The following chapters summarize the public involvement activities conducted as part of Community Development Plan and the results of the process: 2. The Public Involvement Process 3. The Vision for the Future of Kona An appendix is attached, which includes six documents referenced in the text as well as a fullest of maps used in the Mapping the Future workshop. The report is presented as a free standing report and will be integrated later into the CDP. Kona Community Development Pian 1.2 1 1 1 2. The Public Involvement KONACOMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT Process DEVELOPMENT PLAN Phase 1: Gathering Ideas – to create the foundation of ideas upon which all subsequent activities were based (this phase included Structured Interviews and Public Meetings and lasted from September 2005 to February 2006). Kona Community Development Plan 2.1 Residents of Kona responded with great enthusiasm to the opportunity to become involved in formulating the Community Development Plan, a critical policy document affecting the future of Kona. Formal structured interviews and informal conversations with participants revealed a yearning for extensive, transparent, and meaningful involvement—for a variety of important reasons. The Plan provided an opportunity for the Kona region to spell out its own vision and priorities in the framework of countywide decision-making. The Plan focused on North and South Kona as one regional reality. The CDP promised to address in specific terms how Kona should grow in the future, an issue capable of generating great passion Public Involvement Activities: Structured Interviews among all interest groups. Finally, the process presented residents with the Public Meetings unique opportunity to provide input before the plan was formulated in a Mapping the Future Workshop proactive and creative way rather than the more customary comment process How do we grow? Charrette Part I How do we grow? Charrette Part It after a plan has been developed. Extensive participation became a hallmark of the process, involving well over 1,000 participants. The involvement of residents in the CDP was organized in four phases: Phase 1: Gathering Ideas – to create the foundation of ideas upon which all subsequent activities were based (this phase included Structured Interviews and Public Meetings and lasted from September 2005 to February 2006). Kona Community Development Plan 2.1 The Public Involvement Process Phase 2: Mapping the Future — to address critical questions and identify where future growth should occur (The Mapping the Future workshop was held in February 2006). Phase 3: How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 and 2 — to identify preferred development patterns (this phase consisted of two charrettes held in March and June 2006). Phase 4: The Working Groups — to identify objectives and actions for inclusion in the specific elements of the CDP. An extensive outreach effort was established to ensure that residents heard about the public involvement activities and were invited to participate. Outreach included involving local networks and special interest groups, the development of an extensive mailing list of participants, and the distribution of flyers and invitations. The four phases are described in detail below. Phase 1: Gathering Ideas Introducing the CDP process: 1. Focus Group Interviews Two meetings were held in In September 2005, the consultant team conducted a series of focus September 05 to present pro residents thea proposed process for group structured interviews with stakeholder groups that included special the CDP, to announce the schedule interest groups, representatives of the tourism industry, businesses, of future events, and to gain an representatives of the development community, large and small property understanding of the public's expectations for the Plan The owners, native Hawaiians, long-term residents, and newcomers. These meetings were held at the interviews were structured to expose perceptions and attitudes on issues. Kealakehe and Konawaena high Seven key perception that emerged from the interview are listed below: schools A key outcome of these meetings was the decision to 1. Land use — low density gated development patterns inconsistent structure the Gathering Ideas phase with the area's culture and character; of the project as an open ended and on -demand set of small meetings 2. Transportation — heavy congestion due to lack of North South and With residents and special interest East West connectivity and limited choices in transportation groups to be conducted in all parts alternatives; of the region This format ensured broader participation, easier access 3. Housing affordability — due to the high price of land and a lack of to the process, and a degree of affordable housing products in the vicinity of where fobs are; informality that enabled frank and 4. Demographics — with population getting older and the income gap open discussion of ideas and issues. between newcomers and residents getting wider; 5. Environmental degradation — through deforestation, increased occurrence of flash floods, water and air quality deterioration, and lack of controls on slope development; 6. Cultural preservation — with widening conflict between the protection of ancestral lands from use and development; and 7. Governance — with concerns about fairness of revenue reinvestments in Kona. Kona Community Development Pian 2.2 A, ll J 11 1 n 1 1 u Number of Ideas and Percentages Transportation 511 146% Alternative 118 34% Public 141 40% Vehicular 252 72% Government and Governance 354 101% Planning 332 95% Social Issues 327 94% Environment 273 78% Infrastructure 242 69% Economic Prosperity 191 55% Public Facilities 188 54% Housing 186 53% Land Use 178 51% Community Character 178 51% Education 152 43% Parks, Recreation, and Open Space 126 36% Agriculture 98 28% Culture 85 24% Energy 69 20% The first public meeting of the Kona Community Development Plan The Public Involvement Process These perceptions were further explored with the general public as part of public meetings and workshops and are addressed in the elements of the CDP. 2. Public Meetings One hundred and nine individual public meetings were held throughout Kona from November 2005 through January 2006. These meetings were offered on -demand, were scheduled throughout Kona, and were targeted to ensure balanced demographic and geographic participation of residents. Over 800 residents participated in the individual meetings Meetings consisted of two activities: general brainstorming on what would make Kona best fulfill its potential and addressing critical questions by participants. A large cadre of trained volunteer facilitators conducted each meeting to ensure consistency in the results, and fairness and transparency in the process. The 3,496 ideas gathered during these meetings were databased and sorted into 18 categories. The categories were used by the CDP Steering Committee to develop a set of goals based on the ideas for each category. The goals capture a desired outcome for the future of Kona. They were also used by the Working Groups (see below) as the material upon which to develop objectives and strategies for the elements of the CDP. (See Appendix A: Summary of Ideas.) Phase 2; Mapping the Future The Mapping the Future Workshop was conducted on February 18, 2006. The workshop consisted of two segments: 1. Critical Questions — to address "Critical Questions" related to policy and implementation issues as raised by the structured interviews and ideas generated at the public meetings; and 2. Mapping the Future — to initiate a dialogue on regional character, cultural priorities, environmental protection issues, and preferred locations for future growth. Kona Community Development Plan 2.3 Top, registration of the participants to the Mapping the Future workshop Right, the start of the small group acbvdies The Public Involvement Process The workshop was a four-hour activity attended by over 350 residents organized in 32 facilitated small groups. During the critical questions segment of the workshop small groups were randomly assigned to address one of 12 topics. Topics included: housing choice, housing affordability, agriculture, transportation and land use, congestion, parks, recreation, and open space, protection of the environment, hazard mitigation, protection of ancestral and historic sites, community character, retail, and tourism. The critical questions represented the start of a discussion of policy issues for the CDP. They dealt with big picture questions to frame and inform the more specific deliberations of the CDP. (See Appendix B: Critical Questions Results Summary.) The Mapping the Future segment of the workshop asked participants to address three issues: • To define criteria for the protection of ancestral and historic sites, • To define criteria for the protection of land for environmental and open space reasons; and • To address the issue of land consumption in Kona. Participants first considered and mapped historic sites and specific geographical and environmental features that should be protected. Then, they recommended appropriate locations where future growth could occur based on cultural and geographic constraints and based on land available within areas defined by the County General Plan as expansion areas. The Mapping the Future segment enabled participants to begin to deal with the issue of future growth—balancing future growth with the imperative of respecting ancestral cultural resources and protecting the unique environmental features of the Kona region. (See Appendix C• Respected areas and Protected Areas Results Summary, and Appendix D Mapping the Future Exercise Results Summary.) Kona Community Development Plan F1 u u [J 0 D 1 1 1 1 1 1 F1 2.4 1 v n 0 �J 11 The Public Involvement Process The map below shows Ecosystems in Kona. It is one of eight descriptive maps provided to the workshop participants. Other maps included Cultural Resources, Aquifers, Existing Land use, General Land Use, Infrastructure, Natural Resources, and Ownership. V, - z _k'c ".r „'`'3 .* ` _ �-�""�iv' 1r,;-r-'+...may-..,.�•a<FV..">..� n,, "rt\ �5l`} i6 t itr of-_ KeahO �A1 aT ;�5. ,'i=x sa Y� _`> _' -�_-`= 5t na ;<�a*-;r;-C.. •.pro, ,r};..-----, ;t---•-�:yr�,r•�« _- �' a, . `"'�v ir' 15 ),5...;.�.: rR}'-_- _ Fswa�,_' �.5gnmr yy.e� j+e`5-cam 9>*c"niil ra'- 'Lufn:rrii s>'a` Y -'r'. +4 ` t �':�" �a� `vim ��F;�,-•• �.r��i`��r ��uF a��_' - W 4 v-r`"^%,�f __� `� `` t t • .',• r,,:r S',','-t.:�' - le,tdtr": � �K �a•i', �Ey: ?� r.--�..m gc IMW Keauh��,;?'.J�'tr,�N'`4a:.aj_}.,�r�.�'�?'ati;"%, - -`�- ` Y ' :�* r +} r'` } ,? `-y„�,� _ pili >•a'F _, if�J�. _��...". ,•y(" % ` "y` .4 rr^ i �KiY - ,er.�ra-..r . Fri �•'.. r'!`R.. r ' �+ jP3 ?r sus �rj=m"�i'�'�: � -q, '- •� =�<-�, uz:�:-�(("_i;a•,•� 'I '� � USFWS U RS CrldW HabftM rte` a-` }'-`" Y�.Y:LSI• a r _ _ __' __ Psmngrle PYM $p•tl!f 4 �`!•i fes, jj vH�k=ti is+ir Vii. �.a�n�,4 ._ ._ _ �l_ ED o I H6'0 � �t'otm{re �r"�" • _:� ice'_.. C-.'.�-: i^.-,..=-' ,-_ :- -^� -- _--,-+�-` ba 14, PN 161 .r t<a'�•i3i�..,^.,�r�x+��� `:=��-=t4-[ �.`ii �-,..,. ' s�l.a,na<.•,a>aw,a w.Mre.a , ' •r - _ _ {; �r; ',,P •a`+`-2`- -` rc4 -' T-==� �'i _i}_,, : �r xn ama• r� s'a ,s` -T4 _: i_ ^:J :'iX^- :�^- d�..�e.'`'v,'.�_-- 'r�;^i�i+ ^.r Ecosystems Ku+a Coa.muNty D••N•pa.an! Pg.. F•CnrY, I$20P8 T ir4 v_ 'Yat-'�{_1{3r.F Y.r_..�ws3rfSCrT,.Lw.i�, h� 0 1,Z--4 rlt �.a� kA�., i. ,X. '.' A '! —14 The outcomes of the Mapping the Future workshop were critical to the reminder of the public process. Answers to the critical questions were synthesized into ten development principles while the results of the Mapping the Future segment were used to develop four probable development scenarios. Both became the basis for public input and review in the course of the How Do We Grow? Charrette, Part 1. Kona Community Development Pian 25 1 Participants evaluate one of four development scenarios during the public meeting of How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 The Public Involvement Process Phase 3: How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 and 2 The exploration of where future growth should be best located was a prelude to a public dialogue on the quality of such future growth. To define a desired way for future growth to perform, the CDP included a two part charrette process. A charrette is a planning technique that has been widely applied throughout the world. It is an effort that brings together—in a compressed period of time—the talents and energies of consultants, staff, and residents to address specific planning and design issues. It provides a series of feedback opportunities so that decisions can be made and the process can move forward with the support of the public. The two How Do We Grow? charrettes are described below. How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 "How Do We Grow? Part 1" was conducted over a period of four days from March 27 to March 30, 2006. It consisted of a number of activities that included a Public Meeting on March 28, an Open House on March 29, and a meeting of the Steering Comnuttee on March 30 to summarize the results. Interspersed with these activities there were meetings with stakeholders and County staff dealing with issues of infrastructure and transportation investments. The purpose of the Public Meeting was to initiate a process to determine how future growth will occur in Kona. It consisted of the following activities: summarizing the results of the Mapping the Future workshop; reviewing and rating development principles; introducing indicators; evaluating alternative growth scenarios; and selecting a preferred growth scenario. Kona Community Development Plan '7 [7:1 11 L� 0 C 0 n n u 1 1 1 1 L, 2.6 1 n 1 11 1 i 1 -j_1 L I Participants comment on the development scenarios The Public Involvement Process The Open House allowed participants to review the results of the Public meeting and to comment on the preferred development scenarios while relating the scenario to environmental and cultural constraints. The How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 confirmed the strong degree of public support for the ten development principles and produced agreement on a preferred development scenario. For the development principles ratings see Chapter 3, Section A.1, and for a description of the preferred development scenario see Appendix E, How Do We Grow? Part 1 — Review of Scenarios. Kona Community Development Plan 2.7 The Open House was held on March 29 2006 It provided an opportunity for the public to see their ideas being applied to the Kona region 1 i 1 -j_1 L I Participants comment on the development scenarios The Public Involvement Process The Open House allowed participants to review the results of the Public meeting and to comment on the preferred development scenarios while relating the scenario to environmental and cultural constraints. The How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 confirmed the strong degree of public support for the ten development principles and produced agreement on a preferred development scenario. For the development principles ratings see Chapter 3, Section A.1, and for a description of the preferred development scenario see Appendix E, How Do We Grow? Part 1 — Review of Scenarios. Kona Community Development Plan 2.7 The Public Involvement Process How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2 Topic "How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2" was also a three-day event conducted between June 20 and June 23, 2006. It started with a public Social Issues meeting conducted on June 20 designed to refine the preferred scenario. It also included an Open House to present the results of the Public Meeting Government activities. Three-dimensional illustrations of possible development patterns were presented and rated during the Open House. At the end of the charrette, a second public meeting was held to present the results and gain final feedback from the public. (See Appendix F, Building Block Preference Survey Results.) The second charrette provided closure to the set of linked meetings that began with the Mapping the Future workshop. Land Use s Phase 4: The Working Groups The Kona citizens' Working Groups were created to • Expand on the CDP public involvement process; • Maintain transparency and sustain community involvement in the Plan's development; and • Create a mechanism that allows for citizen input in the more Transportation technical phase of the Plan while the chapters of the Plan are being drafted. The Working Group process was structured to last five to six months. A facilitator was assigned to each group to help guide the process. There was, at a minimum, one member from the CDP Steering Committee in each group to function as a liaison and keep the Steering Committee up to date on the Housing Working Group process. A total of 12 Working Groups were created to address the following topics: Natural Resources LIST OF WORKING GROUPS BY TOPIC Kona Community Development Plan 2.8 1 Topic Description 1 Social Issues Public safety, health care, education, etc. 2 Government Governmental structure, accountability, leadership, fiscal management, and community participation 3 Land Use Land conservation, open space, development patterns, connectivity, agricultural lands, land use planning practices 4 Transportation Vehicular transportation and the road network; public transportation (bus, light rail, etc.), alternative transportation (biking, walking, etc) 5 Housing Housing availability, affordability, locations 6 Natural Resources Environmental and natural resources, wildlife, waste reduction 7 Cultural Resources Diversity, history, culture, Kona character 8 Recreation Parks and recreational opportunities 9 Public Facilities Diverse facility needs 10 Public Utilities Infrastructure systems 11 Economy, Energy Local industries, business development, economic sustainability, alternative and renewable energy 12 Flooding & Natural Watershed management, flood control, hazard Hazards preparedness, etc. Kona Community Development Plan 2.8 1 t i The Public Involvement Process Working Groups started their activities on May 13`x, 2006 and concluded the majority of their work at the end of September 2006. They met at least once every month, and often more than that. They conducted a variety of tasks following a general set of instructions, including: reviewing ideas and identifying major themes for their assigned topic(s); using the major themes to develop preliminary objectives that will help accomplish the goal for their topic; and beginning the process of identifying specific and concrete actions. The Working Group report has been submitted separately and is currently being reviewed by the Steering Committee. It is expected that the recommendations of the Working Groups will be integrated in the Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Action section of each element of the Plan. Kona Community Development Plan 2.9 At the Open House participants could review summanes of interviews conducted by the consultant team during the charrette The Public Involvement Process Working Groups started their activities on May 13`x, 2006 and concluded the majority of their work at the end of September 2006. They met at least once every month, and often more than that. They conducted a variety of tasks following a general set of instructions, including: reviewing ideas and identifying major themes for their assigned topic(s); using the major themes to develop preliminary objectives that will help accomplish the goal for their topic; and beginning the process of identifying specific and concrete actions. The Working Group report has been submitted separately and is currently being reviewed by the Steering Committee. It is expected that the recommendations of the Working Groups will be integrated in the Goals, Objectives, and Implementation Action section of each element of the Plan. Kona Community Development Plan 2.9 F LJ 1 1 3. The Vision for the KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Future of Kona The vision set forth by the public and articulated in this document is multifaceted, complex, and requires a profound rethinking of the way land will be used in the Kona region in the future The vision suggests a dramatic shift in emphasis from growth by disconnected and often gated subdivisions to the creation of integrated villages and neighborhoods that are linked, walkable, and offer mixed -uses and buildings of different types and cost It calls for celebrating the native culture, while respecting the ancestral places that are sacred to the native culture. It calls for considering all aspects of the natural environment—from the mauka to the makai lands, to agriculturally profitable areas, and places for recreation—to create a connected green infrastructure that defines and shapes the built environment. It demands a strong focus on affordable housing, not dust as an issue of social equity, but as a way to reduce congestion and workforce commuting distance. It requires establishing a new rigorous set of development regulations to enable the implementation of the vision And, finally, it will require innovative partnerships of private, public, and civic interests committed to implementing the vision over the long term. These are some of the key challenges that have emerged from public input. The full extent of the vision, however, is expressed through development principles, goals, objectives, actions, and through the land use recommendations derived from the How Do We Grow? charrettes. Kona Community Development Plan 3.1 The Natural (left) and Cultural Resources maps on the right are few of the many analytical tools used in the CDP planning process The Vision for the Future of Kona Even though the vision for the future of Kona is the result of public input, it is also the result of technical analysis that was integrated throughout the public process. The melding of the intuitive knowledge brought to the table by the public and the technical analysis contributed by the consultant team ensured that the participants made informed and technically sound decisions while pursuing a vision for the region consistent with their values and expectations. This chapter is divided in the following sections and subsections: A. The Vision for Kona A.1 Development Principles A.2 Community Development Plan Goals A.3 Objectives and Actions B. The Way to Grow B.l Where to Grow B.2 Mapping the Future B.3 Growth Opportunity Areas BA How to Grow: the Preferred Land Use Scenario and Development Patterns B.5 Visualization of Building Blocks B.6 Connecting Future Development with Cultural and Open Space Resources B.7 The Vision for the Future of Kona The first section summarizes development principles, goals, objectives and actions.' The second focuses on the preferred scenario for future development in Kona. Sections and subsections are explained in detail on the next page 1 Objectives and actions have been developed through the Working Group process and have been subnutted in a separate document. Kona Community Development Plan 3.2 1 1 L 1 11 The protection of the coastline, important agricultural land, and open space were a high priority for participants to the Mapping the Future workshop when those topics were discussed. The Vision for the Future of Kona A. The Vision for Kona A.1 Development Principles Ten development principles were created taking into consideration comments made by the public during the Mapping the Future workshop. At the workshop, participants first addressed critical questions that emerged from a review of the 3,496 ideas collected from the 109 public small group meetings. Following that, they defined criteria for the protection of ancestral and historic sites and criteria for the protection of land, and they addressed the issue of land consumption in Kona. Summary reports for each of the phases of the Mapping the Future workshop are included in the appendix. The public rated development principles individually during the public meeting during the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1. Participants were asked to consider how important each principle would be to the future of Kona. They rated the principles on a scale of 1 to 5 (where 1 indicated that a principle was not important and 5 indicated that a principle was very important) The Average Score (in parenthesis) represents the general level of importance for each principle as expressed by the public. A higher score indicates a greater level of importance. The ten principles, listed in order of importance, include: 1. The coastline, watershed areas, flood plains, important agricultural land, open space, and areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway should be protected both inside and outside of the urban expansion area. (4.53) 2. Future growth should connect with other communities and offer alternatives on how to move around. (4 42) 3. Future growth should offer a broad range of housing choices that are affordable and available close to places of work. (4 35) 4. Future growth should provide more parks. (4 34) 5. Future growth should occur in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and a mix of homes, shops, and places to work. (4.02) 6. Density in South Kona should be kept low and the character should remain rural. (3.95) 7. Future growth should occur where and when infrastructure (roads and utilities) is already in place. (3.93) 8. The majority of future growth should be directed north of Kailua Kona. (3.74) 9. Most future growth in South Kona should occur around existing villages, such as Honaunau, Captain Cook, and Kealakekua. (3.45) 10. Some future growth should be directed to the Keauhou area. (2.69) The principles focus on the location and type of development, and provide guidance for policies affecting the whole range of the elements of the CDP including: Land Use and Planning (principles 5, 6, 8, 9, and 10); Environment (principle 1); Agriculture (principle 6); Transportation Kona Community Development Plan 3.3 The Vision for the Future of Kona (principle 2); Housing (principle 3); and Public Facilities and Programming and Recreation (principle 4) Participants in the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 public meeting considered these principles in evaluating four development scenarios and in selecting a preferred development scenario. A.2 Community Development Plan Goals Goals indicate a desired outcome for the Community Development Plan. They indicate what the community aspires to achieve and expects, and provide a conceptual framework for the planning process. Together with the objectives and actions developed by the citizens' Working Groups they provide a roadmap for future decisions. The Goals for the Community Development plan were created using the ideas generated through the 109 public meetings. After the ideas had been sorted into categories, the Steering Committee reviewed the ideas in each category and developed a set of draft goals. The draft goals were subsequently reviewed by the Working Groups using the same methodology and were in some cases revised. The goals are still a work in progress and will be edited for consistency at the completion of the Working Groups activities. The 17 goals for the future of Kona include: 1. Agriculture: Agricultural lands are preserved in a manner that supports small family farms, ecotourism, and a self-sufficient agricultural economy that encourages the local use of local products. 2. Community Character: Diversity, history, and the host culture are celebrated in manageably -sized neighborhoods and communities that incorporate beautification, architectural continuity, and respect for the natural environment in order to maintain Kona character and Hawaii Island style. 3. Culture: Multi-ethnic Hawaiian culture is preserved, protected, and restored in a manner that perpetuates all aspects of the aloha spirit. 4. Economy: Diverse and sustainable industries (such as ecotourism, agriculture, aquaculture, technology, and health, among others) are enhanced, expanded, and marketed to take full advantage of Kona's unique environmental assets and accommodate the needs of employees; small businesses, local business districts, and higher education are also supported and enhanced. 5. Energy: Establish Kona District as a model for sustainability and energy self-sufficiency in Hawaii County. 6. Environment: Guided by a principle of respect for the land, Kona's environment and natural resources are preserved and protected to ensure clean air and water, thriving native species, conservation of shorelines and open space, improvements in watershed management and flood control, and reductions in solid waste. 1 1 C 1 Kona Community Development Plan 3.4 1 11 1 ID 1 r The Vision for the Future of Kona 7. Facilities: A wide variety of high-quality accessible facilities meet diverse cultural, economic, and environmental needs. 8. Social Issues: A social environment that encourages health, safety, and welfare for all Kona residents, by providing for social needs (including health care and education), and resolving social problems (such as drug use). 9. Government: An effective and accountable government manages the impacts of growth and meets the needs of the Kona community by encouraging cooperation among public, private, and civic partners, ensuring equitable distribution of resources, and instituting policies and regulations in a predictable and consistent manner. 10. Housing: Truly affordable rental and ownership housing close to places of employment is available for all residents (including low income workers, first-time buyers, and seasonal farm workers), in walkable neighborhoods that are developed concurrently with infrastructure and offer mixed uses, mixed housing types, appropriate densities that allow for open space, and that accommodate needy populations (including seniors, disabled persons, and the homeless). 11. Land Use: Land use policies and practices make responsible use of limited land resources by protecting shorelines, conserving open space, promoting mixed-use village style development, providing for connectivity, encouraging affordable housing development, and protecting environmentally sensitive lands such as floodplains 12. Planning: Planning practices engage the public, reflect community values, and protect cultural and environmental resources. 13. Infrastructure. Quality infrastructure systems are regularly maintained, improved, and expanded concurrently with new development to meet the needs of Kona residents and businesses 14. Parks and Recreation: Extensive recreation opportunities exist, consisting of large and small parks that are easily accessible, well- maintained, attractive, accommodate family use, and provide for hiking, walking, camping, and increased ocean access 15. Alternative Transportation: Widespread alternative transportation options (including sidewalks, trails, and bike lanes) meet the needs of all residents and visitors and offer extensive opportunities for getting around without a car. 16. Public Transportation: An efficient public transportation system meets the transportation needs of residents, commuters, and tourists through comfortable and frequent bus and light rail service to key destinations, along promment commuter routes, and at transfer points that offer connections to alternative [and vehicular] transportation modes. 17. Vehicular Transportation A well-planned, well-maintained, and well-managed road system provides safe, economical, and efficient Kona Community Development Plan 35 The Vision for the Future of Kona transport of goods and people between and within existing and future industrial, commercial, resort, residential and recreational areas. These goals express a bold vision for the future of Kona. It is a vision that capitalizes on the region's most valued assets and that resolutely addresses the region's weaknesses. The goals, together with objectives and actions developed by the Working Groups, will form the policy framework of the CDP. A.3 Objectives and Actions The objectives and actions developed by the Working Groups have been forwarded as a separate report. They have been reviewed by the working groups and by the Steering Committee. They will be finalized and integrated in the appropriate element of the Community Development Plan. B. The Way to Grow Land use is the most critical element in the Community Development Plan and accounted for the greatest portion of the public involvement process. Discussions on land use started with developing criteria for respecting and protecting ancestral lands and special environmental assets Discussion then moved swiftly the most appropriate locations for future growth to occur. Growth Opportunity Areas identified through the public process within the designated Urban Expansion Areas of the County's General Plan embody the intent of the vision for Kona and provide a catalyst for regulatory and infrastructure development. This segment of the public process required a strong interface between public input and technical work The latter consisted of extensive GIS -based existing conditions analysis of the Kona region. The existing conditions analysis was conducted prior to the Mapping the Future workshop to provide factual mapped information on a number of conditions ranging from cultural and natural resources to aquifers and ecosystems. These GIS -based maps where produced by the Environmental Simulation Center and used throughout the public process. As the meeting focus shifted from where future growth should occur to how it should occur, visualizations of possible alternatives were introduced and rated by the public. This section of the report presents initial assumptions and results of the public involvement process as it related to how Kona should grow. B.1 Where to Grow Growth is a catalytic factor in the Kona region. Growth affects the entire gamut of issues germane to the CDP, from quality of life and cultural issues, to infrastructure investments. Kona Community Development Plan 3.6 G 1 1 1 f 1 11 J Land in Kona is being developed at a 1 rate that is nearly 4 times population growth and almost 2 times housing unit growth 1 1 1 1 The Vision for the Future of Kona Population growth in Kona has been robust, going from a population of 29,942 residents in 1990 to an estimated population of 41,941 in 2005. The rate of growth of North Kona has been more than two times of that of South Kona. Using the middle forecast, as suggested by the General Plan, the projected total population for the year 2020 is 56,367, 14,426 more residents than the estimated population in 2005. Population numbers, as important as they are, only tell part of the story, however. Growth in Kona has been fueled by construction of second homes whose residents are counted in their primary place of residence as part of the decennial census. Growth in housing units provides a more realistic picture of growth in Kona. In the period between 1990 and 2000 the number of new housing units increased at a rate more than twice the population increase, from 7,947 housing units in 1990 to 13,330 in 2000. This asymmetrical increase creates greater, disproportionate land consumption and infrastructure needs. The trend of disproportionate land consumption has continued to the present. In the period between 1995 and 2005, the amount of developed land increased by 3,582 acres' at a rate of over 350 acres annually. Developed land increased at a rate of 9% annually, while population increased at a rate of 2.4% annually, and housing units increased at a rate of 5.5% annually Land in Kona is being developed at a rate that is nearly 4 times population growth and almost 2 times housing unit growth The question of whether the current land consumption trends are sustainable and what is the best way to accommodate future growth in Kona was at the core of the Mapping the Future workshop. z Developed Land Environmental Simulation Center, (2006) Based on ParcellrMK maps from the County of Hawaii (2005) Additional data provided by the County of Hawaii tax assessors office. Includes all parcels where the primary use is either "Residential" , "Apartment", "Commercial', "Industnal", and "Hotel and Resort" (PITT codes of 100-400, and 700) "Conservation" areas (PITT code 600) are excluded unless they have secondary land use with another PITT code, in which case the secondary land use is used "Agncultural and Rural" areas and "Unimproved Residential' (PITT code 500 and 800) are considered undeveloped, EXCEPT if the lot size is less than 5 acres AND the improvement values on the property exceed $30,000 per acre i Kona Community Development Plan 3.7 Rules of the "Game" Listed below are the instructions given to participants to indicate the locaion of future growth during the Mapping the Future exercise Chips do not indicate a specific land use, but a measure of land consumption. Chips can go anywhere except on those areas that are protected from development or on water. Chips can be placed on any unprotected land, including open land, agricultural land, and agricultural lands of significance. Chips can be placed on developed land indicating a desire for redevelopment, infill development, or increasing intensity of development in existing communities. Chips can be placed on approved development indicating a desire to pursue development of the proposed communities Chips can be placed on top of one another, doubled, tripled, etc indicating the desire to increase intensity of development and use less land The Vision for the Future of Kona B.2 Mapping the Future The Mapping the Future exercise consisted of an intuitive simulation of the process of land consumption and growth in Kona over the next 15 years. In this "game" participants, working in small groups of 10, were given a number of "chips" each representing an area of 40 acres. The total number of chips (139) represent the amount of land needed to accommodate expected population growth if current development trends were to continue (5,521 additional acres). The amount of land needed for future development was projected based on a=d land consumption for the period 1995 to 2005. It therefore takes into account the second home phenomenon and assumes that the trend will continue. Participants engaged in the Mapping the Future exercise The results of the simulation indicated strong consensus on a number of areas within the General Plan's designated Urban Expansion Area. These preferred sites de -facto directed the majority of future development toward the most urbanized area of North Kona, limiting development in South Kona to infill and redevelopment. The exercise revealed that a percentage of the participants did not believe there should be any growth at all in Kona. 662 chips (out of a total of 3,728 chips distributed) were not used. From the table reporting sessions it became clear that many of the missing chips had been withheld to express a no -growth position. Once agreement was reached on where future growth should occur, the focus of the public process shifted to how future development should occur. The public selected a preferred scenario out of four possible alternatives and then focused on development practices best suited for future development in Kona. t Kona Community Development Plan 3.8 1 t 1 1 1 1 1 1 At the Open House the proposed Growth Opportunity Areas were represented schematically as circles Participants were asked to determine if the location of the GOA were consistent with the development principles defined earlier in the CDP process? The Vision for the Future of Kona B.3 Growth Opportunity Areas The Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) represent a distinctive element of future land use within Kona. The genesis of the GOAs is in the Mapping the Future workshop. All the maps generated by the public were digitized to gain an understanding of the public's preferences. The composite maps generated to summarize the results disclosed an initial set of preferred growth locations. These locations indicated areas selected by 10 to 13 different groups out of the 20 groups that focused on future development inside the Urban Expansion Areas. A preliminary schematic location map was developed using these selected areas. During the Open House segment of the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1, participants were asked to review those locations on a large-scale map and to comment on their appropriateness based on their knowledge of the terrain, information about existing and proposed roads, environmental constraints, and on the relationship of selected areas to existing and proposed developments. Finally, in preparation for the second charrette, the areas were mapped (up to that point that areas had been diagrammatically represented as circles). In doing so, everything was kept within a 1/4 mile of existing roads wherever possible, and protected areas and steep slopes were avoided. The new alignments were presented again to the participants of the first public meeting of the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2 for final refinements The public expanded some of them, combined others and identified open spaces and open space mauka-makai connections through or around them. See B.6 below, for more detail on this activity Kona Community Development Plan 3.9 The Vision for the Future of Kona The Environmental Simulation Center generated a development suitability analysis to determine a rough approximation of how much land could actually be developed within those areas. The analysis was based on the following criteria: • Slopes less than 12%, • Not in a flood zone, • Land not already developed, • Land not already approved for development, • Land that is not Important Agricultural lands, and • Not overlapping the habitat of a rare or endangered species with global rank of 3. The analysis revealed that the GOAs have a total area of 3,936 acres, of which 3,093 acres (79%) are buildable and 843 (21%) are variously constrained. Based on the preferred development scenario identified in the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2, the GOAs' buildable land provides a supply of land to accommodate forecast growth. The excess is important because land within the GOAs may not become available for development or might become available at different times over the next 15 years. Within the context of the General Plan and of the CDP, it is important to recognize that the GOAs' boundaries do not represent a second layer of growth boundaries within the designated Urban Expansion Area. Rather, the GOAs are areas where incentives should be used to stimulate development. Incentives could include expediting the permitting process or providing infrastructure using the County's bonding capacity for water supply, wastewater, district wide drainage, and roads. A parallel set of disincentives could be developed for land outside the GOAs by promoting the retention of open spaces and working lands, by adopting tools to compensate landowners such as TDR, or by the County acquiring land inside the expansion areas for open space protection. In the spirit of the CDP development principles and goals, the GOAs should be zoned for higher densities and mixed -uses (including residential mixed -uses), and should have form -based or performance type of zoning to ensure that density is created through quality design features. The GOAs provide an opportunity to rationalize the development context in Kona so that development happens in a coherent fashion and through the creation of villages and neighborhoods as opposed to individual and disconnected subdivision type of development. r Fil t Kona Community Development Plan 3.10 1 The Vision for the Future of Kona The map below indicated the final positioning of the GOAs setermind after the public's review in the first pubdc meeting of the Where Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2. It is important to reiterate that the GOAs' boundaries do not represent a second layer of growth boundaries within the designated Urban Expansion Area Rather, they indicate general areas where incentives should be used to stimulate development �,rp 1i k7r CA Ell 44 Kona Community Development Plan 3.11 Developments In the approval process The amount of future growth that can be absorbed through developments at different stages of the approval process Is critical as Kona has many such developments Some are at the very early stages while others are already under construction. In order to make the maps less complicated for the general public, developments were divided into 2 categories, "Approved Development A, B, C° and 'Approved Development D, E, F" The former included developments partially completed, under construction, or that already have a building permit issued. The latter included developments ranging from those with subdivision approval (tentative or final) to ones at the very early stages of the approval process The breaking point between the two categories was chosen because developments in the D, E, and F categories might still consider adjusting their plans to work with the overall goals of the CDP. Source: The Environmental Simulation Center The Vision for the Future of Kona 13.4 How to Grow: the Preferred Land Use Scenario and Development Patterns During the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1 public meeting held on March 28, 2006, participants reviewed four future development scenarios for the purpose of identifying a preferred way for Kona to accommodate future growth. Each scenario simulated what would happen to the GOAs if future growth would be accommodated at four different densities. The scenarios were built as follows: • Each scenario used the schematic positioning of the GOAs as the starting points to accommodate future growth. • The forecast population increase of 14,426 new persons by the year 2020 was translated into households. The calculation yielded 4,007 units needed by 2020. To arrive at that number the total population was first divided between people likely to settle in urbanized areas (75%) versus people living in rural areas (25%)'. The resulting number of 10,820 persons likely to settle in urbanized areas was then converted into housing units by dividing it by the average household size of 2.7. • The number of 4,007 units was multiplied by a factor of 1.22 to account for the high vacancy rate in Kona due to second homes. That raised the needed number of units to 4,889 (see box on the left and Table 3.1) • The number of units at various stages of the approval process within the Urban Expansion Area was calculated (see Table 3.2) and then subtracted from the total number of units (see Table 3.3) to yield a total of 2,872 units remaining to be distributed in the Urban Expansion Area. TABLE 3.1-PnPULATTM AND NnrTCrN(1 iTNrr.Q Projected population to 2020 14,426 Persons Population likely reside in urban areas 10,820 Persons Divided by 2.7 (average persons per household) 4,007 Units Multiplied by a vacancy rate of 1.22 x1.22 Units —Housing Units to accommodate population growth 4,889 Units TABLE 3.2 - r1NM, 1N THE APPunvAT. PRnrTi cQ Total approved units in Expansion Area 3,988 Units 75% units assumed completed by 2020 2,991 Units Less units already developed 974 Units -Approved units remaining for Expansion Area 2,017 Units 'ABLE 33 — TOTAL HOUSING UMTS Housing Units to accommodate population growth 4,889 Units Less approved units in Expansion Area 2,017 Units Total remaining units 2,872 Units 1 1 1 t 'The same assumption was used in the General Plan's population forecasts and in the allocation of "chips" in the Mapping the Future I workshop. Kona Community Development Plan 3.12 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 J n The Vision for the Future of Kona The four scenarios were constructed as follows. • In Scenario A development was distributed by using current zoning densities. • In Scenario B development was distributed at the average density of current trends. • In Scenario C development was distributed at a density of 5 dwelling units per acre which represents approximately the maximum density (for RS -7.5 lots), under current zoning. • In Scenario D development was distributed at 8 dwelling units per acre. The scenarios offer dramatically different land consumption values and impacts within the Urban Expansion Area. In Scenario A the amount of land needed to accommodate future growth is 9,265 acres, in Scenario B, 1,492 acres, in Scenario C, 990 acres, and in Scenario D, 611 acres.4 With the aim of stimulating discussion and to arrive at a qualitative choice among scenarios, participants were free to discuss one or more scenarios. Scenario A was selected and discussed in five groups, Scenario B was also selected and discussed in five groups, Scenario C was selected and discussed in 15 groups, and Scenario D was selected and discussed in 18 groups. The groups responded to specific questions, listed their concerns, and provided recommendations for the scenarios they preferred. The results are summarized in Appendix E The public's preferences were strongly toward the higher density scenarios, somewhere between scenarios C and D with an average net residential density between 5 and 8 net units per acre. As a result, the amount of land required to allocate future growth declined dramatically while a more complex mix of land uses and development patterns became possible. This is consistent with development principle 5: "Future growth should occur in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and a mix of homes, shops, and places to work." The process leading to the identification of the development scenario was not designed to provide quantitative results. Rather it was designed to elicit a qualitative picture of what Kona could be like in the future The intense table discussion identified cross -cutting themes that were related to the preferences being expressed and include: the importance of parks and open space as densities increase; the need to use more efficient use of land to enable the creation of affordable housing, the imperative for adequate infrastructure to support development; the protection of natural and cultural `The land consumption figures include a percentage allowance for non residentail land use The ratio was identified through GIS analysts of the entire Kona area and is. Residential including single family and apartments 58%, Non -Residential including roads and infrastructure, commercial, industrial, and hotel and resort 42%. This represents the breakdown of the total developed land or 13,484 acres. Kona Community Development Plan 3.13 The four maps to the right show the four scenarios presented to the public at the public meeting of the Where Do We Grow? Charrette Part 1. The maps vividly represent the dramatic difference in land consumption among the four scenarios The Vision for the Future of Kona resources; the need for interconnectivity and diverse transportation options; and the importance of maintaining Kona identity and quality of life. Concerns were also raised. They included fear that density might create places that are not consistent with the unique character of Kona, that codes might engender uniformity "one size fits all," and that the villages and neighborhoods created within the GOAs might lack the diversity of scale from quiet single family neighborhoods to bustling mixed use neighborhoods and village centers. In fact participants indicated that to achieve the average density of the preferred scenario a combination of conditions might best meet the needs of local communities throughout the region. Kona Community Development Plan 3.14 �� �5 ✓ 3` 6 Y• ]f �PK >fi.l. L~ •"'ice a�; i 1 c . r lw rte'; s{ � �', f _ ail, 1W riy -PrP... -nv�ur, PPe.PPPiPiPw T laBmW .fie Kona Community Development Plan 3.14 >fi.l. L~ •"'ice a�; i 1 •� �� rte'; s{ � �', f _ ail, 1W riy L J.. . Pti laBmW .fie Kona Community Development Plan 3.14 11 11 [J� The preferences expressed by the public favor the creation of diverse places that mix the size of the budding as well as their uses. The Vision for the Future of Kona B.5 Visualization of Building Blocks A total of 17 visualizations — building blocks — were created to illustrate conditions likely to be created under the average 5 to 8 net units per acre in preferred scenario and a continuum of conditions from neighborhoods to village centers. They were also created to address residents' concerns about uniformity and scale. The building blocks were presented and rated during the Open House segment of the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2. The results of the rating are summarized in Appendix F. The results of the rating exercises indicated a preference for communities with well-defined centers that have parking in the back and create a walkable and social environment. They indicate a preference for neighborhoods that offer varied housing types, setbacks, and lots while they express a dislike for conditions associated with conventional subdivision developments, e.g. uniform lots and housing sizes and lack of sidewalks. The responses to the building blocks provide critical information to be used in the development of regulatory tools to implement the compact neighborhoods and village vision expressed through the preferred development scenario. B.6 Connecting Future Development with Cultural and Open Space Resources The How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2 focused on linking and reconnecting the land use preferences expressed in the How Do We Grow? Kona Community Development Pian 315 DRAFT 11/30/06 The Vision for the Future of Kona Charrette Part 1 with open space, cultural, and natural environment resources. During the first of two public meetings held during the Charrette Part 2 participants were asked to: • Review the position of the GOAs for consistency with the development principles defined earlier in the CDP process, particularly in relation to access to roads, adjacency to existing and proposed development, and connection to infrastructure. • Adjust the GOAs boundaries a final time using their knowledge of the land and of significant cultural and environmental features within or around them. • Identify areas that should be protected from development and preserved as open space. • Identify mauka-makai open space connections to be created within the boundaries of the Urban Expansion Area. • Identify special vistas and places of unique value to be protected, and celebrated within the open space areas and the mauka-makai open space connections. This exercise gave participants an opportunity to focus on the critical cultural and natural resources of Kona integrating them with the land use choices made in the previous public meeting. The exercises resulted in the general expansion of GOAs, strong support for setting aside open space inside the Urban Expansion Area, less agreement on the specific location, size, and type of parks, and strong support for the creation of open space mauka-makai connections using historic trail and floodways, and expanding the system by adding coastal and north to south trails. B.7 The Vision for the Future of Kona There are two distinctive visions that emerged from the extensive public process described in Chapter 2 and 3 of this report: one for the urbanized areas within the Urban Expansion Area of the General Plan, and the other for the rural areas both in North and South Kona The two visions complement one another. The vision for the urbanized areas is one that encourages future development to occur within Growth Opportunity Areas in the form of villages and neighborhoods with residential and commercial uses mixed together whenever possible. This preferred type of future development dramatically reduces land consumption and enables the preservation of cultural resources and open space inside the Urban Expansion Area of the General Plan. Kona Community Development Plan 1 77 I d Il L� n 3.16 1 1 ' The CDP confirms the role of Kadua Kona as the core around which future villages and neighborhoods can develop, with a smaller concentration around the Keauhou area The rural villages of South Kona represents models of ways to maintain ' low densities and rural character The Vision for the Future of Kona The vision for the rural areas both in North and South Kona is one that makes it a priority to keep densities low and to maintain the rural character of those areas, and reinforces the traditional historic village pattern by encouraging infill and development. The tools to implement those complementary visions have been developed through the Working Group process and through the housing and green and gray infrastructure studies developed as part of the CDP. The two must now be integrated to create not only a bold vision for the future of Kona, but one that can be implemented. Kona Community Development Pian 3.17 I' r, G 1 Appendix 1 4 Appendix A: Summary of Ideas This document provides a brief summary of the main themes that emerged from over 3,000 ideas generated at 109 public meetings held between November 2005 and February 2006. All of the ideas were entered verbatim into a database and sorted by appropriate themes. This summary was distributed to participants at the Mapping the Future workshop. ' Agriculture Participants emphasized the value of preserving agricultural lands and diversifying agricultural activity to promote local self-sufficiency and sustainability. Some participants suggested that specialty crops should be enhanced and supported for their export potential. Ideas generated revealed opposition to genetically modified plants and animals. Community Character Kona residents want to preserve their unique communities and create a welcoming, attractive environment for residents and visitors alike. They support the conservation of natural and historic areas, parks, and cultural sites. They would like to maintain small-town flavor and rural character, particularly in South Kona. Revitalization of downtown Kailua Village is also important. Participants expressed that they would like Kona communities to be more walkable and more integrated - accommodating residents of diverse incomes and demographic backgrounds. Ideas also revealed broad support for landscaping, beautification, and litter control efforts. Culture Participants expressed a strong desire to celebrate diversity and promote cultural awareness Ideas included suggestions for community cultural centers, multilingual signs, cultural festivals, and other activities that would ' promote cultural interaction. Increasing awareness and respect for Native Hawaiian traditions, culture, and language was a top priority for many participants. Several residents noted the importance of Hawaiian architecture and design. Others mentioned that efforts should be made to help newcomers learn about traditional values and Hawaiian culture. Economic Prosperity 1 1 1 In pursuit of economic prosperity, participants noted that the Kona region should find ways to capitalize on its local advantages in terms of climate, location, and natural resources. They would like to see increased agricultural diversity as well as investments in aquaculture. They expressed support for high tech industries, as well as higher education and research initiatives. Ideas generated at the meetings also focused on creating a favorable business climate, and mentioned that government policies and tax incentives should be used to promote large, small, and home- based businesses. In terms of shopping, residents would like to see core business and shopping districts that are welcoming and accessible to pedestrians and cyclists. Education Kona residents would like to see excellent schools, high education standards, and quality educational opportunities available to all members of the community. Participants expressed widespread support for a university in West Hawaii. They would also like to see more vocational and continuing education opportunities for adults Ideas demonstrated interest in expanding preschool, child care, and early childhood education programs. Other educational themes included: decentralization of schools to establish more local control, recruitment of better qualified teachers, and provision of adequate materials and supplies for classrooms 11130106 Kona Community Development Plan A.1 Government Improving local government decision-making capabilities and ensuring more effective resource allocation were top , Energy Participants would like to see the Kona region maximize its self-sufficiency in terms of energy consumption. They emphasized the importance of developing alternative energy sources, including solar, wind, hydro, bio fuels, and waste - , to -energy systems. Promotion and expansion of recycling programs was also widely noted throughout the ideas. as uniform enforcement of zoning and development ordinances. Many feel the government should facilitate the t Environment ' Kona residents are very interested in preserving the natural beauty of their region. They would like to protect the shoreline and limit the negative impacts of cruise ships, while maintaining public access to the ocean. They want to , protect watersheds and freshwater resources, while ensuring effective water distribution throughout the region. Several participants mentioned that more conservation areas should be established to protect natural habitats, and that efforts should be taken to prevent and/or remove invasive plant and animal species. Hazard mitigation was another key concern. Participants pointed to the need for comprehensive flood management, as well as disaster planning and preparation for potential tsunamis or volcanic eruptions. Government Improving local government decision-making capabilities and ensuring more effective resource allocation were top , priorities for the meeting participants. They would like to see more transparency in government activities, and better communication among all levels of government and the communities they serve. Several participants want to see more equitable distribution of County funds; others mentioned that the County government could be divided into East and West. From a planning perspective, residents would like to see more planning decisions made at the local level, as well as uniform enforcement of zoning and development ordinances. Many feel the government should facilitate the expansion of services and infrastructure to existing developments, while undertaking measures to more strictly control ' future growth , Historical Resources See Community Character. Housing Affordable housing is a key concern for Kona residents. Many participants suggested that the government should do more to support affordable housing through policies and development procedures such as affordability requirements, , impact fees, fees -in -lieu, etc. Participants would like to see housing and fobs in close proximity, and they would prefer neighborhoods to be more integrated, offering a full spectrum of housing types and costs, including rental housing. Several ideas supported the use of solar energy to create more energy efficient housing. Participants also mentioned the need for more housing for the elderly, such as assisted living facilities. Infrastructure Participants discussed a wide variety of infrastructure issues. One frequently expressed concern is that development should follow principles of concurrency, so that infrastructure is in place before new neighborhoods are built. Participants also mentioned the need for more sidewalks, more streetlights, and more public parking. They would like to see utility lines placed underground. Ideas generated at the meetings also suggested the need for improvements in water distribution, wastewater management, and solid waste disposal. Other suggestions involve improvements to piers and harbors to enhance marine and boating access. 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan Al i 1 1 1 1 Land Use Kona residents would like to see land use policies that foster stewardship of the environment. They are interested in protecting environmental corridors, preserving agricultural lands, and setting aside land for parks, trails, and open space. They would like to restrict development on the coast by establishing mandatory setbacks from the ocean. In terms of development, many participants supported a better mix of land uses, so that housing, jobs, shopping, schools, and other services are integrated within communities. Natural Resources See Environment. Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Kona residents would like to beautify and maintain existing park facilities, and develop more parks, green spaces, and recreational facilities. They support enhanced beach access and boating access, and would also like to see more hiking trails. Several ideas suggested that Kona should pursue more eco tourism opportunities. Planning Kona residents support greater community involvement in planning processes, and suggested a variety of ideas relating to planning and development issues. Several participants expressed that State and County codes and development decisions should be fair, predictable, and cost effective. Some mentioned the need for streamlining development approval processes, while others emphasized that developers must be held accountable for providing necessary infrastructure, roads, and affordable housing. Regarding types of development, many ideas related to curbing sprawl and preserving open space, suggesting cluster development, mixed use zoning, and higher density, more walkable community centers. Participants would like to see zoning codes that encourage diverse housing types and economically integrated communities, and they are generally opposed to the development of gated communities. Several participants expressed an interest in restricting building heights and preserving visual site planes. Public facilities Participants would like to see more civic and cultural centers throughout Kona, particularly community centers that offer activities and services for teens and seniors, and meeting spaces for the general public. Recreation is important, and various ideas mentioned the desire for more recreational facilities such as pools, public golf courses, and sports complexes or stadiums. Several ideas also pointed to the importance of enhancing harbors and boating facilities. Social issues ' A number of common themes surfaced relating to social issues Kona residents are concerned about drug problems in their communities, particularly ice (methamphetamine) They would like to see more services and activities for young people, as well as improved services for the elderly. Better health care is a top priority, and participants encouraged the development of a new hospital or additional community health centers. They also expressed the need for increased police and fire protection, as well as additional schools and improved education. Several ideas also revealed the need to deal with an increasing homeless population. J 11/30106 Kona Community Development Plan A.3 t i t 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan AA Transportation —Alternative Meeting participants expressed a strong preference for creating more opportunities for getting around without a car. They would like to see more sidewalks, bike paths, and hiking trails. Several ideas expressed the desire for paths between subdivisions, and paths along the oceanfront. Transportation — Public Participants support the development of an affordable public transportation system with defined stops and times. They mentioned a variety of transportation modes, including light rail, fent' service, and bus lines. Ideas suggested the importance of having park and ride facilities near transit centers. In general, residents would like to see multi -modal transportation corridors that can accommodate everyone — including pedestrians, bikes, buses, light rail, and cars. Transportation — Vehicular Kona residents strongly emphasized the need for a well-planned, interconnected road system that can resolve congestion problems. They offered a variety of suggestions, including: overpasses and roundabouts, more Mauka- Makai roads, synchronized traffic lights, connection of roads to eliminate dead ends, wider streets, and the creation of a four -lane highway, among others. t i t 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan AA i 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix B: Critical Questions Results Summary Summarized below are the results of the Critical Questions activity of the Mapping the Future workshop. Each table at the workshop answered a critical question related to one of 12 randomly assigned topics. The results are organized by topic. • For each topic, one or more draft principles are presented. These draft principles were developed by reviewing the specific recommendations generated for each topic and then distilling the groups' discussions into key statements. These draft principles are for discussion. • The draft principles are followed by the specific recommendations generated by the groups. These are verbatim results of the activity and have not been edited. Agriculture Principles • Agriculture is an essential component of the character of Kona. • Agriculture is an economic resource consistent with our history and lifestyle. • Agricultural areas are only converted to other uses openly, judiciously, and deliberately. Specific Recommendations o Support agricultural zoning with substantive data o Provide incentives for markets, diversity, small productive farms, ranches, ag use o Provide education through market studies, extension services, high schools, PBARC o Any ag subdivision must be develop to farm - clear, plant, cultivate before sale of lots o Prevent introduction of invasive species and diseases o Change zoning to allow ag tourism, farm worker housing, value added product development and separate residential from ag land explicitly o Support new agricultural products, e.g. aquaculture, medicine, finished products form coffee, exportable products o Support and educate farmers to be successful in agricultural locations, including tax relief, farmers markets, research and development, natural resource preservation (water) Community Character Principles • Development outside of the growth areas is explicitly rural. • The individual character of communities and neighborhoods is created, maintained, or enhanced Specific Recommendations o Access and preservation of natural resources, both mauka and makai o Protect and support the people who live here o Keep Kona Country - where country still exists o With urban expansion identify and retain individual community character o Environmentally friendly (natural, cultural, spiritual) o Planning and development o develop urban area following "smart growth" precepts to build a health community 11/30/06 high importance o Community gathering places o Preserve mauka ag lands Kona Community Development Plan Pedestrian safety is of B.1 o To keep Kona's unique community character we need to preserve our rural character by protecting our beaches, coastline, reefs, plants and historical sites. By opening accessibility by creating new bike and hiking trails and using historic trails (Mauka-Makai) separate from existing roadways. o Various agencies need coordinated effort of groups/agencies to work together - resolutions, move forward, avoid wasting time and money o Ag cannot spot and rezone - protect ag industry o Promote ag tourism - tourism = agriculture; increase value of ag to be economic resource o Education available at High School (Kealakekua) - protect natural resources; programs and projects; inter relate with environment and agriculture (OTEC); and related to every day life o Tax incentives o Prevent pesticide use. Protect land. Environment Principles • Environmental quality is protected and/or enhanced. • Open spaces and natural areas are preserved or restored. • Ground water is well-managed to ensure safe and sustainable resources for industrial and residential uses. Specific recommendations o Incentive based approach to address (i.e. zoning, tax incentives, tdr programs, environmentally based commodity programs, education, affordability for residents) o Water - coastal, ground, flood, desalinated (we should sell it here), develop state water at mauka areas for makai uselindustries o Land - preservation/restoration of historical/cultural lands/productive ag lands, beaches for public use; tropical rain forest recovery (per congressional act); open space/reforestation preservation; implementation of intense recycling and water disposal o Air - volcanic vs. auto pollution research/studies needed; open space/reforestation o Use zoning and tax laws with public input to develop mauka and makai open spaces. Parks and community centers with planned public and private vehicular and non -vehicular access to the natural environment with preservation and education for the protection of the coastline, ocean and forests Hazard Mitigation Principles • Hazard mitigation considerations are a precondition to development. Specific recommendations o Three primary - responsible development; emergency planning by community, adequate transportation 11130/06 1 1 1 corridors o Responsible development - respect natural flood channels; streams; runoff and shoreline; construction methods to withstand natural/manmade hazards; new and retrofit existing structures. Update current flood maps and update infrastructure such as sewer line, plan developments around potential high risk areas and include evacuation planning into new development o Emergency planning by Communities - convene community meetings just like this one to identify past experiences and develop community based disaster readiness plans; educate community about individuals preparedness o Transportation Corridors: Connect existing road works mauka-makai, mid level access; plan future development with emergency evacuation routes Kona Community Development Plan B.2 I 1 o Other. getting community consensus on roads; enforcement of development agreements; with fines for non compliance. Increase cost of development/permitting to cover cost of planning and enforcement I, o Get good accurate info about existing conditions e.g., flooding, fire, hazardous waste o Code review and enforcement o Make owners/developers responsible for impacts of their property on community jo Emergency plan and public education o Develop criteria and guidelines needed to identify all the sites. Learn to work with them. Educate people, residents, tourists about the living culture Hawaiian host culture and others Housing Affordability Principles • Affordable housing (rental and for sale) is distributed throughout the community. • Affordable housing is located near jobs, schools, and towns. ' Specific recommendations o Goal - Affordable Housing (rental and for sale) distributed through out community near jobs and schools o Proposal - Government providing low cost long term land leases o proposal - Land trusts o Proposal - Private sector incentives o Proposal: Public and private partnerships o Did not get consensus on the following: o #5 Revisited Ohana Housing ' o #11 Using affordable housing money to repair and not new housing construction o #9 Not sure if agree or disagree to make State and Kamehameha School lands available for housing o Build affordable housing near schools and town with roads (connectivity) o Redefine affordability for young, local qualifications o Provide low interest loans/financing for qualified families o Enforcement of building/constructing affordable housing with developers. Give back to the community o Affordable home ownership = happy family = happy, strong community Housing Choice ' Principles • Communities include different ages, ethnicities, and income levels. • Communities include a mix of uses 'Communities include diverse housing choices (e g. type, size, cost, rent, own, assisted living, etc.). Specific recommendations o "Village concept" of planning that includes: cluster planning, open space, services, recreation, schools, shopping, local transportation, community gardens, to facilitate and ensure a mixed, blended community, inclusive of all ages, ethnicities, income levels o Provide diversity of housing stock (types of housing), size, rentals, assisted living, community housing built/developed near work sites, town houses. o Housing not near oceans, with the exception of communities whose cultures are based on ocean/ag i o Respect the ag lands o Economic transitional housing - to provide opportunity for folks to move from affordable housing to housing with necessary services 11130/06 Kona Community Development Plan B.3 Protection of Ancestral/Historic Sites Principles i • Planning and development are compatible with cultural integrity and local cultures. Specific Recommendations o Education (i.e. cultural centers) is top priority (developers, visitors, landowners, citizens, etc). This will lead to protection and preservation 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan BA o Do the additional planning: rezoning of categories that will expedite and promote, and encourage the above, housing mixes and options o This village concept fosters sense of family, safety, home, community, a sense of aloha o o Mixed and integrated communities of service and facility and people Homes and apartment together with pedestrian and bicycle friendly o Some communities can be upgraded (future mandate can include) o County encourage mixed use development o Bike and walking path - is it infrastructure or housing? o Affordable, worker housing near fobs. Continuum - rental to rent to own to ownership both ag and urban land o Village concept - nodes of growth (housing, commercial) with open space, green space between, mixed use, interconnected o Require adequate, expandable infrastructure before housing is built, including currency permitted projects Parks, Recreation, and Open Space Principles • Parks and open spaces are provided in communities. • The public has access to parks, trails, open spaces, natural areas, and the coastline. Specific Recommendations o Developers must create park infrastructure before building o Pinpoint bus scheduling to recreation sites o More accessible trails with parking lots o Adequate funding for staffing and upkeep of all public parks and natural areas and volunteer docents o Planning to ensure preservation of ocean resources o County is neglecting their role in care taking of public land o Area of difference: Don't just focus on shoreline access, but mountain access also o o Allow responses are important enough to be separate issues (cannot consolidate the list) Improve the security of all public areas; by property authorities (as long as the County is contracting) Private may alienate some from the land - o o Improve access both by vehicle and pedestrian, as by decent roads and trails Ensure adequate public access to public lands o Open spaces are important and should be preserved o Maintain existing parks, beaches, recreation areas o Planning - designate open spaces and use thereof; finances to maintain and improve; encourage private and public cooperation; and planned access o Diverse use of recreational areas - mountain and ocean areas o Use our parks to teach a sense of place Protection of Ancestral/Historic Sites Principles i • Planning and development are compatible with cultural integrity and local cultures. Specific Recommendations o Education (i.e. cultural centers) is top priority (developers, visitors, landowners, citizens, etc). This will lead to protection and preservation 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan BA 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 o Must deal with the conflict that exists between good planning and good solutions that are compatible with cultural integrity (must define "good planning" and "good solutions" o There must be non-negotiable in cultural imperatives (must identify negtiables/non-negotiables/guidelins) culturally sensitive (i e. don't build on sacred grounds) o Island not mainland ecosystem - no -- like Easter Island (Rapa Nui) o Shoreline protection against environmental hazards and for public use (local issue of resorts restricting and modifying access) o Unique coffee belt ag heritage and its role in protecting from dangerous floods makai areas o Updated grub/grad ordinances and flood maps o Impact of cruise ships discharge into water - endangers health for swimmers o Protection of watershed and water (fresh) from leakage into ocean due to blasting of harbors, etc. o Multi-ethnic elders need to be consulted, also these who are respected and knowledegeable of material, spiritual, cultural o Localized decision making - ahupuaa based o Need a way to find out what you can or can't do o Lack of consistency, need clear system (statewide) and standards o Legal entities need to get their act together o Personnel needed so that a clear answer can be obtained. More promptly, also need personnel locally based Retail Principles • Communities include mixed-use shopping areas. • Shopping areas are accessible by foot, car, and public transit. Specific Recommendations o Mixed Use - walkable, compatible, 24-hour, new and existing o Capitalize on what is unique to this place. Local - local dollars, cultural identity, branding, environmentally friendly o Transportation - centralized parking, shopping centers and transit hubs, connectivity to get in and out o New retail development with respect to views, character of area, encourage developers to brainstorm with community (i.e Henry Street) Tourism Principles • Tourism impacts are mitigated • Tourism initiatives benefit both visitors and residents. Specific Recommendations o Not affect small businesses negatively o Creation of career opportunities o Promote small businesses o Require infrastructure before more development o Clean - non polluting o Controlled to protect local residents o Public amenities attractive, protection of our Class AA ocean waters and its ecosystem o Dedicated park/comdor "green" (with not enough infrastructure) 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan B.5 I Traffic Congestion t o Take existing parks, beaches and expand a corridor that extends to the harbor. Add sidewalks, museum, walking, bike paths, with information paths o Traffic issues - free buses, increase use, more alternative roads o More public open space to include floodways, parks, large regional parks, and ocean access o World class park with exceptional maintenance and amenities and landscaping o Low impact educational eco -tourism that connects with the community as opposed to mass tourism that - builds appreciation for Hawaii culture, historical uniqueness o Within corridor the opportunity for diversified transit that is separate form the road. o Utility corridor, recreation, backbone of development to grow around, equestrian Traffic Congestion t Principles • Alternative modes of transportation are interconnected and available throughout Kona • Connectivity and capacity are preconditions to development. • Housing is located near jobs. (Also see housing.) Specific Recommendations o Create sustainable communities with business district, parks, cultural centers, medical, shopping, drug stores, strip centers, professional buildings, banks, schools o Interconnect the individual connector communities with public transportation, bikeways, walk lanes o Intelligent traffic engineering, synchronized lights, over and under passes, left turn lanes, bike paths, more frequent bus stops where people need to go o Infrastructure to support expected population - water, sewer, power, transportation, including public restrooms, solid waste transfer, disposal, recycle, gray water, before building commences o Hotels supply places for employees to live , not plantation housing, but condos, studios, livable homes, also for middle income families o Improve existing roadways (connectivity, widening, dead ends) o Reduce vehicular volume by increasing mass/alternative transit options and staggered work hours o Affordable housing and rentals closer to job centers o Reduce growth Transportation and Land Use Principles • Communities are mixed use. • Communities are clustered with access to regional centers with services, jobs, etc. • There is connectivity between mauka/makai. Specific recommendations o Mixed Use Zoning - government/private developer partnerships; cluster communities; commercial mixed use with residential; multi income housing o Increasing flow on existing roads by : connectivity of subdivisions; overpass/underpass/round abouts on Queen K; not freeways; more mid level roads; more mauka/makai connections from shoreline to Mamalahoa o Smart growth (small community centers with mixed use/residential). Mixed housing for different economic levels in these communities. Resale of affordable housing should be restricted like Hawaiian Home Lands. Connect these communities with public transportation. Having mixed use communities should alleviate traffic because stores, banks, etc would be nearby. Infrastructure must be included with 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan B.6 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 sidewalks, parks, thru roads. Connect communities with roads too. Must have setbacks to allow for widening roads in the future. o We agree to develop regional nodes of commercial, housing, employment o We agree about traffic solutions. Five lanes instead of two, including a lane for bikes, roller blading, pedestrians, with concrete divider separating 5th lane from vehicular traffic o We agree about park and ride lots, carpool. Public transportation expansion, roundabouts, by passes, overhead crosswalks o Correct the engineering of all new roads, roads to address problems such as the weight of large trucks o Housing subsidized by employers for their employees o Stagger work hours, with parents with children having priority 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan I 8.7 1 11, k Appendix C: Respected Areas and Protected Areas Results Summary This document summarizes the results of the Respected Areas and Protected Areas activities that were conducted during the Mapping the Future Workshop, which consisted of three steps: Respected Areas, Protected Areas, and Mapping the Future excercise The Mapping the Future exercise is summarized in a separate document. Respected Areas Results Summary During Respected Areas, the participants generated responses to a brainstorming question (see below). Their responses were reviewed to identify emerging themes. These themes are organized into three categories for the purposes of this summary: guidelines for designation, areas for designation consideration, and other concerns. Brainstorming Question Ancestral and historic sites are reminders of Kona's deep culture and rich heritage. Some of these are indicated on our map. There are challenges and opportunities in protecting those sites as well as others and in celebrating their value among area residents and visitors. What criteria should be used to guide the designation, use, or accessibility of places of cultural significance in Kona? Guidelines for designation of respected areas • Differentiate between sites (influential versus commoner) or rate them on native importance (e.g. ahupuaa) • Find ways to mitigate site, not totally off limits to development (e.g. relocating burial sites, etc ); Balance development and preservation • Create appropriate mechanism for designating sites; Criteria that reduce conflict • Respect for elders and consult with them in process • Involve land owners • Community driven and based on consensus Accurate and comprehensive inventory of sites and document historical relevance _ • Map the sites • Identify appropriate uses (passive, active, educational, etc.) • Support cultural lifestyle (gathering rights, fishing, religious practices) • Integration with surrounding uses • Respect for ancestors • Emphasize relationship between god, spirit, nature, and man • Utilize Hawaiian place names • Signage • Provide security and protection • Accessibility • Limited or not access to extremely sensitive sites • Preservation, restoration, and maintenance Recommendations for places that should be considered for designation • Burial sites, graves, and group cemeteries (recognition that this may have too much impact on development) • Historic sites 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan C 1 I • Coffee belt • Watershed • Water • Shoreline • Sacred areas (recognize that it is unclear how this is defined) • Mauka native forests • Trails • Community gathering place / Cultural center • Buffer zones between development and culturally significant sites • Seal caves • Archaeological sites • Based on native beliefs all areas should be "respected" • Ceremonial sites • 18' century home sites and ag lands • Historic sites • Multi -cultural sites; not just Hawaiian • Significant buildings • Ancient trees • Churches • Town and village character • Unique sites • Family sites and community sites r • Building facades Other Concerns • Increase cultural understanding and promote history and culture of Kona (education) • Promote appropriate behavior • Celebrate cultural significant days • Importance of oral histones 11 I 7 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan C.2 Protected Areas Results Summary During Protected Areas, the participants generated responses to a brainstorming question (see below). Their responses were reviewed to identify emerging themes. These themes are organized into three categories for the purposes of this summary: criteria for protection, areas for protection, accessible areas, and other concerns. IBrainstorming Question LJ Think about the criteria you would recommend to protect areas from future development for reasons other than cultural or historic significance. Look over the map and consider whether you believe other areas should be protected from development. Think about where these areas are located. Think about why it is important to protect these areas from development. What criteria should be used to guide the identification of areas for protection? Criteria for protection • Scenic vistas and ocean views are preserved. • The coastline and beaches are protected from development and accessible to the public. (See also Parks, Recreation, and Open Space.) • Land for future infrastructure needs is protected from development (e g. road right-of-ways, land along roads for widening, land for future road connectivity, etc.). • Land for walkways and biking trails is provided. • Near shore waters, the reef, and fishing grounds are protected. • Hunting and gathering areas are protected and public access is provided. Areas for protection • Natural areas (e.g critical habitats, forests, ecosystems, wild areas, areas with endangered species (flora and fauna), places of natural beauty, etc ) • Scenic vistas and ocean views • Watersheds and the aquifer • Mountains • Conservation lands • Prime agricultural lands • Coffee farms • Good soils • Flood zones/tsunami hazard areas • Future road corridors • Future infrastructure needs (utilities, ROW, land along roadways to allow for widening, etc.) • Areas that will allow for road connectivity • Trails (walking and biking) • Walkways • Community gathering and recreation areas • Parks and open spaces (community and regional) • Small scale development not just large scale development • Coastline and beaches • Near shore waters, the reef, and fishing grounds • Archaeological sites 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan C.3 Accessible areas • Coastline and beaches • Parks and open space • Hunting and gathering areas • Mountains Other concerns • Maintain or improve environmental quality • Protect long term sustainability • Protect potable water 11130106 Kona Community Development Plan CA I 1 11 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix D: Mapping the Future Exercise Results Summary This document summarizes the results of the Mapping the Future exercise that was conducted during the Mapping the Future Workshop, which consisted of three steps: Respected Areas, Protected Areas, and Accommodating Future Growth. The other two steps are summarized in separate documents. During the Mapping the Future exercise, participants were asked to place chips on a map indicating where future growth should take place. Some tables worked on an urban map and others on a rural map; the mapping topics were randomly assigned. After placing their chips on the map, the groups then summarized the mapping exercise. In this document, the summaries of individual tables are included. They are documented verbatim and organized by topic: urban and rural. The summaries are being analyzed to identify emerging themes. These themes will create a set of principles that will be reviewed during the public meeting of the "How Do We Grow?" charrette on March 28, 2006. URBAN MAPS Table Number: 7 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Direct development (bulk of) North of KailuaOKona (concentrated development for cluster plan/village community development); between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway; and concentrations around University Heights Not in watersheds (protect) • No development acres not on map- moratorium restrictions (minimize) on 2nd homes • Do not exceed the carrying capacity of the natural resources with development • Schools and human infrastructure and services to receive consideration with concentration of development. Table Number: 2 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations ' Some infill development in Captain Cook, Kainaliu, Holualoa, Honalo, Kealakehe to increase intensity in existing villages without overloading (without forcing vertical development) • Validated Hokulia ' • Some growth s. Kona (out of preferred) to alleviate pressure in Kailua-Kona and N. Kona • More development in Keauhou area • New village (University Town) • New towns with higher densities, mixed use Table Number: 4 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Some chips placed indicating desire for no growth • Central Kona chips cluster high density where already zoned/scheduled for development • Infill of already urban zoned • Utilities already underground and in place in Costco area, therefore more growth there • Infill in S. Kona/Captain Cook - cluster high density to increase available low cost housing • New roads added with interconnectivity and round abouts • 2 new cluster communities above Hualalai to enable service of already scheduled development 11/30106 Kona Community Development Plan D.1 i I Table Number: 5 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Areas to the north of Kailua, areas that already have connector roads • Area near schools would have higher densities • Prior to development, all infrastructure in place • Kealakaa-Hina Lani intersection - Shopping area, super market, saves people living there from driving to Kailua • Dorms and apartments near the proposed university • No building along the coastline • Mauka-makai access • Road to connect Palani to Kaiminani • Apartments and condos for hotel workers • Refused to use all chips. Table Number: 7 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Growth should be concentrated in high density areas. • Growth should be concentrated on existing transportation and utility corridors • More growth in N. Kona • Town growth should be taken away from highways , • Preserve existing open spaces • Need for connector roads • Consider multi -story buildings to preserve land • Inadequate infrastructure even more pronounced concurrency issue • Need for bypass roads and highways. Table Number: 8 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Growth in north Kona to match job sites/locations , • Create multi -family, higher density • Hiluhilu, UH West Hawaii increase density and build out • Fix infrastructure before allowing future development • Infill development to decrease pressure on roads • New concrete on existing concrete - redevelopment • Protecting ag land ' • Develop what we all ready have bulldozed • Existing permits without development started should have time limits - don't make is so easy to develop • Did not place 79 chips or about 50% of chips -until infrastructure is in place; use non -used chip to the north portion of Kona; preserve ag lands in S. Kona • Need "fix it" chips'. Table Number: 10 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Develop around existing infrastructure • Centralize/higher density in smart growth manner - protect open spaces i 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan D.2 • Public/Private partnerships to meet public --- agreement for expanding Honolulu Harbor with mixed use development including resort, commercial uses including aquaculture school • Student and facility housing above university • Around North Airport - industrial development with housing and noise abetment laws for aircraft ' Infill development (high density) to take advantages of existing infrastructure. Low impact on environment • See notations on map t A 1 1 1 1 Table Number. 11 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Integrated community in proximity to proposed University of Hawaii II • Keep future developments Mauka of Queen Kaahumanu • Consider responsible housing development on Ag land for farmers and farm workers • Cluster development along future mauka North-South corridor(s) to provide connectivity, e.g. Hienaloli Extension • Direct to entitled areas 11. Priority to areas with infrastructure, secondarily entitled areas without infrastructure • Redevelop under utilized or confusing areas, e.g. old Industrial area, Lanihau Shopping Center • Inject more residential to Kailua Village • Note: concerned expressed regarding representation of landowner "stacking" future growth in areas owned, a g. Kaloko. Table Number: 13 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • No growth on shoreline • High density on north of Kailua Village area • No growth on any agricultural land • Most growth in preferred growth area • Holualoa stays rural and Kealakekua • Between Palisades - flat are on growth, possibly less congestion • No chip on already developed area • Existing infrastructure area if near it • Adding affordable housing on resort area • Water, electricity, sewage - can we handle the growth • Congestion, traffic, more people • Pollution, environmental degradation • More waste and garbage • Social separation - rich and poor • More gated communities • School crunch, overbearing of infrastructure • Developers should pay their way • Increase of golf courses Table Number: 14 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Build in areas where there is infrastructure to support the development • More neighborhood parks in growth areas • Promote small local businesses to prevent sprawl 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan D.3 rn P, • Infill existing areas before designating new areas , • Build or widen road and add bike and walkways Table Number: 16 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Wants more density in Four Seasons area, with affordable housing • Want development between two existing roads, to connect roads and develop smart growth between Hinalani and Kaiminani • Increase densities at the mauka nodes of Kealakekua and Captain Cook • Increase density in Central Kailua • Make housing in old industrial area (Queen Lilioukalani trust lands) • Higher density in Hokulia away from shore , • Put smart growth affordable community just north of airport on mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu • Summary - have high density communities using smart growth model near existing roads, but have to have more connectors. No more mauka development. Table Number: 22 Topic: Urban Table Number: 17 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Keep development away from ag land • Utilize marginal lands (lava flows, barren) for residential development • Utilization of existing infrastructure and future connectivity • Staying away (condemnation) from flood plains • Limitation of the projected growth • Consensus with general plan • Avoid development around coastlines and habitats. Table Number. 19 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations , • Urban growth North of Honokohau • No growth mauka of Mamalahoa • Infrastructure - connecting roads, no subdivision permits without infrastructure • Urban growth to include parks and recreational and supported (parking/maintenance). Table Number. 20 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Concentrated development between Palisades to Costco, infrastructure if possible • Need cut -through roads in this area • Need schools, parks, etc. to from nice community , • Placements to promote mixed-use (near airport area for retail) • Note: 6 people placed dots. Table Number: 22 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Housing next to employee's fobs ' 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan DA I 1 • Develop college town • Build apartments next to hotels and downtown • If you create jobs you need to create housing • Affordable housing close to employers creating jobs • Large employees should provide infrastructure, for workers, (one hotel has a preschool) • All new development should include infrastructure such as medical facility, grocery store • Second hospital by airport region • Connectivity between 'old subdivision" • Queen Kaahumanu Highway should be 4 lanes, where growth should happen If you build $2 million homes, can we require developer to donate some money to our community for better • schools and parks?? • No more gated communities • Jitty service for transportation 1 Table Number: 24 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Expanded need for infrastructure outside of urban development • Recreation • Police and fire station • Road from Mamalahoa Highway to Queen Kaahumanu, north of airport, south of Kukio • S. Kona needs commercial and residential • Big Island ----- needs commercial • Parks and public facilities • Growth in Puuhonua area • Hookena, fire police and recreational areas • Honalo junction needs improvements • Parks in Kona Palisades • More information on maps • Honokohau Recreational Park • Keauhou needs better harbor • Kailua Bay better • Need connector roads • Hospitals, clinics, emergency. Table Number: 25 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Development should take place primarily where already approved vs. approving more new areas • Mauka-Makat connectors as well as laterals connectors • Cultural (coastal) Park (preserve) at Keauhou • Concurrency required, ---currently approved development • Develop north to accommodate workers where jobs are Table Number: 26 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Add connecting roads, extensions as marked on map 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan D.5 I PJ • Feasibility study for four lane highway from Keahole to Keauhou • Clustered growth to preserve open space, view, recreation within existing infrastructure • Growth clustered around future hospitals, university • Increase density to make emergency vehicles, services more efficient • More public transportation (hele on, bullet train) - free, organized, consistent, carpools/small vans/shuttle • More public facilities - theaters • Integrate greenways, open space, belts with growth • Small vans going mauka, feed into collectors • Safe, convenient park and ride lots tied into transportation system. Table Number: 28 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Table focused on supporting the them of mixed land use communities or hubs. We'd like to see what's already , developed improved on. We support the concept of creating small villages/communities to avoid urban sprawl. Table Number: 31 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Roads before development, transportation, no movement of traffic - no development • New mid-level road between Palisades Road and junction of Henry and Palani Road • Ag stays Ag, unless legally rezoned • Maintain view corridors - view plane • Create fresh water infrastructure prior to development • Utilities underground • New town center above airport in planned pedestrian concept • Planning biking, dogging, walking trails • Discourage coastal development, but create open space and parks • Protect ocean environment from pollution of cruise ships • No dumping from ships • 193 acre municipal golf course be amended to regional park like Hilo's with constructed wetlands for endangered bird habitat plant trees, amphitheatre • Serious cultural arts center in Keauhou. Table Number. 34 Topic: Urban Summary Recommendations • Maintain coastline corridor • Maintain viewplanes • Maintain recreational areas • Develop corridors mauka of proposed Roadways • Redevelop north of DP line for recreational areas , • University community growth • North side of Kona plan roads to expand • North Kona mauka of Highway open for proper/adequate development. • Maintain coastal view plane and agricultural no growth in south Kona • Replant current roads and infrastructure in higher density areas • Development of coastal recreational and mountain recreation areas , 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan D.6 I RURAL MAPS Table Number: 3 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Develop where infrastructure is already in place where it is outside of growth area Build infrastructure to support transportation given critical mass (park and ride, etc.) • More development closer to Waikoloa to support people working there • Complete Hokulia (ldiss--) i, Table Number: 6 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Areas will need their own infrastructure Place new development near what is in place - increase density- Honaunau, Captain Cook, Kealakekua • Low density, isolated community to accommodate different lifestyle- above Honalo • Keeping open space between developed areas - North of Kailua Town Table Number: 9 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Keep the growth where the growth is where existing infrastructure and contribute to the existing infrastructure ' (cost effectiveness) • Expansion will help sustain the rural communities. Helps relieve infrastructure congestion and costs. 1 Table Number: 12 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Growth should occur northwards or urban area with eventual connection • Growth far north to service developing resort areas, takes traffic away from urban area • Growth far north, away from Mamalahoa • Chips in pink, growth in rural areas kept to absolute minimum • North of urban area to support growing northern resort node • No growth in rural areas until infrastructure is in place, no chips on map • Growth above Milolii to reduce southern traffic into north. Table Number: 15 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Need parks in south Kona • Concentrate development where existing roads can be widened • Place residential housing for hotel/resort workers to avoided traffic through downtown Kona • Place affordable housing near hotels • Place development where there are roads (expandable) and water • Add infrastructure (proper) where development is already approved • Ensure AG -5 village projects to promote agricultural tourism • Add subsidized housing near hotels • Add ferry connection between south Kona housing development in Kmlua-Kona. Table Number: 18 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations 11130/06 Kona Community Development Plan D.7 I ill F1 • Stay within preferred growth areas and/or connect to them, with the hope that increased density will fuel infrastructure - do not open new lands • By increasing density we'll decrease traffic problems • Our Motto "Reverse the trend "sprawl"" • We're hoping this will create mixed-use density, live, work, play areas • By increasing density we'll decrease traffic problems and would force solutions to many of our problems. Table Number: 21 Topic: Rural ' Summary Recommendations • See growth stopped in North and South Kona • More community development plans with different types of housing • More infrastructure for S. Kona • Choose people and lifestyle over money • Protect ag land • What growth comes controlled? Table Number: 27 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Anticipation of completion of Hokulia • Increased development around present Nanea golf course • Anticipation of increased growth in Captain Cook area • Negative - importance of developing roads/water, infrastructure • Possible extension/increased growth in Honaunau due to anticipated completion of Hokulia • Development of "healthy community" with best practices Table Number: 30 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Growth near planned or current shopping areas • Favor going north - Keahole to Keauhou corridor • Keauhou should be growth corridor • Congregate higher density to preserve open areas Table Number. 33 Topic: Rural Summary Recommendations • Between Kailua Village's Old Kona Airport - good area because of proximity to work, play, schools • Mauka of town is already meant to be an urban area , • Using slopes around Hina Lani Street - good views • Need to move more north closer to resort and employment • Kept everything where growth already present - promotes pedestrian, bicycle transportation. Keep urban center , • Affordable housing by resorts and Kailua • Bike paths along highway • Infill urban areas where infrastructure can be concentrated. I 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan D.8 I �_'j Appendix E: How Do We Grow? Part 1—Review of Scenarios Introduction During the Charrette workshop held on March 28, 2006, participants had the opportunity to review four potential future development scenarios. These four scenarios are: Scenario A: Development as currently zoned Scenario B: Development as currently practiced (trend) Scenario C: Hypothetical Scenario at 5 DUs/acre with approved development distributed first and the remainder of development distributed at a density of 5 DUs/acre using the workshop locational preferences as a guide (max density for RS -7.5 lots under current zoning) Scenario D: Hypothetical Scenario at 8 DUs/acre with approved development distributed first and the remainder of development distributed at a density of 8 DUs/acre using the workshop locational preferences as a guide. The participants were randomly assigned to 20 small groups of about 10 people each. These groups freely selected one or more scenarios to discuss. Some groups selected only one or two scenarios, which they discussed to great detail. Other groups selected three or four scenarios and provided a varying range of detail in their recommendations. In total, Scenario A was selected and discussed in five groups, Scenario B was also selected and discussed in five groups, Scenario C was selected and discussed in 15 groups, and Scenario D was selected and discussed in 18 groups The groups responded to specific questions, listed their concerns, and provided recommendations for the scenarios they had chosen. All responses were recorded on reporting sheets The following section summarizes the strengths, weaknesses/concerns, and recommendations for each scenario, based upon the input provided by the small groups. Scenario A Strengths: No specific strengths were cited for Scenario A Weaknesses / Concerns: The groups that reviewed this scenario found that it offered inadequate parks and open space, and well as insufficient connectivity They noted that such development was unsustainable due to the limited land available. Lack of affordable housing and infrastructure expense were also cited as concerns One group mentioned that this type of development limits flexibility for managing long-term future growth Recommendations: Participants offered a range of recommendations for Scenario A. These include: saving the coastline from becoming private, developing a new highway, building at higher densities in the downtown core, promoting mixed use villages, and addressing community health needs. Scenario B Strengths: No specific strengths were cited for Scenario B Weaknesses / Concerns: The groups that examined this scenario expressed concerns similar to those mentioned for Scenario A. They noted that affordable housing and infrastructure needs are at a crisis level, and are not adequately dealt with in Scenario B. The destruction of Native Hawaiian burial and cultural sites was another concern. Recommendations: Several recommendations for this scenario dealt with infrastructure needs. Groups noted that roads, water, electricity, and sewage must be provided concurrently with development, and that developers should bear some responsibility for ensuring adequate infrastructure. Participants would like to see this scenario provide for affordable housing. They recommended the elimination of gated communities Participants also noted the importance 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan E.1 of long-term planning (up to 100 years out), and mentioned that action must be taken today to preserve large areas of parkland and open space. Scenario C Strengths: Participants expressed support for the village development concept. They noted that absence of strip malls as a strength. Some participants liked the higher densities, and noted that the scenario still maintained a rural flavor. Weaknesses / Concerns: Appropriate density was a key concern, and groups expressed a variety of opinions about what the intensity of development should be. Some groups found Scenario C to be too dense, and felt that it would detract from quality of life and a Kona sense of place. They were concerned about the provision of sufficient services (police, schools, etc) for higher density settlements, and also noted that higher densities may come at the expense of environmental health. Other groups found that the densities shown in this scenario might be insufficient for supporting infrastructure, services, housing, etc. in a cost-effective, economically viable manner. They noted that without somewhat higher densities, such development might be unable to support affordable housing and small businesses. A lack of parks was a common concern, and groups were uncertain that open space buffer zones would be adequately protected from future development. Recommendations: Participants provided numerous recommendations about how development should occur under Scenario C. They approved of the village development concept, and are interested in seeing self-sustaining communities that are socioeconomically diverse, walkable, offer a mix of uses and services, provide for affordable housing and senior housing, and are well-connected to neighboring villages. Participants emphasized that development should be tailored to specific places, and should maintain a sense of place rather than being "one size fits all." Cultural and historic resources should be protected. Open space and parks should be accessible to all, and "people places" like community gardens, civic spaces and plazas should be designed to promote neighborhood interaction. The groups emphasized aesthetics, and noted that efforts should be made to ensure that new developments have quality architecture, landscaping, and adequate trees. Participants would like to see that infrastructure is in place before more development occurs. They expressed a preference for underground utility lines, underground parking, and sufficient connector roads, sidewalks, trails, and public transit. In terms of public transportation, participants would like to see diverse options including buses and rail Natural resource protection was important for these groups. They would like to update existing environmental laws, protect the watershed, and define all valuable lands so that these can be preserved immediately. Native plant and animal species should be closely studied and evaluated so that there are no more extinctions. On the matter of density, participants would prefer to keep higher densities in the urban core and near employment, with a transition to lower density to the south and mauka. Some groups are interested in seeing taller buildings and multi -family units. They noted that it is important to maintain a healthy ratio of density to open space, so that environmental, recreational, cultural, and agricultural needs can be met. The groups also provided a number of recommendations related to the government's role in planning and development. They suggested that the government should be more supportive of the development process, and play a bigger role in providing for affordable housing. Other recommendations included: modifying existing zoning to accommodate village / cluster developments, keeping development within growth areas, and collecting impact fees from developers. Scenario D Strengths: As mentioned in Scenario C, participants were supportive of the village development concept and felt that higher densities could help to preserve rural character, open space, and agricultural lands. Participants also expressed support for the transportation provisions outlined in Scenario D. 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan E.2 l r I U D 1 n Weaknesses: Participants felt that Scenario D would be too dense, and spark development that is too rapid. They expressed concerned about noise and other social infractions that might be associated with more intensive developments. They were also concerned about the provision of infrastructure and services to support a denser population. Some groups expressed opposition to high-rise housing, and felt that this scenario did not maintain the Kona lifestyle. One group mentioned that while Scenario D may be suitable for North Kona, it is not appropriate for South Kona. Participants also noted that this high-density approach has the potential for eventual unwanted infill development in open spaces. As mentioned for each of the other scenarios, inadequate park space and affordable housing continues to be a concern Recommendations: The recommendations provided for Scenario D were very similar to those discussed for Scenario C. Participants supported the development of mixed use neighborhoods and villages that offer diverse housing choices, local shopping and services, employment opportunities, parks, schools, community centers, medical facilities, and public transportation options. Socioeconomic diversity is important, as is walkability and interconnectivity between villages. Participants mentioned that housing affordability must be a priority, and that strict laws should be in place to ensure provision of affordable housing. Loopholes should be eliminated and resale restrictions should be implemented. Particular attention should be paid to the needs of seniors. Again, participants emphasized that development should be tailored to specific places, and should maintain a sense of place rather than being "one size fits all." Environmentally -friendly architecture was encouraged, as was the preservation of cultural and historic resources. While groups had differing opinions on whether or not high rises would be suitable, for the most part they agreed that the look of new development should have an island character rather than being too "mainland". Some groups suggested a height limit on buildings — typically at about 3 stories Infrastructure was again a key concern, and groups emphasized that all infrastructure must be provided in concert with development. Participants noted that at the densities recommended for Scenario D, provision of a county sewer system would be mandatory. Utilities should be placed underground Diverse transportation options should also be provided, including sidewalks, bikeways, and public transit (bus and rail). Groups emphasized the protection of natural and cultural resources. Participants would like to see permanent protection of watershed and flood channels, and they recommended that all development should occur with respect for cultural sites and the local ecology. They would like to see measures for prohibiting infill of open space, greenways, and agricultural lands, so that the open spaces achieved through higher density development may be preserved in perpetuity. Participants also noted that parks and open space must be accessible for all residents. Regarding density, participants suggested that higher densities should be reserved for urban areas, employment centers, and commercial centers. They suggested the use of green buffers to lessen noise. In terms of planning and development, participants emphasized the need for accountability in the county government and planning department. They want to trust that open space will remain as open space; they support adherence to the general plan and oppose the use of variances. Groups noted that planning efforts must account for second homes and part-time residents. Other recommendations touched upon a variety of topics, including: smart growth, keeping development within the growth area, and incorporating settlements as cities in order to gain more local control. Cross -cutting Themes A number of key cross -cutting themes surfaced among the groups' discussions. These themes include: the importance of parks and open space; the need for affordable housing; the need for adequate infrastructure to support development; the interest in mixed use and village -scale development; the protection of natural and cultural resources; the need for interconnectivity and diverse transportation options, and the importance of maintaining Kona identity and quality of life. Regardless of the specific scenario, future development in Kona should account for these key themes. In 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan E3 fact, several groups noted that future development should not be "one size fits all", but that a combination of scenarios might best meet the needs of local communities throughout the region. I 1 1 11/30106 Kona Community Development Plan EA 1� Appendix F: Building Blocks Preference Survey This document provides the results of the Building Blocks Preference Survey conducted as part of the How Do We Grow? Charrette Part 2. Participants were asked to rate a series of images on a scale of one to five, where one is the ' least preferred and five is the most preferred Higher average scores therefore indicate a higher level of preference. 1. Streets without sidewalks and curbs j- " � j` _y-"' _ ,?'xk� ms's• +� � o 1 1 1 1 2. Streets with sidewalks on one side 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan F.1 3. Streets with sidewalks on both sides 11/30/06 Kona Community Development Plan F.1 11130/06 4. Streets with curb cuts for driveways 5. Off-street parking aq 4 �x, L ta vt - T Ip - 6. On -street parking "'a 1, 7141 5. Off-street parking aq 4 �x, L ta vt - T Kona Community Development Plan F.2 6. On -street parking "'a Kona Community Development Plan F.2 a r r� 4.0 2.76 2.74 10. Varied housing lots 11. Uniform setbacks 12. Varied setbacks �� R-" _- `k, ��v- .���yV� t:r3 - •� hoc;-_ �_ {}^3�' .,t � _r 1 `�r SGV iw _ ,��•}� ^. .: it • ff -r 1 _ �'.' a: ., .. _ -'. �� _ � __ ��.-._ -. "',°.`. 11/30106 Kona Community Development Plan F.4 11 11 li 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 11/30/06 2.01 4.15 2.24 13. Uniform housing types 14. Varied housing types 15. Parking in front of buildings Kona Community Development Plan F.5 '' !: i' � l "�' ' fl K} ,1 �� . _ � _ �•rl 5 ���.��� ; `�' 1 -r pt7s ` �♦ _ at t`4 � � �� r_ .- i... '�'`�Y�!`�H' , __ .y- _ Vr2 si,e% 3{, i 15. Parking in front of buildings Kona Community Development Plan F.5 16. Parking behind buildings 4.33 17. On -street parking 11130106 Kona Community Development Plan F.6 1 t I I I I WORKING GROUPS OBJECTIVES & AC77ON3 ACP -visioning & Planning, Ltd. December 12, 2006 1 WORKING GROUPS OBJECTIVES & ACTIONS KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: County of Hawaii Department of Planning Prepared by: ACP Planning & Visioning December 12, 2006 Final Actions Working Group: Agriculture Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan. Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Agriculture Working Group The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections. • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP. In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions A. Implement programs, policies, and land use regulations that protect agricultural lands and preserve farming as a way of life. 1. Implement programs, policies, and land use regulations that recognize the importance of agricultural lands, protect the watershed, and ensure that adequate water resources are available for agriculture 2 Support market research for potential export crops in North and South Kona 3 Offer more effective language assistance to enable non-English speaking farmers to market their crops 4 Establish a Kona agriculture enterprise zone 5 Implement land use policies and provide incentives to encourage agricultural diversification at various elevations 6 Establish buffers for Kona's agricultural lands 7. Reform the Real Property Tax structure in favor of agriculture 8 Protect Kona Coffee Belt as Important Agricultural lands, as delineated in the General Plan. 9 Strengthen the County's Grubbing and Grading ordinance. 10 Strengthen the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District's (KSWCD) presence and involvement, and fund staff positions 11 Develop a program to provide agricultural industry training and education to Hawaii residents, including current farmers training new farmers www acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 1 (I� u Final Actions 12. Develop high -elevation sources of surface water for agricultural uses in Kona. 13. Designate appropriate lands owned by the State of Hawaii as Important Agricultural Lands. B. Create a self-sufficient and sustainable agricultural economy in which more local products are grown for local consumption. 1. Encourage the establishment of processing facilities in order for farmers to increase opportunities to develop value-added products. 2. Establish a permanent location for the Kona Farmers' Market. 3. Require local institutions (e.g., school cafeterias) to purchase locally produced food. 4. Create "crop incubator" projects. 5. Create a centralized data center to serve as a clearinghouse for information on available Kona agricultural products, services, and markets. 6. Establish a "Made on the Hawaii Island" marketing program. 7. Establish a revolving credit fund to support crop research and development. 8. Conduct information campaigns (such as "Farming is Our Future" and "Grow Local Buy Local") in order to market Kona products and educate the public about the importance of supporting agriculture in Kona. 9. Establish a commercial kitchen and drying facility to encourage increased diversity in value-added products. 10. Expand the County's "green waste" nutrients recycling program and purchase a tub grinder for the Kona Green Waste Processing Facility. C. Support small family farms and community gardens through regulations and financial incentives. 1. Require new subdivisions to allocate land for community gardening activities. 2. Establish real property tax breaks for farms based on the farm's gross sales and legally -hired farm labor. 3. Establish a County -funded Production Credit Program. 4. Adopt an ordinance that provides for cluster developments on agricultural lands. D. Enhance agricultural education and research programs. 1. Establish and finance County educational programs to support and promote agriculture in Kona E. Expand agricultural tourism and events in Kona. 1. Create and adopt a county Agricultural Tourism program/policy. 2. Support the establishment an annual Kona Food and Flower festival. 3. Establish and fund an annual Kona "AWA" Festival. F. Protect our agriculture industries. 1. Enhance current and future agricultural opportunities in Kona through training, internships, development of workers' housing, new crop and market support, and full staffing of agricultural positions in the county. 2. Adopt a resolution establishing the "Precautionary Principle" for all agricultural commodities coming into the County, including GMOs. 3. Designate land within the Natural Energy Lab (NELHA) as Important Agricultural Lands to encourage the continued development of the aquaculture industry and the alternative energy industry within the site. 4. Establish a Kona Agriculture Coordinator position serving to enhance agricultural activities and opportunities. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12112106 2 Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective A • Additional Action for Consideration: Get people farming the land through training and programs to encourage acquisition of land for farming ('This action was suggested by the Working Group but never sufficiently clar f ed for inclusion in the final plan ) Objective B • Action 2 County should work with the Farm Bureau to establish a permanent location for the Kona Farmers' Market (Recommended location• County property at intersection of Henry Street and Palam ) • Action 3 Urge approval of state legislation Staff Kona position to coordinate the program • Action 7 Provide financial support for crop development from grants provided by the Research and Development Department Establish a county funded revolving credit fund administered by Research and Development Objective F • Action 2 Precautionary Principle - "Consider it unsafe until proven safe " This is needed due to the past and potentially future negative agricultural impacts upon Hmvari's ecosystem from introduced species and crops EXAMPLE Apple snail has ruined taro crops Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group o Objective A, Action 9. Note on grubbing and grading Grubbing and grading is a topic that surfaces frequently throughout several of the Working Group reports This material should be consolidated and placed in the most appropriate section of the CDP, such as Land Use and Planning or Environment. 1 www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 11 Final Actions Working Group: : Cultural Resources Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan. Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team. By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed. All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups This report represents the final product of the Cultural Resources Working Group The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan. Note from the Consultant Team: The Cultural Resources Working Group submitted its draft actions late in the process Therefore, this material did not undergo the same in-depth review as the work done by the other Working Groups. However, the Working Group submitted a very thorough, detailed account of their actions, and their complete input can be found under Supplemental Information. Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections. • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group. • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions Special note from the Working Group: In the Hawaiian language, Kona means yours and ours, it is a moku (district), not just a place, and it is part of our being In tradition and custom, its great beauty and many resources have been entrusted to the people by Akua (our Creator), and inherent in this trust comes kuleana (responsibility/obligation) to malama (care for) all that gives ke ola (life), so that it may hoomau (be perpetuated) Today, this means to honor what has gone before, be responsible for the present, and plan for the future. In recent times, valued places, traditional customs and vital resources have been nalo wale (lost or significantly diminished) and pilika (trouble) has ensued Although, as in the past, present generations of Hawaiians understand this kuleana is to makaala (be vigilant) and kupaa (be loyal) to that which has transcended time, it has become increasingly difficult. The Working Group feels strongly that the future well-being of all who live and visit this special place is directly dependent on (1) a clear understanding of the relationship between cultural resources and the natural environment and (2) the urgent need to ensure their protection very early in the land use planning process Necessarily, this must involve commitments by citizens who have knowledge of these resources and by government representatives who have a direct www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 1 Final Actions role in the land use planning process itself, including those who charged with proper implementation and enforcement of laws designed to protect these resources. The Working Group also believes the time is now for our community to stand up for this wonderful district -- its past, present, and future, especially as it relates to protecting these irreplaceable and valued cultural resources. Toward that end, we submit the following proposed vision, objectives, and action plans to restore Kona nei (all of Kona) once again as a model of sustainability, and we thank all who contributed to this effort, me ka haahaa a me ka oia io (with all humility and sincerity). WORKING GROUP GOAL / VISION STATEMENT: Malama Ka Aina Kona Nei (Keep Kona, Kona) by honoring and protecting Kona's diverse cultural heritage and resources -- its sense of place. In doing so, we honor and respect the legacy left to us, to control our own destiny, and provide opportunities for present and future generations, all the while ensuring that our state motto: Ua man ke ea o ka aina i ka pono (the life of the land is perpetuated in righteousness) is an integral part of each of our lives and the community in which we live, work, recreate and from which we ultimately will be buried. A. Protect and preserve Kona's valued cultural sites, resources and landscape. 1. Revise, implement, and enforce county policies/laws to prevent loss of resources. 2 Ensure long-term protection/management of watersheds. 3. Ensure long-term protection/management of marine resources. 4. Protect and implement ahupuaa land use model. 5. Protect, re-establish, and preserve use of all public trails. 6. Establish/update inventory of cultural resources by ahupuaa. 7. Protect further loss of mea kanu (native plants). 8. Identify and protect the cultural landscape. 9. Ensure perpetual protection, care, and maintenance of resources. B. Educate and inform residents and visitors alike about Kona's rich cultural diversity, history, values, customs, and traditions. 1. Pursue community education initiatives about cultural traditions, values and rights. 2. Undertake information campaigns to enable better understanding of local culture 3. Develop cultural and community centers for residents and visitors. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 1 f -- -- ---- - -- - - -- - -------- Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective A • Action I- Revise, implement and enforce county policies/laws to prevent loss of resources a Revise County Grubbing & Grading Ordinance ASAP i Identify and protect resources prior to issuance of any permits as All burials, heiau, trails and other significant sites bb Use descendants and independent 3rd parties to evaluate cc Require Cultural Impact Assessment with application ii Coordinate any permitting between agencies as Within County, especially Public Works bb Within State, especially SHPD cc No documents, signatures, no permits/approvals iii Institute educational program for applicants iv No land alteration without prior approval/permit v Require/use%ompensate kamaaina cultural monitors vi Improve accountability ' aa. Require prior documentation/site inspection bb Approvals lost for failure to comply cc Require protections upfront, not after fact dd Establish adequate enforcement ee Increase penalties for non-compliance -commensurate with damage done ff Institute time limits/sunset provisions on land approvals b Revise County Zoning/Subdivision Ordinances ASAP i Ensure resource ID/protection before issuance of any approvals as Require Cultural Impact Assessment with application n Coordinate any permitting between agencies as Within County, especially Public Works bb Within State, especially SHPD cc No documents, signatures, no permits/approvals in Institute educational program for applicants iv Improve accountability as Require prior documentation/site inspection bb Approvals lost for failure to comply cc Require protections upfront, not after fact I dd Establish adequate enforcement ee Increase penalties for non-compliance ff Institute time limits/sunset provisions if no action 11 www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 c. Create County Cultural Resource Commissions Final Actions�. i. One for each moku (district), total of five ii Kamaaina membership from each moku aa. Recognized for knowledge of local resources iii Decision-making authority, not just advisory iv. Look to Maui County model d. Adopt county policies, including administrative rules, as necessary i Strengthen cultural resource protection as Idents and utilize knowledgeable kamaaina h. Recognize inherent and primary value of host culture iii. Ensure compliance with constitutional mandates aa. Public Trust Doctrine - bb Resource protection cc. Hawaiian rights iv. Ensure consistent application of public policies and laws v Require use of traditional Hawaiian places names • Action 2 - Ensure long-term protection/management of watersheds a Identify and coordinate with all land use planning b. Develop long-term management strategies/plans c. Minimize development in watersheds L Prohibit development in flood zones aa. Use for open space, greenways, wilderness parks c Implement policies/improved incentives i Protect mauka forest areas and reserves aa. Encourage conservation ii. Protect integrity of underground aquifers in. Ensure supply sustainability iv. Encourage recycling and reuse v. Encourage/incentivize reforestation as Utilize endemic/indigenous tree species c. Increase coordination and funding with Kona SWCD • Action 3 -Ensure long-term protection/management of marine resources a Develop policies to address/minimize non point source pollution 1. Address impacts of impermeable surfaces 2. Minimize impacts of chemical runoff b. Develop policies to protect water quality and uphold standards b. Protect shoreline against further encroachment and development i Increase shoreline setbacks, greater in low-lying areas h Permit no further development on the makai side of Alii Drive c. Require all coastal development to monitor/protect water quality d. Ensure open public access to all shoreline areas • Action 4- Protect/implement ahupuaa land use model www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 4 1 Ia. Protect and restore iwi aina (boundary walls) • Action 9 - Ensure perpetual protection, care and maintenance of resources a Require culturally appropriate buffers b Use preservation easements/transfer of development rights www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan Final Actions 12/12/06 5 i Implement ordinance to protect/re-establish walls b Establish coordinated roadway signage program for each c Utilize mauka-makai roadway connections to preserve landforms d Restrict large-scale land alteration • Action S - Protect, re-establish and preserve use of all public trails a Identify all public trails on land use maps i Obtain information from knowledgeable kamaaina b Coordinate and establish an inventory with Na Ala Hele c Keep trails open for traditional and customary practice and use c Establish policies and programs for perpetual care and maintenance • Action 6 - Establish/update inventory/register of cultural resources by ahupuaa a Establish initiatives to preserve more Kona oral histories ASAP b Assemble/collate existing inventories (from Hawaiian perspective) • Action 7 - Protect further loss of mea kanu (native plants) a Coordinate efforts with other agencies i Implement policies to protect critical habitat areas b Encourage propagation and use of endemic species i Develop incentives u Support and encourage educational programs ui Require percentage use in all projects ry Empower County Aborist Committee to assist • Action 8 - Identify and protect the cultural landscape a Consider the psychographics of aina (land) b Minimize development impacts on aina aa. Maintain low building heights bb Restrict large-scale grading to minimize landform alteration c Encourage preservation of open space d Identify and protect scenic view planes, corridors and special places e Ensure and protect access to natural areas, both mauka and makai f Continue to promote and implement heritage corridors g Provide incentives so kamaaina can live and maintain their lands here h Protect rural, small town, country character/atmosphere aa. Promote green infrastructure, prevent urban sprawl bb Promote safe living environment cc Maintain warmth and friendliness of community i Promote respect for one another and our diversity Restore quality of life, enforce laws • Action 9 - Ensure perpetual protection, care and maintenance of resources a Require culturally appropriate buffers b Use preservation easements/transfer of development rights www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan Final Actions 12/12/06 5 Final Actions c. Establish public/private funding mechanisms to implement Objective B • Action 1 -Pursue community education initiatives about cultural traditions, values and rights. a Utilize local community resources to develop such initiatives b. Promote use of traditional place names c. Encourage and promote the practice traditional values d Use native plants more • Action 2 - Undertake information campaigns to enable better understanding of local culture a Utilize traditional and customary protocol b. Involve knowledgeable kamaaina and kumu (teachers) c. Promote use of Hawaiian language in combination with English d. Develop ahupuaa and site signage, as appropriate e. Encourage and fund more cultural festivals in Kona f. Enhance visitors understanding and experience • Action 3 -Develop cultural and community centers for residents and visitors a. Involve kupuna (elders) and other knowledgeable kamaaina b. Explore/supportfunding for construction and maintenance Some Final Quotes: "In any culturally sensitive discussion on land use in Hawaii, one must understand that Hawaiian culture evolved in close partnership with its natural environment Thus, Hawaiian culture does not have a clear dividing line of where culture ends and nature begins In a traditional Hawaiian context, nature and culture are one and the same, there is no division between the two " (Kepa Maly, 2001) "The historic preservation and cultural value of archaeological sites is more than just their excavation or information potential, and archaeologists should recognize that Hawaiian sites are cultural resources with spiritual and heritage values " (Buddy Neller, 1998) "Preserving Hawaii's historic buildings, landscapes and communities is more than a feel good exercise, more than an economic development strategy and ore than a marketing approach for the tourism industry. It is central to who we are as a society and the value that we place on the people, paces and events that shaped our present communities. " (Linda Delaney, 1990) "It is important for contemporary readers to know that in the Hawaiian mind all aspects of the land—all natural and cultural resources are interrelated, and that all are culturally significant" (Kepa Maly, 2001) www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 6 Final Actions Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group o Objective A - Protect and preserve Kona's valued cultural sites, resources and landscape. Many of the actions found under this objective can be incorporated into Environment portion of the CDP. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development ment Plan 12/12/06 7 Final Actions WorkingGroup: p Energy Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan. Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team. By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Energy Working Group. The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP. In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions WORKING GROUP GOAL: Establish Kona District as a model for sustainability and energy self- sufficiency in Hawaii County. A. Diversify energy sources beyond fossil fuels, and increase the amount of energy generated through alternative and renewable sources. I Research the opportunities to convert County facility energy sources to solar, landfill gas, and/or methane. 2. Encourage the Department of Water Supply to convert to renewable energy sources, such as in-line Hydro -generation and solar energy. 3 Encourage the development of ocean power from power buoys 4. Encourage the Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) to continue the development of alternative energy products and energy storage systems. B. Support additional education, research & development related to energy technologies. I Prepare an annual energy report to evaluate residential and commercial energy consumption in Kona www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 1 Final Actions 2. Develop an education program to inform various consumer classes about alternative energy opportunities. C. Encourage more energy-efficient transportation. 1. Mandate the gradual transition of all public and private transportation fleets to hybrid/alternative fuels. 2. Expand public transportation systems and park and ride programs. 3. Dedicate a percentage of County Fair Share Assessments or Impact Fees to be invested to expand non- vehicular transportation alternatives such as bicycle lanes, public buses, bus stops, etc. 4. Implement land use policies that lead to a decrease in vehicular travel. 5. Increase the number of alternative refueling stations. D. Identify methods for reducing energy costs. 1. Implement State Energy Bill requiring that priority is given to energy efficient projects, i.e. LEED, Energy Star, Green Globes. E. Promote energy conservation strategies throughout Kona. 1. Support efforts at the Public Utilities Commission (PUC) to expand and increase the effectiveness of energy efficiency programs. 2. Expand the scope of utility energy rebate programs. 3. Require energy efficiency certification for the issuance of all new building permits (i e., LEED, Energy Star, Green Globes), and provide incentives to retrofit existing buildings 4 Create Energy Zone in Kona to be used for renewable energy or bio -crops 5. Update the Model Energy Code (MEC) to elevate standards for new residential and commercial development www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan - 12/12/06 2 u 1� C] 11 11 I t Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions Objective A • Action 4 Encourage the State of Hawaii to continue to support the Natural Energy Lab of Hawaii Authority's (NELHA) development of alternative energy products and distribute energy resources combined with energy storage systems to increase energy delivery efficiencies Objective C • Action] Mandate the transition of all public transportation fleets and encourage the transition of private fleets to hybrid/alternative fuels at 10% per year by 2016 through combination of regulation and incentives Objective E • Action 5 Update Model Energy Code (MEC) to include. • Update MEC for commercial and residential development in Kona • Expand residential energy code to include all new residential construction in Kona • Residential energy code in Kona should follow ASHRAE 19 1 —1999 standards and should include radiative barriers or R-19 equivalent in roofs and R -I1 in walls • Commercial energy code in Kona should follow ASHRAE 90 1— 2004 standards • Upon completion of DBEDT's study of a Tropical Energy Code, the County should evaluate the code for adoption and continue studies of new energy codes for possible adoption on an ongoing basis Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o None identified for Energy at this time. t i7 www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 r Final Actions Working Group: : Environment Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006 Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team. By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Environment Working Group The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP. In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group Environment objectives and actions are organized under three subheadings. Environmental Quality, Natural Resources and Shoreline, and Natural Beauty • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions Environmental Quality A. Protect air and water quality. 1 Establish stringent industrial and agricultural emissions standards for the County of Hawaii, which exceed federal and state standards 2. Establish and enforce stringent standards for vehicle emissions 3. Install desalination plants for brackish water wells for drinking water desalination 4 Mandate the use of environmentally sound pesticide and herbicide alternatives 5 Encourage the use of catchment systems, even where county water is supplied / delivered 6 Require the use of best management practices to prevent pollution and conserve water and soil resources. 7. Create legislation that permits and encourages private gray -water recycling (currently not allowed by state law.) 8 Review, clarify, and simplify permitting processes for the use of composting toilets, and provide incentives to encourage their use in private homes 9 Enforce existing laws governing the protection of air and water quality 10 Require cluster septic systems for smaller subdivisions, (e g five homes) Www acp-planning com Kona Community Development ment Plan 12/12/06 1 L� Final Actions 11. Require the use of wastewater treatment systems for larger subdivisions, (e.g. 150+ homes). 12. Develop a Kona drainage system plan to minimize non -point source pollution, including alternatives to drywells. 13. Discontinue the use of cesspools in new building permits in Kona 14 Map existing sewer and septic systems and implement a monitoring program for all public and private systems 15. Broaden the authority, staffing, and funding of the County Department of Environmental Management to oversee environmental quality issues. 16. Phase out the use of phosphate -containing detergents. 17. Develop and implement a comprehensive ground water testing and monitoring program in Kona. 18. Develop a program for resorts to use non -potable water for irrigation purposes. B. Institute programs and strategies to promote sustainable waste management. 1. Adopt green procurement/purchasing practices at the County level, including minimum packaging standards. 2. Require shipping companies that deliver mainland products to the island to use the empty containers to transport recyclables off the island 3. Require that biodegradable materials be used for bulk goods packaging. 4. Require county/state parks and public places to provide separate containers for recyclables. 5. Mandate the immediate implementation of a grease trap interceptor ordinance. 6. Develop a composting facility in Pu'uanahulu to improve green waste mulching, control invasive plant species, and reduce the amount of waste going to landfills 7. Develop a bio -fuel production facility to process used cooking oil, fats, greases, and bio -solids. 8. Expand existing county impound yard(s) for abandoned vehicles 9. Create a weekend pilot protect in Kona to pick up abandoned cars. 10. Broaden the authority, staffing, and funding of the County Department of Environmental Management to oversee waste management issues on a regional and county basis. C. Promote recycling and expand recycling programs. 1. Amend subdivision codes to require subdivisions of 10 residences or more to provide curbside trash and recycling pick up. 2. Remediate the Kealakehe solid waste baseyard facility and convert it into a recycling processing center 3. Require proof of proper disposal for all demolitions. 4. Adopt a resolution requiring County government to use 100% recycled paper. 5. Develop a landfill diversion program to collect used non -vehicle batteries. 6. Create a Kona Recycling Coordinator position. 7. Establish a hotel tax to provide funding for Kona's recycling program. 8. Broaden the authority, staffing, and funding of the County Department of Environmental Management to oversee recycling issues on a regional and county basis D. Expand and enhance watershed management and protection efforts. 1. Develop a Kona Watershed Management Plan. 2. Create Kona Watershed Advisory Group(s). 3. Use ahupua`a system concepts as a basis for watershed management along waterways, in order to increase awareness of responsibility to neighbors (ohana), and to improve water quality mauka to makai. 4 Assign a county engineer to Kona to focus on watershed management and development. Www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 Final Actions 5. Create a Kona Water Roundtable group of resource people (similar to Waimea). 6 Overhaul the County Board of Water Supply in order to make it more accountable to the public. 7. Broaden the authority, staffing, and funding of the County Department of Environmental Management to oversee watershed management and protection efforts on a regional and county basis E. Ensure rigorous enforcement of environmental regulations. 1. Create a position or entity to oversee and monitor enforcement within the County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management for the District of Kona 2. Create a system of fines/penalties for violations. Penalties and fines should be sufficiently high to be a major deterrent, and should be strictly enforced by the County 3 Create incentives to encourage developers to work with existing land contours and natural terrain in order to minimize grading. 4. Update and strengthen the current grubbing and grading regulations 5. Initiate revenue generation necessary to provide adequate staffing and resources to ensure enforcement and oversight of standards. 6. Collect data, establish a baseline, and monitor environmental quality on an ongoing basis 7 Review, update, and enforce the County sound ordinance 8. Establish community-based monitoring and enforcement associations to work with local authorities (e.g, "WEC Protects") 9 Broaden the authority, staffing, and funding of the County Department of Environmental Management to oversee the enforcement of environmental regulations on a regional and county basis F. Develop information campaigns and educational programs to teach residents, visitors, and students about environmental issues in Kona, and incorporate this wisdom into County plans. 1. A new County Department of Environmental Management (with a newly expanded scope of responsibilities beyond wastewater and solid waste management), will work in conjunction with nonprofit and community groups on comprehensive education programs 2 Recognize and utilize long-time stewards of the land — generational ohanas, kupunas, and residents — as resources and sources of information for the public and visitors to County areas 3 Create and place interpretive, informational signs that teach and provide instructions for proper use of County resources and public spaces 4. Establish budgetary line items to fund comprehensive environmental education programs for all schoolchildren, and facilitate opportunities for them to become directly involved in field projects (e g , reforestation and adopt -a -beach) 5 Develop partnerships with private enterprises for developing informational programs 6 Create an outreach program for new residents to foster and share environmental consciousness 7. Identify and evaluate existing educational programs in order to support and enhance what is working, e g Coast Watch, Quest 8 Use the building permit process as an avenue for distributing educational materials related to local environmental issues (e g , use of soil and water conservation techniques, approved recycling and waste management practices, terrain protection, energy conservation techniques, protection and planting of native species, etc.) 9. Broaden the authority, staffing, and funding of the County Department of Environmental Management to oversee the development of information campaigns and educational programs on a regional and county basis Www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions Natural Resources and Shoreline G. Ensure the protection of Kona's shoreline, reef, and ocean waters. 1. Establish a minimum shoreline setback for all structures, and uphold larger setbacks if there is an existing precedent, or if a larger setback is necessary to protect vulnerable natural features. (Recommended 1000 - foot minimum). 2. Levy surtax on all products identified as environmentally harmful. 3. Establish procedures for developing gray water re -use systems, and provide incentives for using gray water. 4. Create and utilize County of Hawaii Best Management Practices. 5. Prohibit cigarette smoking at shorelines at public beach parks. 6. Require snorkel concessionaires to offer information and education on protecting the reef environment. 7. Develop a program to monitor, evaluate, and mitigate non -point source pollution and to monitor the effects of submarine groundwater discharge and seepage using land-based test wells. 8. Adopt a Critical Areas Ordinance to ensure that each permitted development will not cause a net loss of ecological function. 9. Enforce the "Precautionary Principle" in the preparation of Environmental Assessments and Environmental Impact Statements. 10. Require all Environmental Assessments (EA) and Environmental Impact Statements (EIS) to be prepared by independent reviewers and made publicly accessible on the Internet. 11. Revise codes so that entitlements that have been granted but not acted upon, such as variances and Special Management Area permits, shall be terminated when property is sold. 12 Develop standardized permit applications and environmental report guidelines for new developments in Kona, with specific requirements for development in the coastal zone. 13. Develop a County coastal monitoring program using Hawaii Department of Health water quality standards to monitor long-term changes in water quality. 14. Establish a "Developers' checklist" that outlines monitoring requirements for developers, in order to help maintain environmental integrity during development projects. 15. Undertake an aggressive campaign to educate the public and the development community about pollution prevention practices and environmentally friendly fertilizing techniques. 16. Develop a program to map, monitor, manage, and protect anchialine ponds along the Kona Coast, and implement a "no net loss" policy countywide. 17. Require coastal sampling and ongoing monitoring for all development permits in the coastal zone. 18. Conduct a study to determine the coastal and reef impacts of the proposed Honokohau Harbor expansion. H. Monitor and protect native plant and animal species, and expand efforts to eradicate alien species. 1. Encourage the use of native plan species in landscaping, as described in the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce "Use of Native Species" program. 2. Encourage the use of compost rather than mulch in order to reduce viable seeds in invasive species. 3. Re -vegetate disturbed areas with native plants when possible. 4. Require certification of nurseries countywide, and require product certifications for inter- and intra- island shipments. 5. Require the identification of endangered and rare species prior to issuing grubbing and grading permits for all lots 6. Establish / update the county Tree Ordinance to set parameters for tree removal Www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 1212106 4 u w 1 1 t 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 if 1 1 n Final Actions Natural Beauty I. Undertake measures to preserve open space. 1. Adopt a Kona Open Space Plan J. Identify areas of "special natural beauty", and protect these areas through incentives and land use regulations. 1. Adopt and utilize a scenic overlay zoning program to preserve areas of special natural beauty 2. Develop and utilize TDRs, PDRs, "bundle of rights" programs to protect areas of natural beauty. K. Establish and protect scenic and heritage corridors. 1 Identify and preserve scenic corridors 2. Continue the existing heritage corridor program in mauka Kona, and use this as a model for similar programs countywide L. Minimize the visual impacts of development on the natural landscape. 1 Encourage the use of landscaping for visual screening 2 Limit grading and other forms of land alteration In areas of natural beauty, as defined in the General Plan and the KCDP. 3 Review and update the county zoning code building height restrictions for optimal development 4 Encourage placement of utilities to minimize visual impacts, to include, but not limited to, placing lines underground Www acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 5 Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective B • Action 2: This action refers to recyclables, not trash Transport of recyclables should be done at the shipping companies' own expense • Action 9: Neighborhood Watch could assist with this pilot project. Objective C • Action 3: Department of Environmental Management shall require proof of proper disposal for all demolitions. Implementation: Create an ordinance to require a deposit be paid for demolitions, to be - returned after proof of proper disposal. At time of demolition permit approval, deposit fee equal to landfill tipping fee to be paid based on standard estimates of debris to be generated. Standard estimates of debris to be laid out in Department of Environmental Management Administrative Rules When appropriate invoices or bills are submitted showing proof of alternate disposal, deposit to be returned in full Half of deposit will be returned for 50% or more alternate disposal, with proof. (Ex. 60% alternate disposal = 112 of their deposit returned) • Action S: To reduce toxic waste and its eventual entry into the water table, develop a landfill diversion program to collect used non -vehicle batteries (schools, nonprofits could assist). Objective F • Action 3. When possible these signs should include place names and cultural and historical information • Action 8. The granting of any building permit should be contingent on the acknowledgment and signed consent by the applicant of these materials. Objective G • Action I • Require a minimum 1000 foot (one thousand foot) shoreline setback for all Kona shoreline structures Shoreline setbacks may exceed 1000 feet for County approval of new structures in order to a Protect existing natural features such as anchialine ponds. b Uphold larger setbacks based on an existing precedent. c Actual rates of erosion and subsidize determined by regional erosion study along the coastline (P.A S H. — Supreme Court ruling Subsidize studies by experts: Chip Fletcher or Sea Grant student referred by Sara Peck who is currently working with Maui). (Non point Source Pollution (Chuck's Statistics) An independent, well funded study is needed) • Action 6. Funding can come from existing concessionaire's permit fees. • Action 8 • Adapt the principles of the "WEC Checklist for Reviewing Development Regulations to Protect Fish and Wildlife Habitat", source, Washington [state] Environmental Council Habitat Protection Tool Kit • Action 10 Developer permit fees can supply funding for this action. Www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 6 1 J r 1 1 1 1 1 f 1 J �ll I IF Ir -� ILJ Final Actions • Action 11: Entitlements include variances, SMAS, permits, EAs, and EIAs • Much of the language within following Actions was taken from A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data or Developments in West Hawai 'i, a findings report of a study the Marine Science Department of University of Hawaii conducted on behalf of the County of Hawaii, April 2006 (8-21-06) The WG wishes to keep the text as it appears in that report However, for the purpose of the CDP the Actions above have been simplified. All of the original text is captured below Action 12 o County shall "develop standardized permit application and environmental report guidelines These new guidelines should be specific to requirements/monitoring for new developments" in Kona (see details in report, pg 65, 66 and 67 of A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data for Developments in West Hawai'i) o "As a requirement of all permits submitted for developments in the coastal zone, complete characterization of conditions should be required in adjacent and potentially impacted areas " Pg 65 of A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data for Developments in West Hawaii o Hawaii County needs to develop a manual of concise guidelines for the environmental report to provide each developer prior to permit application Pg 65 of A Review of Coastal Monitorin Data for Developments in West Hawai 'i Action 13 o Develop a Hawai'i County coastal monitoring program using HDOH water quality standards to monitor long-term changes in water quality to include (but not limited to) monitoring of the following parameters* water quality, benthic substrate, biological parameters, microbiological parameters, oceanographic parameters, sediments, and anehialine ponds (All resorts would pay into fund established for this program) Pg. 65 of A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data for Developments in West Hawai'i o Hawaii County shall develop a manual of concise guidelines for monitoring all development in the coastal zone Monitoring shall minimally include a parameters outlined in the "Monitoring Protocol Guidelines ", provided by the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force in 1992 These Guidelines shall be updated as needed Pg 66 of A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data for Developments in West Hawai'i Action 14 o Hawaii County needs to develop a checklist of requirements for monitoring for developers, to ensure that all of the specified parameters are measured during monitoring of projects, (including GIS coordinates) Pg 66 of A Review of Coastal Monitoring Data for Developments in West Hawai'i • Action 15 The Department of Environmental Management should develop the campaign Funding for this program should come from additional permit fees • Action 16 The County Department of Environmental Management should design and implement the program • Action 18 Permit Honokohau Harbor expansion only after conducting study to determine the impacts of increased fresh water flow Approval for Harbor expansion must be also based on the condition that no additional alteration of the shoreline would occur (to prevent destruction of the reefl. Www acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 7 Final Actions • Additional Action for Consideration: Amend County Code to establish "sunshine limits" on permits such as variances, SMA 's, permits, EA 's, and EIA 's Objective H • Action 6. Ordinance should include the following conditions: i. No cuttings of any trees) until inspected, or, if going to cut, apply for review and approval, or create mechanism to enforce existing laws we have. Have inspection outsourced to outside community groups, i.e., Kona Outdoor Circle, Kona Historical Society. ii. Survey and maintain findings of review required in (i) keeping track of our endangered trees and vegetation. ii:. Establish thresholds for limits of removal. iv. Review grubbing and grading permit fees, adjust if low, and have fines for punitive violations. Deleted Objective At one point, the following objective was part of the Working Group's preliminary action plan. However, since no clear actions were developed by the Working Group to address this objective, it has been removed from the final plan It is included here for reference. In most cases the themes found in these additional objectives are adequately captured in the remaining work done by this, as well as other Working Groups. • Ensure public access to natural areas. Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan. Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o Objective E, Action 4 and Objective H, Action 5. Note on grubbing and grading. Grubbing and grading is a topic that surfaces frequently throughout several of the Working Group reports. This material should be consolidated and placed in the most appropriate section of the CDP, such as Land Use and Planning or Environment. o General note- This report should be carefully reviewed and compared to the output of the Flooding and Natural Hazards Working Group, in order to eliminate any policy inconsistencies and consolidate actions where necessary. Www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 8 1 Final Actions Working Group: Public Facilities and Programs Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan, Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team. By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed. All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups This report represents the final product of the Public Facilities and Programs Working Group The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group. • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions Special Note from the Working Group: The Public Facilities and Programs Working Group consists primarily of people working in the social services industry Therefore, facilities and services such as police and fire still need to be addressed The Working Group feels strongly that the KCDP should include an independent section on social issues / community services, in addition to the current Public Facilities element The central recommendation of the Working Group is the development of integrated Community Services Facilities in North and South Kona that meet the needs of all ages in order to reduce existing fragmentation of public services (See B 1) The development of such facilities will serve to address many of the Objectives below. WORKING GROUP GOAL: Strive to build a safer community for Kona. A. Ensure the ongoing maintenance of all public facilities. 1 Hire local contractors to maintain parks and public facilities in remote areas, such as Miolii 2 Amend the current county Adopt -A -Park program to provide for more comprehensive responsibility and allow the adopters to oversee all park maintenance and operations 3 Maintain Kona's Headstart facilities. 4 Allocate a share of impact fees for the maintenance of public facilities www.acp-planning com Kona CommunityDevelopment Pian 12/12/06 P 1 C. Provide for a variety of recreational and sporting facilities. I 1. Adopt an impact fee ordinance to provide increased funding for new recreational and sporting facilities in Kona 2. Improve Kona's harbors and public boating facilities. D. Create a Kona performing arts center. 1. Develop a performing arts center to be part of the new County Civic Center. This Center should include room for workshops and classrooms. 2. Encourage the State of Hawaii to develop a performing arts center at Kealakehe High School E. Provide for more public restrooms. 1. Increase outside lighting at public restrooms. 2. Open existing public restrooms that are currently closed (e.g. Kainaliu), and provide for more public restrooms in strategic locations (e.g. Hale Halewai, pier in Kailua). F. Improve police and fire protection to enhance public safety throughout Kona. 1. Increase "Aloha Patrol" in Kailua. 2. Expand the mobile Neighborhood Watch program in Kona. 3. Develop an internship program for high school students wishing to patrol Kailua as guides. 4. Provide students with school credits to participate in Kona's Neighborhood Watch Programs. 5. Increase salaries and benefits for Kona's police officers. G. Ensure adequate health care facilities and services to meet the needs of all residents. [Working Group notes that health care should be top priority for County government.] 1. Expand partnerships among healthcare providers and improve coordination and integration of services. 2. Develop incentives and provide suitable housing opportunities in order to recruit and retain health care professionals in Kona. 1 I www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 1 >ir 5. Final Actions Create a program in Kona in which a set percent of real estate closing costs will be used for public facilities maintenance. 6. Pursue opportunities for public/private partnerships intended to increase ongoing maintenance of public facilities. 7. Develop a strategic management plan for upgrading facilities at Kahaluu Beach Park and Hale Halawai. B. Provide community centers that meet the needs of residents of all ages, including youth, teens, people with disabilities, and seniors. 1. Develop integrated Community Services Facilities in North and South Kona that meet the needs of all ages and reduce existing fragmentation of public services. [*Note: this is the priority recommendation of the Working Group. Please see Supplemental Information for further details.] 2. Secure location and funding for the Elderly Services Center in Kailua-Kona. 3. Expand childcare programs and facilities in Kona. 4. Provide for more community centers, cultural centers, and public spaces for community gatherings. C. Provide for a variety of recreational and sporting facilities. I 1. Adopt an impact fee ordinance to provide increased funding for new recreational and sporting facilities in Kona 2. Improve Kona's harbors and public boating facilities. D. Create a Kona performing arts center. 1. Develop a performing arts center to be part of the new County Civic Center. This Center should include room for workshops and classrooms. 2. Encourage the State of Hawaii to develop a performing arts center at Kealakehe High School E. Provide for more public restrooms. 1. Increase outside lighting at public restrooms. 2. Open existing public restrooms that are currently closed (e.g. Kainaliu), and provide for more public restrooms in strategic locations (e.g. Hale Halewai, pier in Kailua). F. Improve police and fire protection to enhance public safety throughout Kona. 1. Increase "Aloha Patrol" in Kailua. 2. Expand the mobile Neighborhood Watch program in Kona. 3. Develop an internship program for high school students wishing to patrol Kailua as guides. 4. Provide students with school credits to participate in Kona's Neighborhood Watch Programs. 5. Increase salaries and benefits for Kona's police officers. G. Ensure adequate health care facilities and services to meet the needs of all residents. [Working Group notes that health care should be top priority for County government.] 1. Expand partnerships among healthcare providers and improve coordination and integration of services. 2. Develop incentives and provide suitable housing opportunities in order to recruit and retain health care professionals in Kona. 1 I www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 1 J. Improve special needs and assisted living services, including programs for elderly, disabled, and homeless persons. 1. Provide demand -response transportation (e g. small vans) for the elderly, youth, and disabled 2 Expand partnerships among providers and improve coordination and integration of services for residents with disabilities or special needs 3. Establish shelters for the homeless, people with disabilities, runaway youth, and abused or neglected elders K. Develop policies to enhance social infrastructure in Kona. 1 Create an additional element within Kona CDP to address social infrastructure 2 Adopt an ordinance to apply impact fees to social infrastructure (as described in Objectives A through J) F� www.acp-planning com �1, Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions H. Implement programs and policies to reduce illegal drug use and provide drug and alcohol treatment services. 1 Increase transportation options, especially small vans, in order to reduce rural isolation and increase access to programs, jobs, and activities. 2 Increase demand -response transportation through the use of small vans in order to increase accessibility to drug and alcohol treatment and programs. 3 Increase the number of therapeutic living programs and facilities. 4. Develop a de-tox program in Kona. 5 Establish a youth intake center to provide more immediate intervention for youth to Kona. 6. Expand partnerships among substance abuse treatment providers and improve coordination and integration of services I. Increase the number of educational facilities and ensure high-quality educational opportunities, including more after-school programs. 1. Support the development and ongoing operation of charter schools, "continuation schools," and alternative high schools J. Improve special needs and assisted living services, including programs for elderly, disabled, and homeless persons. 1. Provide demand -response transportation (e g. small vans) for the elderly, youth, and disabled 2 Expand partnerships among providers and improve coordination and integration of services for residents with disabilities or special needs 3. Establish shelters for the homeless, people with disabilities, runaway youth, and abused or neglected elders K. Develop policies to enhance social infrastructure in Kona. 1 Create an additional element within Kona CDP to address social infrastructure 2 Adopt an ordinance to apply impact fees to social infrastructure (as described in Objectives A through J) F� www.acp-planning com �1, Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective B Action 1: The Working Group strongly supports the need for the development of integrated Community Services Facilities in North and South Kona that meet the needs of all ages in order to reduce existing fragmentation of public services. The WG explained that the development of such facilities would serve to address many of the WG Objectives. Important elements are: o Establish programs to encourage stakeholder involvement in the planning, design, operation, and maintenance of community centers. o Create Kona Community Services Coordinator positron o Create Kona Council for Health and Community Services. o Build these facilities for co -location of community services, including education and the arts. These facilities need to be located in a number of locations within the Kona District Suggested locations are: Costco area of North Kona, Wakefield Gardens in South Kona, Kainaliu town o Access for disabled must be part of Community Services Facility design. o Seeks a combination of pubhc and private funding sources to build maintain, and services there Facilities such as providing incentives for developers; County infrastructure financing, Impact revenue, creation of a real estate re -sale fund to generate revenue. Objective F • Action]: Aloha Patrol is a volunteer program where people walk Kailua-Kona area to provide assistance and directions for visitors and deter crime Contact Alice Daniels, Community Justice Center) • Action 3 • Contact school "Interact Club ". Objective H • Action 1: This action pertains to the objective because remote rural areas isolate communities, leaving people more vulnerable to drug and alcohol abuse. • Additional Action for Consideration: Support legislative change that will amend "custody of minors " laws. ('Phis action was suggested by the Working Group but never sufficiently clarified for inclusion in the final plan) Objective I • Additional Action for Consideration: Create "Parents and Kids " program. (This action was suggested by the Working Group but never sufficiently clarified for inclusion in the final plan.) Re Assigned Objectives At one point the following objectives were part of the Working Group's preliminary action plan However, no clear actions were developed by the Working Group to address these objectives. These objectives have been reassigned as actions to support other objectives within this report. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 4 Final Actions • Provide for more community centers, cultural centers, and public spaces for community gatherings. (Objective B, Action 4) • Improve Kona's harbors and public boating facilities. (Objective C, Action 2) • Create additional element within KCDP to address social infrastructure. (Objective K, Action 1) • Adopt an ordinance to apply impact fees to social infrastructure as described in Objectives and Actions A through M. (Objective K, Action 2) Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group o Objective C - Provide for a variety of recreational and sporting facilities. This objective and associated actions could be integrated into the Recreation portion of the CDP. 1 Iwww acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 6 Final Actions Working p g Groups: Flooding and Natural Hazards ! Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan. Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006 Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team. By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Flooding and Natural Hazards Working Group The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan. Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group. • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions A. Identify, map, and effectively manage and protect floodways in Kona. 1 Map all waterways and related features in North and South Kona, including streams, floodways, watersheds, historic runs, lava tubes, and sheet flows. 2 Map, manage, and protect watersheds and floodways using the ahupua'a model (Heinalolt, Wa►aha, Holuloa Horse Shoe Bend, Kaumalumalu, Hokukanu, Kaawaloa, etc ) 3 Create a position within the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District to coordinate mapping of yearly flood damage, and create a database working with the county to reflect the history of flood occurrences 4 Use the 100 -year flood standard when mapping floodways B. Pursue growth management strategies and protocols for existing and future development that preserve the region's watersheds and restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas. 1. Encourage grassroots activities and committees to help protect the region's watersheds 2. Identify federal, state, and county sources to fund watershed needs specific to North and South Kona 3 Develop, codify, adopt and encourage a series of Best Management Practices (BMPs) that account for Kona's unique geography and landscapes. www acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 1 Final Actions 4. Establish and enforce rigorous guidelines for grading and grubbing and storm water retention procedures. Review and update all relevant ordinances. 5. Revise and codify the Storm Drainage Master Plan for Hawaii County with specific attention to special needs areas in North and South Kona. 6. Provide annual incentives to private property owners who maintain the watershed and keep floodways clear. 7. Create new land use definitions for Kona (e.g. Watersheds, Floodways, Coastal Setbacks, etc.) 8. With community input, develop recommended ratios of open space to developed land in Kona District. 9. Establish a Transfer of Development Rights Program and tax credits in order to provide a mechanism for protecting environmentally sensitive areas. 10. Establish mitigation processes for silt, agricultural chemicals, waste, and sewage to protect fresh and salt water quality. 11. Encourage the County to adopt standards consistent with state law regarding the mitigation of run-off from development. 12. Establish incentives to encourage the use of permeable surfaces for driveways, parking lots, and road shoulders in line with NEMO guidelines (Non -point Education for Municipal Officials). 13. Implement standardized monitoring protocols (including the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program and the National Park Service protocols) in order to monitor nearshore coastal waters, groundwater quality, and non point source pollution. 14. Develop water quality and pollution mitigation standards that meet or exceed EPA standards. 15. As a means of reducing runoff, create incentives for the development of roof catchment systems to collect water for irrigation use. 16. Maximize the retention of existing trees and vegetation in new development projects. 17. Require developers to use the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program Monitoring Protocols Guidelines. C. Complete disaster plans that address a variety of potential natural hazards, including hurricanes, earthquakes, volcanic eruptions, tsunamis, landslides, etc. 1. Define terms of reference for rainfall using the extremes with potential to cause the most environmental damage. Aquifer volumes will be based on the driest recorded years; flood zones will be based upon the heaviest rainfall years recorded. 2. Prohibit development and land alteration within 100 -year flood zones. 3. Develop guidelines that restrict the redevelopment of structures destroyed by high surf or tsunami. 4. Require high surf, flood, and tsunami hazard disclosure for all relevant property sales; educate realtors accordingly. 5. Upgrade evacuation shelters to withstand Category 3 winds (111-130 miles per hour) 6. Identify and improve sections of roads prone to flooding. 7. Review and update North and South Kona's Civil Defense Plans. 8. Educate neighborhood and community networks on disaster response procedures, including emergency first responder education 9. Create community-based disaster response networks and train them to respond to natural disasters. (Include emergency first responder education.) D. Undertake initiatives to educate public officials about the importance of flood control, hazard mitigation planning, and disaster preparedness. 1. Encourage dialogue between public officials and citizens, and establish ongoing public education programs related to flooding and natural hazards. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12112106 1 u t 1 [7 Final Actions E. Adopt Grubbing and Grading Policies that include BMPs. 1. Identify Best Management Practices for grubbing and grading for the unique geological and topographical aspects of North and South Kona, and ensure rigorous enforcement of regulations. 2. Make education and publications about the BMPs available to the public, contractors and equipment operators 3. Set fees and fines high enough to provide the county with funding for more enforcement positions. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Supplemental Information I� Final Actions I This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective A • Action 1: Tools to use for mapping should include LIDAR (Light Detection and Ranging) and interviewing local long time residents. Tools should include 2 foot topographic maps for both North and South Kona from the most mauka edge of watershed to the sea Objective B • Action 4: Licensed heavy equipment operators will be provided with instructions related to storm water retention. Operators and their employers found not licensed or operating on property lacking a valid grubbing/grading permit will be fined and/or equipment impounded • Action 13: Original language is as follows. Hawaii County must contract the development of monitoring standards that include the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Program Monitoring Protocol Guidelines and the National Park Service protocols including sediment collection and analysis A baseline data set will be established from which to compare future data. [Nearshore coastal water as well as ground water quality in order to evaluate management of non point source pollution.] Objective D Objective E Additional Action for Consideration: Using NEMO-type resources, create seminars to develop mitigation/issues pertinent to Hawaii Island's disasters. (This action was suggested by the Working Group but never sufficiently clarified for inclusion in the final plan ) Action 1: Grubbing and Grading Enforcement should entail - o Complete the Grubbing and Grading Ordnance Revision o Increase Grubbing and Grading fees to levels equivalent to other states o Increase fines Align fines to the number of acres grubbed and/or environmental damage o Fines will be levied on the company and/or owner of the equipment and the land owner o Equipment will be impounded in addition to fines o Fees and fines will be high enough to provide the county with funding for more enforcement positions Deleted Objectives At one point, the following objectives were part of the Working Group's preliminary action plan However, since no clear actions were developed by the Working Group to address these objectives, they have been removed from the final plan. They are included here for reference. In most cases the themes found in these objectives are adequately captured in the remaining work done by this, as well as other Working Groups. • Expand and enhance initiatives far watershed protection, enhancement, and management. • Ensure rigorous enforcement of environmental regulations. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12106 Final Actions Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan. Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. El 1 1 1 1 r 1 www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 5 o Objective B, Action 4 and Objective E - Adopt Grubbing and Grading Policies that include BMPs. Note on grubbing and grading- Grubbing and grading is a topic that surfaces frequently throughout several of the Working Group reports. This material should be consolidated and placed in the most appropriate section of the CDP, such as Land Use and Planning or Environment. o General note. This report should be carefully reviewed and compared to the output of the Environment Working Group, in order to eliminate any policy inconsistencies and consolidate actions where necessary. El 1 1 1 1 r 1 www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 5 Final Actions Working Group: Government Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team. By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Government Working Group The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan. Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections. • Objectives and Actions – This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group. • Supplemental Information – This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy – Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions Special note from the Working Group: The Working Group on Government presents a series of preliminary activities designed to change the government structure that currently prevents the Kona Community from realizing its objectives The current government structure was not designed to accommodate the growth and development that has occurred; nor does this structure adequately deal with the geographic diversity and size of Hawaii Island. The problem is not "bad people", it is outdated design Hundreds of comments collected through the small group meetings show that residents understand the problem In addition, many Working Groups have come to understand that they cannot realize their aspirations unless the Kona Community gets control of the decisions that affect it The Working Group on Government focused on governmental changes that would help other groups to implement their plans Working Group on Government Themes also address characteristics of government—ethical, accountable, competent, and with transparent activities. These characteristics will be achieved when the government bureaucracy understands that its top priority is to serve its customers—the residents of the area. A. Undertake measures to encourage a competent, ethical, accountable, and transparent system of governance for Kona. 1. Create a Kona District Planning Commission with independent decision-making authority www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 Final Actions 2. Establish Kona District Offices for all County Departments, and ensure Kona representation on all relevant commissions and advisory boards. 3. -Collect, aggregate, and analyze all data collected by the County on a district -by -district basis. 4. Develop and implement a transparent, reliable county records management system that is accessible to the public and provides information on government activities that impact Kona District. [*This is a top priority for the Working Group.] 5. Ensure by ordinance that the County Council and countywide boards and commissions meet in Kona on a regular basis. B. Develop local governments with revenue authority. 1. Initiate County and State actions to permit the formation of political subdivisions (e.g. municipalities, cities, townships). 2. Implement a strong impact fee ordinance. 3. Consider the use of District Revenue Bonds. 4. Consider the development of a Kona District tourist tax. C. Encourage more intergovernmental coordination and cooperation. 1. Develop a clear system for inter and intra -departmental coordination in County government, with timeframes and procedures that allow projects to move forward in a timely, transparent, and predictable manner. 2. Identify opportunities for federal, State and Local governments to coordinate and collaborate so as to minimize unnecessary impacts on residents; wherever possible, similar activities being conducted by differing levels of government should be consolidated. 3. Provide Kona District Offices with staff and other resources to coordinate and collaborate as mandated in' C.1 and C.2. D. Ensure the equitable generation and distribution of public resources. 1. Enact an ordinance requiring that a minimum percentage of revenues collected in Kona be returned to Kona District. [Recommended 50% minimum] 2. Require each County Department to prepare District budgets; annual budgets presented to the County Council should show the District -by -District expenditures. 3. Redress obvious inequities in property tax rates. E. Ensure the rigorous enforcement of new and existing laws related to development regulations. 1. Develop and implement a schedule of penalties serving to deter violations of laws and regulations — for example, withdraw permit approvals if there is non-compliance with conditions; restrict licenses of persons who do not obey applicable laws. 2. Establish special enforcement officers who identify violations and enforce laws and regulations. 3. Significantly increase penalties in order to deter violations. 4. Require timely compliance with conditions of approvals; require bonding. 5. Perform an annual review of existing approvals and notify approval holders of timeliness requirements. 6. Adopt sunset clauses on County approvals such as SMA permits, special permits, variances, subdivision approvals, and, in some cases, re -zonings, so that they expire at a fixed time if no activity to utilize the approval has occurred www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 Final Actions F. Initiate Smart Growth strategies to effectively manage development in Kona. 1 Establish a program of "benchmarks" and/or performance indicators for the Kona Community Development Plan based on Smart Growth Principles. 2. Require an update of the Kona Community Development Plan every five years, and review all proposed amendments based on a pre -established schedule All proposed amendments must demonstrate that they are consistent with Smart Growth Principles, apply regulations consistently, and are in the public interest. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective A • Action 1: Amend the County Charter to permit the creation of a District -specific Planning Objective C Commission (comprised of Kona residents) representing the Kona District, with the independent decision-making authority now exercised by the Hawaii County Planning Commission, to include such elements'as plan approval, collection of impact fees, subdivision approval, and other authorities, based on District needs. The Kona Planning Commission will also serve to monitor the implementation of the KCDP. Action 2 • Establish Kona District Offices for all County Departments with District staff that has the capacity and authority to make all decisions for its geographic area If the Department is advised by a Board/Commission, the District Office will be advised by a Board/Commission comprised of residents from the Kona geographic area Action 4. As a top priority, develop and implement a transparent, reliable, integrated county records management system that is accessible to the public and provides information on government activities that impact the Kona District. Resources need to be committed immediately to initiate this project and funds identified so that the system's on-going maintenance and reliability are assured Action 1: As an example, in many places a system of inter -departmental check -offs is used with tight timeframes and public access to information about the status of any project as a proceeds through the system. Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan. Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o None identified for Government at this time. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Pian 12/12/06 11 1 Final Actions WorkingGroup: Housing p g Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed. All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Housing Working Group. The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan. Objectives and Actions Special Note from the Working Group: the Housing Working Group provided an extraordinary level of detail in their actions While the level of specificity seen in some of these actions is well beyond the scope of a Community Development Plan, these details can be used to inform future legislation The Working Group adamantly emphasized the need for policies to develop housing that is truly inclusionary, and would like to see the following concerns addressed • The quickly expanding residential resort character that is dominating Kona's real estate development makes the need for a strong, implementable inclusionary housing policy much more critical. • New developments must include the construction of affordable housing units (fee simple, lease, and rental) • Housing must be truly affordable to Kona's residents, based on local cost of living and wages • Businesses employing large numbers of workers, such as hotels, must provide on-site worker housing • The lack of farm working housing in rural areas is a critical issue, and a policy to create farm worker housing must be adopted • Affordable housing 1S needed in more rural areas of Kona. • Affordable units must remain in the affordable housing inventory I www acp- tannin .com p 9 Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 Final Actions A. Undertake programs and policies to help ensure that housing is truly affordable for all segments of the population, including low-income workers, first time homebuyers, and farm workers. 1. Adopt a new Inclusionary Housing Program for the Kona District. 2. Define Owner/Occupant so that owner must occupy home 75 percent of the days per year. 3. Permit and encourage the development of legal farm worker housing on Kona farms, ensure that such housing is reserved for farm workers. 4. Establish a Kona Affordable Housing Council with enforcement powers; Council will regularly review and propose -updates to the County Housing Policy, at least every five years. 5. Eliminate existing policy loopholes that allow developers to refrain from providing affordable, inclusionary housing (e.g., infrastructure options, "in lieu fee" options, etc.) 6. Establish new standards for affordable housing in Kona based on local cost of living and wages, and accounting for local poverty levels. 7. Permit and encourage developers to contribute a proportionate number of finished lots for the development of affordable housing via self-help programs. 8. Conduct ongoing search for Federal, State, County, private, and non-profit opportunities to increase Kona's inventory of affordable housing. 9. Adopt an increase in County Real Property Tax Rates directed specifically to discourage the construction of very large homes on Agriculture lots in Kona. 10. Adopt policies to keep affordable housing as affordable in perpetuity 11. Develop a fair, equitable, point -based system for allocating affordable housing. B. Facilitate affordable housing development through regulations, incentives, and land contributions. 1. Offer substantial density bonuses for developers that provide affordable housing. 2. Develop a target affordability ratio for development projects (e.g. 1/3 affordable), and provide incentives to achieve this target. 3. Change zoning to allow increased densities within Kona's Urban Expansion District and other targeted areas. 4. Encourage large land trusts to sell or make 100 -year leases for truly low income housing. 5 Provide tax abatements and exemptions for inclusionary and assisted living housing developments. 6. Remove or greatly reduce impact fees or fair share assessments for developers of affordable housing 7. Base Impact Fee rates on the square footage of individual residential units 8. Develop a program to involve housing developers to assist buyers in the financing of affordable housing within new developments. C. Encourage public-private partnerships to increase affordable housing development. 1. Research and identify all funding opportunities that may be available through County, State, Federal, private, and non-profit organization sources. 2. Develop partnerships with nonprofit organizations such as Habitat for Humanity and like organizations, learn from their experience, and determine how to work together to build more affordable housing. 3. Establish, by ordinance, a Kona Housing trust fund (KHTF) as a distinct fund serving to dedicate and manage sources of revenue to support affordable housing 4 Develop a public-private partnership program to fund home renovation for low-income homeowners. D. Develop more assisted living facilities to accommodate the needs of elderly and disabled persons. 1. Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Policy with programs that address housing needs of elderly and disabled. 2. Determine how federal and state funds can be used to subsidize housing for disabled and elderly www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 E. Provide more transitional housing and homeless shelters to accommodate the homeless and those at risk of homelessness. Final Actions Research private and charity -sponsored shelters and transitional housing facilities and develop models for 3. Develop clear eligibility standards to determine who is entitled to assisted living housing for disabled and needy elderly 4 Research private and charity -sponsored assisted living facilities (e.g. Mennonite, Lutheran) and develop Support non -profits and charities that provide temporary housing for the homeless (e g. Catholic models for best practices 5. Develop a public-private partnership program to provide funding for repairs to homes owned and occupied by the elderly. E. Provide more transitional housing and homeless shelters to accommodate the homeless and those at risk 1 L� t 11 F. Provide for a diverse mix of ownership and rental housing in socio -economically integrated neighborhoods. 1. Mandate that subdivision approvals must require housing diversity in proportion to demographics of the Kona community. 2 Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Policy to require diversity of housing sizes within developments, in proportion to current demographic information for the District of Kona. 3 Change zoning laws as needed to facilitate the development of inclusionary housing 4 Encourage local developers and contractors to undertake inclusionary housing projects 5 Require that any new developments consisting of units intended for rent or lease shall provide a percentage of affordable rental units 6. Require that a specific percentage of all residential units built in the District of Kona shall consist of rental units offered to existing residents of the county 7 Require that a percentage of all new subdivisions (consisting of 25 units or more) be developed as rental units offered to residents of the county 8. Restrict the use of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that result in reducing housing affordability (such as requiring minimum housing square footage greater than that required by the Hawaii County building code ) G. Create more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. 1 Adopt land use policies that call for a mix of uses as well as a variety of integrated, inclusionary housing H. Develop higher density housing that preserves open space. 1 Develop policies and incentives to encourage cluster developments. I. Ensure that new housing developments are built concurrently with necessary infrastructure and services. 1 Adopt concurrency legislation, including affordable housing requirements www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 of homelessness. 1. Research private and charity -sponsored shelters and transitional housing facilities and develop models for best practices 2. Support non -profits and charities that provide temporary housing for the homeless (e g. Catholic Charities), through positive local publicity, respect, and County assistance when needed (e.g social worker input) 3. Develop policies and procedures for moving families from homeless shelters into permanent housing 4 Seek public and private funding for programs such as Section 8 5. Establish a policy to provide clean, safe housing for individuals impacted by alcohol and chemical dependency. 1 L� t 11 F. Provide for a diverse mix of ownership and rental housing in socio -economically integrated neighborhoods. 1. Mandate that subdivision approvals must require housing diversity in proportion to demographics of the Kona community. 2 Adopt an Inclusionary Housing Policy to require diversity of housing sizes within developments, in proportion to current demographic information for the District of Kona. 3 Change zoning laws as needed to facilitate the development of inclusionary housing 4 Encourage local developers and contractors to undertake inclusionary housing projects 5 Require that any new developments consisting of units intended for rent or lease shall provide a percentage of affordable rental units 6. Require that a specific percentage of all residential units built in the District of Kona shall consist of rental units offered to existing residents of the county 7 Require that a percentage of all new subdivisions (consisting of 25 units or more) be developed as rental units offered to residents of the county 8. Restrict the use of covenants, conditions, and restrictions (CC&Rs) that result in reducing housing affordability (such as requiring minimum housing square footage greater than that required by the Hawaii County building code ) G. Create more walkable, mixed-use neighborhoods. 1 Adopt land use policies that call for a mix of uses as well as a variety of integrated, inclusionary housing H. Develop higher density housing that preserves open space. 1 Develop policies and incentives to encourage cluster developments. I. Ensure that new housing developments are built concurrently with necessary infrastructure and services. 1 Adopt concurrency legislation, including affordable housing requirements www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions I Provide for suitable housing options near places of employment. 1. Require resorts to provide on-site employee housing. 2. Encourage increased use of government-owned land located within the Urban Expansion District or other targeted areas for the development of inclusionary housing. 3. Survey hotels, resorts, and other large employers to identify potential opportunities for developing on-site employee housing. 4. Establish a clear urban growth plan with necessary zoning changes that balances proximity of commercial housing and industrial components and livability. 5. Encourage hotels and resorts to provide temporary employee quarters so that employees can live on-site during the work week. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 4 J Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective A • Action 3 Agricultural land Provide legal opportunity to establish employee housing on large farms in Kona The legal opportunity must include strong enforcement ability to prevent housing being rented to individuals other than farm workers Redefine "Farm Dwelling ". Adopt standards to establish legal Farm Worker Housing close to existing farm dwelling on small farms in South Kona • Action 5 - Specifics - Amend Section 11 5A7 of the Hawaii County Code in order to discontinue permitting developers to provide infrastructure instead of housing Amend Section 115 A to eliminate the "in lieu fee " option. Amend Section 11.33. Remove option to build affordable housing fifteen miles from new developments (unless housing is created within "within 1/2mile" of existing obs, services) • Action 6 Original Language - Determine median income for Kona, determine low income for Kona based on 2005-06 statistics, establish a reasonable standard for affordable housing in Kona based on the incomes of those families or individuals who earn less than a certain percentage of federal poverty guidelines • Action 7• Amend Section 152 of the Hawaii County Code Ina subdivision consisting of developer- built homes, the developer may contribute two finished lots on site for each single -built units otherwise required to meet affordable housing requirements This 2 for 1 ratio may be increased, but not decreased by the Kona Affordable Housing Authority The intention is to provide lots for homes built with the support of self-help programs • Action 10 Resale price shall be limited to purchase price plus cost of living increase and cost of reasonable improvements (For example, resale price can not include cost of swimming pool construction) • Action 11. For applicants who meet income requirements for affordable housing, preference shall be given to applicants for affordable housing based on the following point system such as the following If there are multiple applicants with equal qualifying points, the application with the earliest date of receipt shall be accepted, with 2 or more equally qualified applicants, a lottery shall be held Table Qualification Point Value Current Kona Resident 1 Former Kona resident, more than ten years total 1 Born in Kona 1 Kona resident over 65 years of age 1 Physician verified physically or mentally handicapped 1 Hawaii County employee more than 36 months 1 Hawaii D O E employee more than 36 months 1 www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 5 Final Actions Objective B • Action 2: Make laws that require developers to include a minimum of 33% of total project as affordable housing plus inclusionary housing, reflected in community demographics. • Action 5: Provide real property taxes exemptions for owners of properties used by nonprofits providing assisted living housing or 50% inclusionary housing on their fee simple or lease land. Objective H • Action]: Adopt clustered development policy that would serve to encourage ranchers and large landowners not to sell all their land by adopting an incentive that permits clustered development on part of the property. Additional increased density would be provided in exchange for affordable housing Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan. Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o None identified for Housing at this time. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12106 6 1 Final Actions WorkingGroup: Land Use and Planning p g ' Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan. Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups This report represents the final product of the Land Use and Planning Working Group. The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan. Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections. • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP. In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group. The objectives and actions for Land Use and Planning are organized under three subheadings Inside the Urban Expansion Area, Outside the Urban Expansion Area, and General Planning Issues. • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions Inside the Urban Expansion Area A. Identify distinct urban boundaries and adjust zoning codes in order to accommodate a growing population within those boundaries. 1. Bring in planning professionals to ensure that boundaries are appropriate 2. Review and update the zoning code to permit and encourage a variety of mixed use development patterns, including the mixed use village concept 3. Encourage high density, mixed use, smart growth development in an expanded commercial and civic area 4 Create a master plan and vernacular design guidelines. B. Restore existing communities by promoting infill development. 1 Identify and inventory areas that should be prioritized for infill development 2. Look for what needs to be added to restore or revitalize 3 Encourage redevelopment that meets a full range of community needs, such as beautification, sidewalks, etc , and provides for attractive public spaces www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 Final Actions 4. Establish special districts and economic incentives to encourage infill and redevelopment. 5. Encourage contextual development that creates a sense of cohesion between old and new structures. C. Encourage mixed use, village -style development that accommodates social and economic diversity. 1. Identify and correct existing regulatory obstacles to mixed-use village development. 2. Create incentives to encourage the establishment and viability of small business in village areas. 3. Develop and implement design standards that can accommodate a range of densities and retain village character. 4. Restrict exclusionary developments such as gated communities and private golf courses. D. Institute land use policies that promote the development of inclusionary affordable housing, with particular emphasis on increasing such housing stock near major employment centers. 1. Create ordinance to incentify landowners to create 100% affordable housing (15 acres or less.) 2. Develop incentives to promote the development of more affordable housing. 3. Create and enforce policies that keep affordable housing affordable. E. Acquire necessary rights of way to meet the needs of planned future development. 1. Strengthen partnerships between government and developers in order to jointly determine the need for future roads and public rights of way. 2. Prevent stub -outs on public rights-of-way. 3. Use impact fees to purchase rights-of-way. 4. Ensure that all roads within Growth Opportunity Areas are publicly dedicated. F. Set aside parkland and open space, and encourage clustering and planned unit developments (PUDs) in order to preserve natural beauty within urban areas. i. Preserve floodplains within the urban core and consider them for park development. 2. Fund acquisition and maintenance of urban open space, using the 2% Open Space Fund or similar tools. 3. Establish and enforce a formula for parks in PUD's based on density. 4 Amend CFD (Community Facility Districts) ordinance to allow funds to be used for park operations and maintenance. 5. Allow increased density in exchange for more open space (e g. clustering.) 6. Create a policy to encourage the development of small, urban "pocket parks". G. Identify and protect significant viewplanes. 1. Encourage the underground placement of utilities around significant viewplanes. 2. Restrict building mass along significant view corridors. 3. Establish criteria for identifying significant viewplanes and view corridors 4. Design highways and roadways with attention to natural landscapes and viewplanes. 5. Create a Scenic Corridor program for Kona. Outside the Urban Expansion Area H. Implement rural zoning and land use policies that maintain the character of South Kona. (26,31) 1. Adopt incentives, taxes, and credits that support rural uses. (e g eco -service incentives, TDR programs that identify sending and receiving areas.) 2. Implement policies to retain natural land contours and vegetation 3. Create incentives to protect larger areas of forest reserves www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12112106 2 Final Actions ' 4. Designate buffer zones between agricultural and rural areas. 5. Implement and enforce design standards and reviews. [e.g., sidewalk and road width, building design.] 6 Develop consistent land use and zoning regulations through collaborative efforts with the State, County, and the public. 7. Create a program to place ahupua'a boundary signs along the highways ' 8. Identify, review, and implement alternatives to existing zoning. 9. Define "Rural" in the County codes and create a policy for rural zoning, including density. 10. Ensure consistency between State and County land use policies. 11. Create County Conservation Zone and Greenbelt Zone land use designations. 12. Implement growth management policies that limit unplanned growth and reduce urban sprawl. 13. Create a policy for clustered development in rural areas, using smart growth principles. 14. Review and update rural and agricultural lands policies for the State and County. I. Explore techniques for slowing growth outside the Urban Expansion Area. 1. Research growth management programs in other communities/states. (Let's not reinvent the wheels) 2 Commit public funds toward the development of public infrastructure at an appropriate rural development level 3 Identify and implement impact fees and other funding mechanisms J. Conserve open space, protect natural resources, and promote ecological sustainability while ensuring public access to the natural environment. 1 Promote the ahupua'a model as a key conservation/development approach 2. Regulate public access to natural areas, including customary gathering rights 3. Protect forests and shoreline through regulations, policies, programs and incentives. 4 Identify, map and protect existing trails through State, County, and private collaboration K. Undertake measures to restrict development along the coast and protect Kona's shoreline while maintaining public access. 1 Restore original shoreline, where needed 2 Identify and implement Best Management Practices for shoreline management 1 1 L. Implement land use policies that protect agricultural lands from development pressures. 1 Define "Farm Dwelling" in order to establish a legal distinction between true farm dwellings and residential developments on agricultural lands General Planning Issues M. Establish an integrated, island -wide planning structure. 1. Integrate regional development plan results to recognize differences and commonalities 2 Establish a regional oversight group in Kona, using Community Development Plan boundaries 3. Establish District planning commissions with decision-making authority N. Rigorously enforce regulations under a fair and predictable system for land use and development. I Clarify existing regulations 2 Scrutinize deed restrictions and CAPs in relation to existing laws and regulations 3. Improve consistency in enforcing regulations within and among agencies. 4 Employ more inspectors to adequately enforce laws and regulations www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12112/06 3 Final Actions 5. Develop incentives to encourage adherence to regulations. 6. Enhance communication, cooperation, and policy consistency between state and county agencies. 7. Establish concurrency requirements to ensure adequate infrastructure provision for new and existing developments. O. Ensure the accountability of developers and government agencies in adhering to planning policies. 1. Create a clear, straightforward information system that includes a checklist for all building and development applications, with a flow chart, policies and procedures, and time lines for each step. 2. Create a centralized, publicly accessible database that contains all Hilo and Kona files. 3. Identify which planning and development regulations are most frequently violated; create a set of penalties and incentives to encourage compliance. P. Promote ongoing community involvement in planning processes to ensure consideration for local residents' needs. 1. Establish community involvement guidelines for the Kona District Planning Commission. 2. Encourage more outreach programs to meet the needs of all segments of the community in understanding planning and land use information and processes 3. Develop vernacular design guidelines that promote local architectural styles and materials and enhance Kona's strong sense of place. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12112/06 4 1 1 1 11 Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized to order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective E • Additional Action for Consideration: Idents rights-of-way - corridors, roadways (vehicular and non -vehicular) Consider the levels of knowledge (detail) (This action was suggested by the Working Group but never sufficiently clarified for inclusion in the final plan) • Action 4 - "County should be more proactive in acquiring rights-of-way "Suggestion: require roads within UEA's GOAs to be dedicated to the County Objective F • Action 2. The 2% Open Space Fund is a Ballot Initiative that, if approved by County voters, will dedicate 2% of the Real Property Tax Revenue to purchase and/or protection of open space Objective H • Action 3. "Plan, Protect, Preserve ". Replanting trees is a long-term investment • Action 10 Hawaii Revised Statutes 205, address relationship to County State land use policy and County land use policy are many times not consistent with each other • Action 14 (Resource "Developing the Lands In Between " Jackie Hoover) Objective J • Action 3 Concern over unregulated access to sensitive areas [Resources Hannah Springer, Na Ala Hele, Ala Ka Ha Kai, and Peter Simmons] Objective K • Action I (Integrate efforts with State/Federal) • Action 2 (Resources Contact CZMfolks as information source) Re -Assigned Objectives At one point the following objectives were part of the Working Group's preliminary action plan However, no clear actions were developed by the Working Group to address these objectives These objectives have been reassigned as Actions to support other objectives within this report • Restrict exclusionary developments such as gated communities and private golf courses. (Now Action 4 under Objective C) • Develop vernacular design guidelines that promote local architectural styles and materials and enhance Kona's strong sense of place. (Now Action 3 under Objective P ) www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 5 Flags for Redundancy 1 Final Actions I Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o Objective D - Institute land use policies that promote the development of inclusionary affordable housing, with particular emphasis on increasing such housing stock near major employment centers. This objective and associated actions could be integrated into the Housing portion of the CDP. o Objective F - Set aside parkland and open space, and encourage clustering and planned unit developments (PUDs) in order to preserve natural beauty within urban areas. This objective and associated actions could be integrated into the Recreation portion of the CDP. o Objective G - Identify and protect significant viewplanes. This objective and associated actions could be integrated into the Environment portion of the CDP (see Natural Beauty subheading). o Objective J - Conserve open space, protect natural resources, and promote ecological sustainability while ensuring public access to the natural environment. This objective and associated actions could be integrated into various sections of the Environment portion of the CDP. o Objective L - Implement land use policies that protect agricultural lands from development pressures. This objective and associated action could be integrated into the Agriculture portion of the CDP www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 1 1 1 1 ri Final Actions Workinfz Group: Recreation Introduction Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan. Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006. Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups. This report represents the final product of the Recreation Working Group. The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Pian. Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections. • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions A. Increase parkland in Kona, with attention to larger parks that preserve open space and wilderness areas. 1. Use the 2% Fund to increase parks in Kona. 2 Develop a state/county/community partnership to expand the use of Hawaii Information Telecom Systems (HITS) for the purpose of parkland planning and coordination 3 Dedicate flood corridors and floodplains to be used as public parklands. B. Increase parkland in Kona, with attention to community parks and playgrounds that meet the active and passive recreational needs of all residents. 1. Establish minimum standards for the provision of community parks and playground. 2 Require new developments to include adequate park facilities, and discontinue "fees in lied' options 3. Establish a Kona District Park Fund to support park development and maintenance. 4 Reduce existing barriers to providing neighborhood parks, such as parking, lot size requirements, and restroom facilities. 5 Expand and encourage the use of Adopt -a -Park programs to encourage community support of local parks 6 Develop an updated Recreation Plan for the Districts of Kona www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 1 Final Actions 7. Create a Kona District Recreation Advisory Committee. 8. Establish a County program for acquisition of strategic parklands, including tax delinquent properties C. Preserve view planes and provide for more public access along shorelines and beaches. 1. Implement zoning changes to mandate wider side yard setbacks. Existing properties should modify side yards to improve beach access and ocean views. 2. Implement zoning changes to ban fences and landscaping higher than 6 feet. 3. Implement zoning changes to ensure smaller second story square footage. 4 Identify, clean up, and maintain county rights-of-way along the shoreline. 5. Increase the number of parking spaces at public beaches in order to accommodate anticipated future use. D. Promote ongoing parks maintenance efforts, and ensure that recreational facilities are well maintained and renovated as necessary. I Improve Honokohau Harbor and expand the number of boat slips and small, public boat launches 2. Establish a Kona District Park Fund to support park development and maintenance. E. Provide recreation opportunities for all age groups, with special attention to facilities for youth and teens. 1. Increase the use of Hale Halawai. 2. Develop a music/dance venue for large gatherings 3. Encourage the development of a motor sport park in North Kona 4. Reinstate the Police Bicycle Patrol. 5. Build an outdoor skateboard area F. Establish more pet -friendly parks. 1 Establish leashed dog walking areas with appropriate facilities 2 Set aside a minimum percentage of parkland for pet activities. G. Provide for better hiking and trail access in the mountains and wilderness areas. 1. Create a network of hiking/walking trails by converting abandoned railroad corridors, government roads, and historic horse and carriage trails to a useable trail system. 2. Establish hiking trails along floodplain / flood corridors, and ensure that trails are integrated into future development pians -0K 3 Provide a network of walking paths to be integrated into and between future development projects H. Provide for more camping opportunities. 1. Research and develop camping opportunities on mauka lands. I. Create a Master Plan for expansion and improvement of the Old Airport 1 Form a Community Task Force to collaborate with the Department of Parks and Recreation in developing a Master Plan for the Old Airport Park www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12112/06 2 1 u 1 1 1 1 P, 1 U Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions Objective A • Action I There is an initiative on the Nov 2006 ballot which requests 2% of property taxes to be set aside annually in the Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Fund There would be a minimum of $250, 000 and a maximum of $5 million set aside annually for use island wide • Action 2 The Hawaii College System uses Hawaii Information Telecom Systems to conduct inter- island classes live Use of this system would greatly enhance the ability of community and government groups to meet regarding recreation issues without the expense of travel The HITS system is available to others for use Objective B • Action 3 Establish a specific Kona District Park Fund separate from the General Fund which individual builders and developers would pay into based on an assessment. This fund would be for development and maintenance of parks located within the Kona Districts both urban and rural Provide funding for this by including assessment on projects approved but not yet built Objective C • Action 1 Negotiate more setbacks with individual homes with beach access at time of remodeling or reselling Properties with inadequate side yard width do not allow beach access or view of ocean As properties request permits or new zoning there should be a requirement to modem side yards based on a maximum distance from other beach access areas, and/or maximum allowed restriction of view plane • Action 2 Zoning changes to disallow 6 foot fences Zoning changes to disallow tall landscaping Objective E • Action I This is a county facility in downtown Kailua which is underused It has kitchen facilities, meeting rooms, a large gathering area and large outdoor area for booths and activities The county does not staff it so the parking lot is always closed except on special occasions • Action 4- The Police Bicycle Patrol encourages interaction of skaters, bicyclists, doggers, kayakers, and surfers with authority It has been a friendly way to enforce the law, keep tourists out of danger, monitor the use of our parks, assist lifeguards, prevent "territorial " behavior and create goodwill It is sorely missed www acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o Objective C - Preserve view planes and provide for more public access along shorelines and beaches. While public access to shorelines and beaches belongs under Recreation, the actions specifically related to view planes could be consolidated into one section of the CDP. (Suggestion — see Natural Beauty subheading, found in the Environment report). www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12112/06 4 1 1 1 F J 11 t l Working Grou Introduction : TranMortation Final Actions Summary of the Process: The Working Groups were responsible for formulating objectives and actions for the Kona Community Development Plan Each Working Group met regularly over a six-month period between May and November, 2006 Throughout the course of the process there was ongoing feedback between the Working Groups and the Consultant team By June the Working Groups had identified key themes and worked with the Consultant to create draft objectives. Between June and November several iterations of the actions were developed. All of the material originated with the Working Groups, while the Consultant conducted reviews, recommended specific changes, and requested more information where necessary in order to improve clarity and achieve a level of consistency among all of the Working Groups This report represents the final product of the Transportation Working Group. The objectives and actions found below will be reviewed by the Steering Committee and incorporated into the final Community Development Plan. Contents of this Report: Following the Introduction, this report is divided into the following sections. • Objectives and Actions — This section should be carefully reviewed by the Steering Committee for inclusion in the CDP In some cases this section is prefaced with special notes from the Working Group The objectives and actions for Transportation are organized under three subheadings- Alternative Transportation, Public Transportation, and Vehicular Transportation • Supplemental Information — This section provides additional details about specific actions, including recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant. Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions • Flags for Redundancy — Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Objectives and Actions Alternative Transportation A. Increase the number of bike paths and walking trails in Kona 1 Implement Bike Plan Hawaii priorities for Kona as outlines by the State Dept of Transportation (see their website) 2 Develop and regularly update a Pedestrian and Bicycle Manual for use island -wide. 3 Ensure the safety of alternative transportation routes by clearly separating bike and pedestrian lanes from roadway traffic 4 Implement Recommended Actions related to bike and pedestrian lanes found in the State Department of Transportation plan 5 Permit some trails to remain "outdoor recreation trails", so that they meet US Forest Service guidelines but are not required to be ADA compliant B. Improve sidewalks in Kona. 1 Make all sidewalks ADA compliant where topography allows www acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12112/06 1 Final Actions 2. Require appropriate bike and pedestrian facilities to be included in ALL maintenance and capital improvement protects. C. Target key areas for alternative transportation enhancements. 1. Plant shade trees and improve walking paths along the shoreline in accordance with the Kailua Kona Master Plan. 2. Create a shoreline access trail between the airport and Kailua town. 3. Develop park and ride facilities and walking paths to encourage downtown pedestrian accessibility to Kailua Village. 4. Create walking paths to improve pedestrian connectivity between ALL subdivisions and developments, including includes condos, planned unit developments (PUDs), etc. D. Encourage walkable, mixed use development patterns that place neighborhood amenities within easy walking distance of residents. 1. Mandate the provision of pedestrian facilities including paved sidewalks in all new developments, according to the specifications of the Department of Transportation. 2. Mandate the provision of bikeways and bicycle facilities in accordance with all roadway maintenance, construction, and repaving protects. 3. Encourage a minimum percentage of commercial zoning within residential developments. E. Create public information campaigns to help establish walking and biking as viable transportation alternatives 1. Inform the public about the economic advantages of bicycling to work. 2. Develop a public education pian to promote safety in walking/ biking. Public Transportation F. Develop safe and convenient bus service with attention to key commuter routes and tourist attractions. 1. Assess the feasibility of establishing regular bus stops along Ahi Drive, key commuter routes, and major tourist routes. 2 Identify key tourist attraction stops. 3. Implement the planned 20 new bus stops for Kona area which are on the Hawaii County Mass Transit Plan 4. Incorporate mass transit needs into subdivision and public facilities planning G. Create Park and Ride facilities at major, multi -modal transfer points. I Establish a Park and Ride at Old Airport. 2. Establish a Park and Ride near King Kam Hotel and incorporate walking paths and bike trails. H. Assess the feasibility of a light rail system / tram system. 1. Examine existing studies and information related to light rail, but rapid transit, trams, and shuttle services to determine suitability for Kona. 2. Establish a long-term plan to provide a major corridor within Kailua Village that will accommodate utilities and all current and future modes of transportation, from light rail to multi -use pedestrian paths. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 Final Actions ' I. Improve transportation facilities and ensure accessibility for all residents, including elderly and disabled persons. I Implement para -transit vans for door to door pickup 2. Create incentives for private taxi companies to resume the Share -a -Ride program ' J. Encourage the use of alternative fuels among public transportation providers. I Purchase "alternatively fueled" buses as old buses come out of service so as to have a fully alternatively fueled fleet by 2020. Vehicular Transportation K, Implement strategic expansion and improvement of existing roadways, with attention to connectivity, road widening, and the need for additional lanes. 1. Consolidate all previous road plans into one concise plan. 2. Implement road improvements and expansion based on priority and feasibility. ' L. Plan for the construction of new roads to meet future transportation needs. I. Develop ordinances to incorporate features such as sidewalks, aesthetics, and traffic control into the ' county guidelines 2 Establish a strong, consistently applied public process to involve the community in planning for new roads ' 3 Create minimum, achievable roadway standards to promote roadway consistency. 1 11 n 11 -1 M. Ensure adequate Mauka/Makai roadway connectivity to allow for emergency access. 1 Convert the current temporary use of Kalawa St. into a permanent parallel connector with traffic calming devices in place 2 Fully enforce subdivision codes in order to require connectivity among developments, without the option for administrative overrides N. Provide for ongoing road maintenance and road safety programs. 1. Privatize road work to improve efficiency and number of miles completed per year 2 Implement traffic calming policies to improve road safety without the need for stop lights. 3 Establish standards for the use of landscaping and median strips O. Initiate strategies for reducing traffic congestion. 1 Develop Park and Ride facilities to encourage car pooling, walking, and the use of public transportation. 2. Develop a parking and traffic management plan for downtown Kailua-Kona 3. Improve intersections using a variety of techniques, including synchronized stoplights, roundabouts, overpasses, underpasses, and Intelligent Transit Systems (ITS) 4 Perform a noise forecast before adding stop signs in residential neighborhoods when speed limits and/or traffic calming measures would suffice. www acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 3 Final Actions Supplemental Information This section provides additional details about specific objectives and actions, including alternative phrasing, background information, recommended timeframes, responsible agencies, and other implementation concerns. This material comes directly from the Working Groups, and has received minimal editing from the Consultant Where possible, this detailed information should be incorporated into the final Plan. All supplemental information is italicized in order to distinguish it from the final objectives and actions. Objective A • Action 2: Require development of a Pedestrian and Bicycle Manual for use island wide within six Objective D months of enabling state legislation with mandatory revisions everyfive years. Various Actions• Follow the recommendations in Chapter 4 on page 4-4 in the DOT plan. 1. All new residential construction must provide pedestrian facilities which include paved sidewalks not less than Jft in width with not less than I foot additional free of vertical obstruction on each side. 2. All new commercial construction must provide pedestrian facilities which include paved sidewalks not less than 8 feet in width with not less that I ft additional free of vertical obstructions on either side. 3. If it is to be a shared use paved path then not less than 1Oft wide with not less than 2 ft additional free of vertical obstructions 4. all maintenance, reconstruction, and repaving to North and South Kona must provide bicycle facilities as required by new construction or a shoulder bikeway not less than S ft in width S a percentage of commercial zoning to be included in developments to allow employment centers, shopping, teleconferencmgfacilities, and branch offices Re -assigned Objectives At one point the following objectives were part of the Working Group's preliminary action plan However, no clear actions were developed by the Working Group to address these objectives These objectives have been reassigned as Actions to support other objectives within this report. Ensure the safety of alternative transportation routes by clearly separating bike and pedestrian lanes from roadway traffic (Now Action 3 under Objective A) Improve intersections using a variety of techniques, including synchronized stoplights, roundabouts, overpasses, and underpasses. (Now Action 3 under Objective O) Flags for Redundancy Due to the nature of the process and the broad interests of the Working Group members, several Groups ended up addressing similar themes or offering similar actions. This section attempts to highlight areas of potential overlap, where work from two or more Working Groups might best be consolidated before inclusion in the final Plan Each flag denotes specific objectives and/or actions found in this report that could be integrated, in whole or in part, into the work of another Group. o Objective J - Encourage the use of alternative fuels among public transportation providers. This objective and associated action could be integrated into the Energy portion of the CDP. www.acp-planning.com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12!06 1 r_J u 1 1 0 Final Actions 12. Develop high -elevation sources of surface water for agricultural uses in Kona 13. Designate appropriate lands owned by the State of Hawaii as Important Agricultural Lands. B. Create a self-sufficient and sustainable agricultural economy in which more local products are grown for local consumption. 1. Encourage the establishment of processing facilities in order for farmers to increase opportunities to develop value-added products 2. Establish a permanent location for the Kona Farmers' Market 3 Require local institutions (e g., school cafeterias) to purchase locally produced food. 4. Create "crop incubator" projects 5. Create a centralized data center to serve as a clearinghouse for information on available Kona agricultural products, services, and markets. 6. Establish a "Made on the Hawaii Island" marketing program 7. Establish a revolving credit fund to support crop research and development. 8. Conduct information campaigns (such as "Farming is Our Future" and "Grow Local Buy Local") in order to market Kona products and educate the public about the importance of supporting agriculture in Kona 9 Establish a commercial kitchen and drying facility to encourage increased diversity in value-added products 10. Expand the County's "green waste" nutrients recycling program and purchase a tub grinder for the Kona Green Waste Processing Facility C. Support small family farms and community gardens through regulations and financial incentives. 1. Require new subdivisions to allocate land for community gardening activities 2 Establish real property tax breaks for farms based on the farm's gross sales and legally -hired farm labor. 3 Establish a County -funded Production Credit Program 4 Adopt an ordinance that provides for cluster developments on agricultural lands. D. Enhance agricultural education and research programs. 1. Establish and finance County educational programs to support and promote agriculture in Kona. E. Expand agricultural tourism and events in Kona. 1 Create and adopt a county Agricultural Tourism program/policy 2. Support the establishment an annual Kona Food and Flower festival. 3 Establish and fund an annual Kona "AWA" Festival F. Protect our agriculture industries. 1 Enhance current and future agricultural opportunities in Kona through training, internships, development of workers' housing, new crop and market support, and full staffing of agricultural positions in the county 2. Adopt a resolution establishing the "Precautionary Principle" for all agricultural commodities coming into the County, including GMOs. J 3. Designate land within the Natural Energy Lab (NELHA) as Important Agricultural Lands to encourage the continued development of the aquaculture industry and the alternative energy industry within the site 4. Establish a Kona Agriculture Coordinator position serving to enhance agricultural activities and opportunities www.acp-planning com Kona Community Development Plan 12/12/06 2 I� 0 11 DEMOGRAPHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF ' NORTH & SOUTH KONA Wilson Okamoto Corporation January 2007 DEMOGRPAHIC CHARACTERISTICS OF NORTH AND SOUTH KONA ON THE ISLAND OF HAWAII KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Submitted to: r County of Hawaii Department of Planning January 2007 WILSON OKAMOTO CORPORATION 1 1 1 Demographic Characteristics of North and South Kona on the Island of Hawaii Prepared for: County of Hawaii Planning Department 250 South High Street Wailuku, Hawaii 96793 Prepared by: Wilson Okamoto Corporation 1907 South Beretania Street, Suite 400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 January 2007 I Demographic Characteristics TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. General Demographics ............................................................................... I 1.1. Population ............................................. . ............ .. ... . . . . ... ........ . 1 1.2. Gender ........................... ..... .......................................... ... .. ..... ...... ... 3 1.3. Age ... ...... . ..... 3 14. Race and Ethnicity .... ............................ ............ . ... ........... ........ 2. Economy .................................................................................................... 2.1. Employment ....... .... ....... ................................................ ..... ....... .. 6 11 12 2.2. Tourism and Visitors .. ...... .... ...... ................... ................... ... . .... 23. Income Distribution ..... ... . ...... ........ .... ...... . .... ................. .....24 20 24. Housing ............................ ...... .............. ....... ............ .... .................30 3. Land Use .................................................................................................... 3 1. State Land Use Districts ...... .................... ..... ...... ..... ........... ....... 37 37 32. County of Hawaii Zoning ..... ...... . ....... ..... ... ...... .... ........ . ..... 39 4. References ................................................................................................. 44 CHARTS Pa.ge Chart 1: Residential Population Comparison of the County of Hawaii and Kona District............ ............. .................. ... . ... ... 1 Chart 2: Rate of the Residential Population Growth . ... . .......................... Chart 3. Population Density, 1970 to 2000.. ..... ............... ............. .. 2 2 Chart 4: Residential Population by Sex, 2000.... - .. ........... .... ............ ..... 3 Chart 5: Residential Population by Age, 2000 and 2005.. ......... .... .......... 4 Chart 6: Race and Ethnicity by Race Alone, 2000 and 2005.... ........... ... .7 Chart 7: Kona Residential Population by Race Alone, 2000 ......... ........... ..... 7 Chart 8: Employment by Major Economic Sector in the County of Hawaii, 1960 to 1997 ...... .......................... ........... ..... ... .... Chart 9: Average Daily Visitor Census, by Counties .... ..... ..... .... .. 21 Chart 10: Total Number of Passengers (Enplaned and Deplaned) at Kona International Airport. . ............... 22 Chart 11: Domestic Visitors to Kona, 1990 to 2004 ... . ..... ........22 Chart 12: Accommodation Characteristics of Visitors to Kona, 2004 ......... .. 23 Chart 13: Per Capita Income Rate of Change, 1990 to 2000 .... ......... .......... 25 Chart 14: Percent Change of Housing Units .............. - - - ...............31 Chart 15: Housing Occupancy, 1990 and 2000 ............ ..... ..... .......... ...... 35 Chart 16- Number of Households.... 35 Chart 17: State Land Use Districts .......... ....... ....... ... ....... ... ............. 38 Chart 18- Proportion of State Land Use Districts within Kona ..... ...... ........ 39 Chart 19: Zoning Classification by District............. ............... 41 Chart 20: Zoning Classification by District Excluding Agricultural and Open Zoning....... ....... ..... . ..... ...... ................... ....................... 41 T-1 I FIGURES Demographic Characteristics Page Figure1 Age, 2000 CDP................................................................................5 Figure 2 Race Alone, 2000 CDP...........................................................................8 Figure 3 Race Alone, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison.........................................9 Figure 4 Labor Force, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison.......................................15 Figure 5 Civilian Labor Force, 2000 CDP.......................................................16 Figure 6 Class of Workers, 2000 CDP................................................................17 Figure 7 Occupations, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison......................................18 Figure 8 Occupations, 2000 CDP......................................................................19 Figure 9 Income, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparision..............................................26 Figure 10 Income, 2000 CDP.............................................................................27 Figure 11 Income Comparison, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparision .......................28 Figure 12 Poverty, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparision .......................... ..............29 Figure 13 Housing Tenure, 2000 CDP......................................'..........................32 Figure 14 Housing Tenure, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison...............................33 Figure 15 Housing Occupancy, 2000 CDP.........................................................34 T-2 Demographic Characteristics 1. General Demographics 1.1. Population Refer to Charts: (1) Residential Population Comparison of the County of Hawaii and Kona; (2) Rate of Residential Population Growth; and (3) Population Density, 1970 to 2000. According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of Hawaii residential population reached 1,275,194 in 2005. In 2005, thirteen percent, (167,293) of the state population resided in the County of Hawaii. In 2000, 25 percent of the 2000 County population was living in the Kona District (37,132 people). In 1970, the population in the County of Hawaii numbered 63,468 and was the first to show an increase, albeit small, since 1930 when the population peaked at 73,325, largely a result of the importation of labor for the sugar industry. The population decline between 1930 and the 1960s was primarily due to the increasing mechanization of the sugar plantation, limited job opportunities in other economic sectors, and the out -migration of residents. This decline was reversed during the 1960s with a modest growth of 2,140 residents between the 1960 and 1970 census. Since 1970, the County's population has continued to grow as the largest population increase occurred during the 1970's in North Kona. The 1980 census registered a Hawaii island -wide resident population of 92,053 people representing a 45 percent increase over the 1970 census. In Kona, the 1980 census population increased 122.5 percent over the 1970 census. Chart 1: Residential Population Comparison of the County of Hawaii and Kona District 1200000 1000000 c 800000 sa^ unty of HI 3 600000 itaState of Hawaii d° 400000 200000 ._..-..10 0 a« 1970 1980 1983 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984, 1990, 1998, 2004 and 2005 Kona Community Development Plan 1 Characteristics Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984,1990, 1998, and 2004. Between 1980 and 1990, the North Kona population growth rate began to slow, yet was still higher than South Kona, the County of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii. The 1990 census revealed a Kona resident population of 29,942 residents, or an increase of 52 percent over the 1980 Kona resident population. The census registered 37,132 Kona residents in 2000, a 24 percent increase over the 1990 resident population. According to the population data from 1990 and 1995, the population growth rate of North Kona, South Kona, and the County of Hawaii grew at a comparable rate ranging from approximately 12 to 14 percent. The growth of the South Kona residential population slightly declined between 1995 and 2000. About 65 percent of the county population growth between 1990 and 2000 came from net in -migration (people moving to the island from elsewhere) (Planning Department, 2005). From 1970 to 2000, the North Kona population has grown 490 percent, whereas both the County of Hawaii and South Kona populations have only increased 134 and 115 percent, respectively. Chart 3: Population Density, 1970 to 2000 m 70 60 50 —North Kona t 40 —South Kona ti 30 - Kona to 20 --" —County of HI a 0 10 a 0 1970 1980 1983 1990 1995 2000 Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984,1990, 1998, and 2004. 2 Kona Community Chart 2: Rate of Residential Population Growth —North Kona —South Kona —County of HI va State of Hawaii p� 180 160 s 140 120 V 100 C 80 `m 60 40 �m IL 20 1970 to 1980 to 1983 to 1990 to 1995 to 2000 to 1980 1983 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984,1990, 1998, and 2004. Between 1980 and 1990, the North Kona population growth rate began to slow, yet was still higher than South Kona, the County of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii. The 1990 census revealed a Kona resident population of 29,942 residents, or an increase of 52 percent over the 1980 Kona resident population. The census registered 37,132 Kona residents in 2000, a 24 percent increase over the 1990 resident population. According to the population data from 1990 and 1995, the population growth rate of North Kona, South Kona, and the County of Hawaii grew at a comparable rate ranging from approximately 12 to 14 percent. The growth of the South Kona residential population slightly declined between 1995 and 2000. About 65 percent of the county population growth between 1990 and 2000 came from net in -migration (people moving to the island from elsewhere) (Planning Department, 2005). From 1970 to 2000, the North Kona population has grown 490 percent, whereas both the County of Hawaii and South Kona populations have only increased 134 and 115 percent, respectively. Chart 3: Population Density, 1970 to 2000 m 70 60 50 —North Kona t 40 —South Kona ti 30 - Kona to 20 --" —County of HI a 0 10 a 0 1970 1980 1983 1990 1995 2000 Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984,1990, 1998, and 2004. 2 Kona Community �Ii II is Characteristics Comparing population density after 1970 up until 2000, North Kona consistently exhibits a significantly higher population density than both South Kona and the County of Hawaii. When the North Kona population boomed, South Kona and the County of Hawaii demonstrated a much smaller increase in population density. The County anticipates that the island resident population will grow at an annual rate of 2.04 percent between 2005 and 2010, and 2.1 percent between 2010 and 2020. Projected estimates for 2020 indicate an island resident population of 217,718, or an increase of 46 percent over the estimated 2000 population of 148,677. 1.2. Gender Refer to Chaff (4) Percentage of Residential Population by Sex, 2000. For every 100 females in the State of Hawaii there are 101.0 males. A similar proportion is found in the City and County of Honolulu (101.1 males per 100 females) and the County of Hawaii (100.4 males per 100 females). Typically, the County of Hawaii and the Kona districts male to female ratio is insignificantly different than the rest of the state. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 1.3. Age Refer to Charts: (5) Residential Population by Age, 2000 and 2005. Refer to Figure: (1) Age, 2000 CDP. Kona Community Development Plan 3 Chart 4: Residential Population by Sex, 2000 ©Male OFemale 100 80 NMI 60 a 40 20 1� 0. Hawaii County North Kona South Kona State of Hawaii Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 1.3. Age Refer to Charts: (5) Residential Population by Age, 2000 and 2005. Refer to Figure: (1) Age, 2000 CDP. Kona Community Development Plan 3 Characteristics The 2000 median age within the State of Hawaii and the City and County of Honolulu was 36.2 and 35.7 years, respectively. Compared to Honolulu and the State, the County of Hawaii is somewhat older with a median age of 38 years. The median age in Kona is more similar to the County of Hawaii at 38.5 years. Of the Kona Census Designated Places (CDP), in 2000, Kailua had the youngest median age at 35.5. Kailua also has the highest percent (49 percent) of residents under the age of 35, whereas Kahaluu-Keauhou has the lowest proportion (39 percent) of residents under 35 years and highest proportion of residents over the age of 54 (39 percent) (Figure 1). South Kona is slightly older than North Kona as the median age of residents is 40.4. Although Kona is one of the fastest growing districts in the State, it is typically made up of an older population. Not only does this raise concern over economic issues related to long-term growth, but an older population also puts greater emphasis on retirement and elderly programs and assistance, which refocuses attention away from youth -related programs. Chart 5: Residential Population by Age, 2000 and 2005 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, Census 2000 Summary File 1 and 2005 and '2005 American Community Survey Kona 7.3 11 15.8 18.9 10.2 7 5.2 i 8.912.314.21511.86.27.4 0 Under 18 9.6 11.8 12 16 018 to 24 6.4 State of Hawaii'025 F24.1 I 24.4 7.4 11.7 16.1 18.5 10.1 8.7 to 34 035 to 44 25 7 9 045 to 54 20 Hawaii County` 8 6 055 to 64 ®65 to 74 North Kona 075 and over South Kona 0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 4 Kona Community Development Plan 7.3 11 15.8 18.9 10.2 7 5.2 i 8.912.314.21511.86.27.4 9.6 11.8 12 16 12.1 6.4 6.7 I 24.4 7.4 11.7 16.1 18.5 10.1 8.7 5.1 25 7 9 15 20 10 8 6 4 Kona Community Development Plan UAV AN14zoV I Nuemogra11111G Figure i: Age, 2000 CDP 1 - Kalaoa JA 28% 3 - Holualoa 6° 7% 23% 11% 21-A 11% 16% 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 7-C 10% 20% 14% Cook 29% Legend 11% © 45 to 54 17% (12-A 4% o 6 to 74 8% 16% 2% 20% 7-C 10% 20% 14% Cook 29% Legend ❑ Under 19 © 45 to 54 0 2 to 24 o 5 to 64 ❑25 to 34 o 6 to 74 ❑ 35 to 44 ❑ 75 or older E 16°h 16% 1 13% 5 - Honalo 6% 8% 27% 9% 18% 5% 12% 1s% 6 - Kealakekua 9% -I ° 25% 0% 16% Hawaiian Ocean View 4 9% 26% 13% \ 20% 17% 5 u:wvuvv426-u1 uemograpnic Comparison Figures.PPT Figure 2: Race Alone, 2000 CDP 1 - Kalaoa 2 - Kailua f 50% j \� 39% 10% 13% 1 � 3 - Holualoa 5 - Honalo 2 9% 3 \ 39% 55% ..k r 4 5 g 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 7 \ 6 - Kealakekua 8°0 a^ 66% 7 30% 7 - Captain Cook 8 - Honaunau Napoo oo 9 - Hawaiian Ocean View 32% 1 36% 58% e% N% 14% Le end White Jr Asian Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander [.Other Race Wwo or More Races 0 1 1 l 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 WOA7428-01\Demographic Comparison Figures PPT 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% lure 5: Kace alone, 1 99o--2.000 CDP , Compari5on Howaloa 06 06 06 05 03 0403 04 03 03 02 01 ft 02 02 00 00 00 00 00 00 02 00 00 00 o0 00 1990 Qj 2000 W White Aa Asian AI/NA Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander O Other Race w As NH/PI O Tw TW Two or More Races ( 1990N/A) Honalo Captain Cook 04 04 60% 40% 03 40% 02 20% 0 1 20% 00 00 00 00 04 04 06 05 03 0403 04 --] 03 02 01 ft 02 03 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 001 1 ° W As NH/PI O TW o W As NH/PI O TW Kahaluu-Keauhou Honaunau Napoopoo 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% 60% 40% 20% 0% 02 0.0 721 0 0 0 0 0.0 W As NH/PI O TW Kailua w As NWPI O 1V1 Kalaoa 06 04 06 05 03 0403 04 --] 02 ft 02 03 00 00 00 00 00 n. 00 17�-- 03 00 001 1 02 01 00 00 00 00 00 00 00 El 00 w As NWPI O 1V1 Kalaoa 06 06 06 05 03 0403 04 --] 02 ft 02 03 00 00 00 00 00 Oo W As NH/PI 0 TW OU 70 60% 40%- 20%- no/ 0%20%0°/ o w As NH/PI O TW Kealakekua 80% 60%- 40%- 20% 0%40%20% 0°/ 06 06 0-1 0403 04 --] 02 ft 02 00 00 00 00 n. o w As NH/PI O TW Kealakekua 80% 60%- 40%- 20% 0%40%20% 0°/ o w As NH/PI O TW Hawaiian Ocean View 08 8U7o 60%- 40%- 20%- ^0/ 0%40%20%no, 06 0-1 04 02 02 Ff� - 00 17�-- 00 . 00 001 1 o w As NH/PI O TW Hawaiian Ocean View 08 8U7o 60%- 40%- 20%- ^0/ 0%40%20%no, v iu W As NH/PI 0 TW 06 02 02 01 00 00 00 00 v iu W As NH/PI 0 TW Demographic Characteristics This page left blank intentionally. 10 Kona Community Development Plan IDemographic Characteristics 1 Kona Community Development Plan 11 2. Economy The economy of the County of Hawaii has experienced significant changes over the past three decades. Sugar cultivation was the leading agricultural activity during the 1970s and early 1980s. However, during the latter half of the 1980s and throughout the 1990s, the industry declined and eventually saw its demise. Tourism replaced sugar as the County's primary economic generator during the mid-1980s and saw its peak visitor arrival numbers in 1989 and 2005. Since 1990, external factors such as the Asian economic crisis, the Persian Gulf War, and a brief economic downturn in the U.S. Mainland after 9/11 have contributed toward the State's protracted economic doldrum. Nevertheless, the County successfully attracts several world-class events such as the Ironman World Championship in Kailua, PGA Seniors MasterCard Tournament of Champions at the Hualalai Resort and Golf Course in North Kona, and Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament in Kailua. The county also saw the completion of several major projects and renovations including the 243 -room Four Seasons Hualalai Resort in North Kona and its second championship golf course (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-2) In 2006, Travel and Leisure Magazine voted the Four Seasons Hualalai Resort as one of the top 500 greatest hotels of the year. To maintain its facilities, Hualalai Resort employs a total of approximately 1,700 part- and full-time employees, many of who live in North and South Kona (Personal Communication, HR, 2006). Hawaii's economy is healthy, which is demonstrated through the state's low unemployment rate, visitor industry growth, high hotel occupancy and busy construction industry. Throughout 2006, Hawaii County continued to share in the statewide economic expansion Taxable value in the County has risen a remarkable 14.5 percent per year since fiscal 2001 (Honolulu Advertiser, 2006). University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) forecasts five percent inflation in 2006--DBEDT predicts a 4.8 percent and 3 4 percent inflation in 2007 (Pacific Business News, 2006). However, for the first time in a decade, 2006 is showed signs of a slowing construction industry. UHERO predicts that in 2007, construction employment will be flat and decline slightly in 2008 (Pacific Business News, 2006) Tourism continues to be healthy, especially in the cruise ship market and the labor market (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). Within the past forty years, tourism has emerged as the primary economic activity on the island of Hawaii. Employment opportunities spurred by the growth of this industry has been the catalyst for economic growth in the County As tourism became the primary economic generator during the 1980s, a shift in employment from the non -service to the service industry sector was evident. From 1982 to 1990, visitor arrivals grew at an average annual rate of 5.66 per cent (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-6). The following decade, between 1990 and 2000, visitor arrivals increased 29 percent (Hawaii County Data Book, 2004 &Department of Research and 1 Kona Community Development Plan 11 Demographic Characteristics Development). The dramatic increase can be attributed to the start of direct international flights to Kona International Airport in 1996 and a rise in the frequency of direct domestic flights. Up to that time, all international visitors transferred through Oahu, thus, were counted as international visitors to the City and County of Honolulu. From 2000 and 2005, visitor arrival in the County of Hawaii increased 20 percent with the all time high visitor arrival count in 2005 (DBEDT, 2005). Hawaii County showed positive wage and salary job growth from 2005 to the third quarter of 2006, the highest growth among all counties (DBEDT, 2006). While there are opportunities for expansion into new and existing industries such as astronomy, high technology, renewable energy, health and wellness, agricultural and eco -tourism, and diversified agriculture and aquaculture, external factors such as the world economies impact the County economy. However, the State and County's continuing support of research and development of emerging fields will ensure a promising future for the island's economy and its residents (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-7). 2.1. Employment Refer to Chart. (8) Employment by Major Economic Sector in the County of Hawaii, 1960 to 1997. Refer to Figures: (4) Labor Force, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison, (5) Civilian Labor Force, 2000 CDP, (6) Class of Workers, 2000 CDP, (7) Occupations, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison, and (8) Occupations, 2000 CDP, The growth of Hawaii County in terms of employment, population, income and economic activity during recent years has been more closely tied to the visitor industry than any other sector of the economy. Employment opportunities spurred by the growth of this industry has been the catalyst for economic growth in the County. According to statistics from the State Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, employment trends in the County of Hawaii have shifted from the non -service industry to a dominant service industry. Employment opportunities on the Island have increased by over 22,700 jobs from 1970 through 1997. The 1980s saw employment grow at an annual compounded rate of three percent as service industries (wholesalelretail trade, finance, hotels, etc.) accounted for approximately 61 percent of the private industry workforce and 49 percent of the total wages earned. In 1980, employment within the County totaled 40,850 on a population base of 92,053 residents. In 1990, employment increased to 55,200 on a population base of 120,317. From 1990 to 1997, employment grew at an annual compounded rate of only 1.61 percent, a reflection of the County's recessionary economy during this period. Employment in secondary industries also expanded, while the largest employment decrease was in the sugar industry as the last sugar processing facility closed in 1997. By 1997, the service industries dominated the private industry, accounting for approximately 79 percent of the total workforce and 74 percent of the total wages earned. Comparing the 1990 and 2000 civilian labor 12 Kona Community Development Plan Demographic Characteristics force, there has been a general decline in the proportion of person 16 years and older in the labor force (Figure 4). The 2005 Hawaii County population was 164,437 with an employment base of 79,218 (2005 American Community Survey, Hawaii County). Total employment on the island has risen an average of 3.1 percent from 1995 to 2005 (Honolulu Advertiser, 2006). Employment levels continue the strong growth, which began in 2005 at rates not seen since 1990. From 2005 to the third quarter of 2006, all counties showed positive wage and salary job growth with Hawaii County having the highest growth (DBEDT, 2006), expanding jobs by four percent (UHERO, 2006). In the third quarter of 2006, 635,950 people were employed in the state, an increase of 2.6 percent from the third quarter of 2005. During this same period, Hawaii County also added two thousand wage and salary jobs, a 3.1 percent increase from the third quarter of 2005. The tourism -related sectors, Retail Trade and Food Services and Drinking Places added four hundred and three hundred jobs, respectively. Natural Resources, Mining and Construction and Government each added three hundred jobs, while Agriculture lost 150 jobs (DBEDT, 2006). Chart 8: Employment by Major Economic Sector In the County of Hawaii, 1960 to 1997 —Hotels —Other services —Total service employment —Agriculture 30% Y m 20% V L m a 10% 0% 1960 1970 1984 1997 Year Source: County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005. Unemployment rates dropped drastically from 1980 to 1990 (6.2 percent to 3.8 percent, respectively) due to the County's strong economy during this period. As the economy slowed during the 1990s, unemployment peaked at 10.2 percent by 1997 (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-9). As the global economy and tourism began to improve, so did unemployment. The 2000 unemployment rate for the County declined to 4.9 percent. During this time, Holualoa and Kalaoa CDP had the highest employment rates (98 percent), while Hawaiian Ocean View Estates' unemployment rate was significantly higher than the other Kona CDPs (Figure 5). Over half of those residing in the Kona CDP are private wage and salary workers. The greatest proportion of government workers is found in Kealakekua and Captain Cook CDP and the greatest proportion of self-employed workers Kona Community Development Plan 13 Demographic Characteristics reside in Kahaluu-Keauhou (20 percent) (Figure 6), an area with the highest median incomes and most seasonal and recreational housing unit vacancies. In 2005, the unemployment rate was slightly less at 4.6 percent (2005 American Community Survey). Since the mid-1980s, the County of Hawaii has seen a dramatic shift in its agricultural employment profile. Since the demise of the sugar industry in 1997, the island of Hawaii has since established itself as the center of diversified agriculture production, scientific research, and education in the State. Agricultural employment will increase significantly as former sugarcane lands are brought into production with import replacement, export and value added crops and products. Additional employment will be derived from expanding agro- tourism enterprises. The expansion of the industry will be facilitated by the establishment of a new air cargo distribution center and post-harvest processing facilities that will allow for significant increases in the volume and types of products exported to the continental United States and foreign countries. The shift in employment trends has significantly changed the economic make-up of the County as workers have in -migrated to meet the demands of employment growth in the service industry, which is primarily fueled by the tourism sector. Additionally, non -service industry workers, primarily in agriculture, adjusted and shifted to new employment opportunities in the service industries as agricultural jobs dwindled. From 1990 to 2000, management, professional, sales and office occupations in Kona CDPs have generally increased, service occupations have significantly risen, while farming, fishing and forestry occupations have declined except in Kealakekua and Hawaiian Ocean View Estates (Figure 7). Approximately seventy-five percent or more of the population residing in Kona CDPs are employed by Management, professional, service, sales and office occupations. Hawaiian Ocean View Estates and Honaunau-Napoopoo are the exception with slightly more than a quarter of residents in labor -related occupations (Figure 8). Upon completing high school, an increasing proportion of the County's youth have pursued higher education. Despite this trend, there is still scarcity of employment opportunities for the college-educated that desire to return to the island. In the year 2020, the Planning Department anticipates a population of 217,718 with an employment base of 106,492 or 49 percent. Average annual employment growth rates are anticipated at 2.11 percent between 2005 and 2010, and 2.16 percent between 2010 and 2020. These employment projections are below the robust 3.05 percent average annual employment growth rates during the 1980s, but above the 1.61 percent average annual growth rate during the 1990s. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-9 and 2-11) 14 Kona Community Development Plan ]:\WOA\7428-01\Demographic Compadson Figures.PPT 14 rigure + Lakor rorce, i 990-2000 CDP Comparison Persons 16 years or older in Labor Force J 1 2 3 4 5 6 - 8 Legend \ 1990 1 Kalaoa �J 2000 2 Kailua 3 Holualoa 4 Kahaluu-Keauhou 5 Honalo 6 Kealakekua 7 Captain Cook Hawaiian 8 Honaunau Napoopoo 9 Hawaiian Ocean View l 80% Employed Civilian Labor Force 70% 60% 50% -- -- — — 90°h 1 2 3 4 5 fi 7 8 9 Employed Civilian Labor Force ioai 95% — — 90°h 85% – 80°k 8 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 9 0 MOX7428-01Temographic Companson Figures PPT Figure 5: Civilian Lakor Force, 2000 CDF 1 - Kalaoa 2 - Kailua 2% 6% 98% 94% 3 - Holualoa 2%! f`� 5 - Honalo 2 � s% 3 98°/6 94% 4 5 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 7 6 - Kea`4pkekua 3% ` 8 �r 40 }}} 97% 96% 7 - Captain Cook 8 - Honauna Napoop � 9 - Hawaiian Ocean View 6% Bio 11% 94% 95% 89% Legend ` 9 CZJ Employed Unemployed 15 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Q MOM7428-01Temographic Comparison Figures PPT 16 r igure 6: Cia5sof WorLer,5, 2000 CDF 1 - Kalaoa 3 - Holualoa 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 20% 15% 7 - Captain Cook Legend Private Wage and Salary Workers Government Workers Self-employed Workers in own (not incorporated business) Unpaid Family Workers 2 - Kailua /5 - Honalo 1% 6 - K6alakekua 13% 22% I ` � I 65% 9 - Hawaiian Ocean View WOA\7428-01Temographic Comparison Figures PPT Figure 7: 0Ccu ation, 1990--2000 CDS omparison Holualoa 40% 30% 20% 10%- 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 Honalo 40% ° 30% 20% 10% 0% 40% 20% 0% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 Kahaluu-Keauhou 1 2 3 4 5 B Kailua 1 2 3 4 5 E Kalaoa 1 2 3 4 5 E 40% 30% 20% 10% 1990 Q� 2000 1 Management, professional and related 2 Service 3 Sales and Office 4 Farming, fishing, and forestry 5 Construction, extraction, and maintenance 6 Production, transportation and material captain Look 1 2 3 4 5 E monaunau 1 2 3 4 5 8 Kealakekua 40% 30% 20% -- 10%-- LI 0% 1 2 3 4 5 6 40% Hawaiian Ocean View 30% 20% 10% 0% AMA\7428-010emographic Comparison Figures.PPT rigure 8: Occupation, 2000 CDP 1 - Kalaoa g% 13% )24'%1. Y. 27% 3 - Holualoa e% % 11° 31% 27% 22 % 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 1% 7- 42-1. Q S17% 7 - Captain Cook Leaend Management, professional and related Service Sales and Office Farming, fishing, and forestry Construction, extraction, and maintenance Production, transportation and material 31% 28% 5 - Honalo s% g/ 26=b 211 I 25% Hawaiian Ocean View 4a/ z4% 20% 27 24 19 Demographic Characteristics 2.2. Tourism and Visitors Refer to Charts: (9) Average Daily Visitor Census, by Counties; (10) Total Number of Passengers (Enplaned and Deplaned) at Kona International Airport, (11) Domestic Visitors to Kona, 1990 to 2004, and (12) Accommodation Characteristics of Visitors to Kona, 2004. During the 1970s, the majority of visitors to Hawaii traveled to Oahu. This visitor pattern began to shift beginning 1980, as visitors began making their way to the island of Maui. The number of visitors to other neighbor islands have not caught up to Maui or Oahu, yet, the proportion of visitors to the Island of Hawaii during the last 20 years have steadily increased with less than a ten percent fluctuation at any given time. In recent years, total visitor growth has steadied, reaching a more normal range. In the first nine months of 2006, after 2005's surge of 16 percent, visitor growth increased approximately 5.8 percent for Hawaii County (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). Between 2005 and 2006, the number of domestic visitors to the island increased 2.4 percent, while international visitor arrivals increased 6.2 percent (Department of Research and Development, 2006). During 2005, total visitor spending grew almost 17 percent. The state's strength is still concentrated on the U.S. domestic side, which is up 2.2 in the first ten months of 2006, while international visitors are down 5.4 percent (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). The October 2006 earthquake had only a short-term impact on visitor activity for that month. Numbers suggest visitors who were unable to fly on the day of the earthquake as planned flew to Hawaii later in the week (Pacific Business News, 2006). According to the statistics, more tourists traveled to and spent money in the neighbor islands during the month of October. During that month, visitor spending in Hawaii County rose 15.9 percent compared to October 2005. Thus, the visitor industry is optimistic that the tourism economy will continue to remain strong. The principal visitor destination area of the Island of Hawaii is the South Kohala- North Kona region with the single most popular attraction being Hawaii Volcanoes National Park. The island continues to attract substantial investor interest in the visitor industry. Various resort and resort -residential complexes are planned for construction or currently under construction, while several hotels have changed hands recently, with the potential for future upgrades. Most of these developments are concentrated in West Hawaii, which continues to accommodate the majority of the visitor market within the County. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-6) 20 Kona Community Development Plan Characteristics Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 1984, 1998, and 2004 The annual number of visitors to the island is dependent on several factors ranging from the state of the economy, vacation trends affected by the promotion of Hawaii and other international destinations, to issues of national security. The number of domestic visitors to the State, County of Hawaii, and Kona has dramatically fluctuated throughout the last 15 years. The visitor rates were also affected by the weakening Japanese market, 9/11, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, and a slowing U.S. economy. Domestic visitor arrivals to Hawaii County increased 8.8 percent from 1995 to 2000. During the same period, due to the start of direct international flights in 1996, international visitor arrivals increased 40.8 percent (County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004). Between 2000 and 2004, both domestic and international arrivals leveled, increasing at a more sustainable rate of 5.4 and 11.4 percent, respectively. However, 2005 had the greatest visitor arrival as 1,285,248 visitors arrived at Kona International Airport, a 19.8 percent difference from 2004 (State Data Book, 2005). The number of private jets landing at Kona International Airport has been rising steadily since 2001, increasing 71 percent between 2001 and 2005 with 1,173 private jets landing in Kona in 2005 (Nedd, 2006). In 2006, higher-than- expected crude petroleum prices undermined earlier forecasts of tourism growth. However, Big Isle tourism remains healthy. The first eight months of 2006 shows Hawaii Island's arrival rates up 5.8 percent, compared to the 18.8 percent surge in 2005 (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). Kona Community Development Plan 21 Chart 9: Average Daily Visitor Census, by Counties —Hawaii County —City and County of Honolulu Maui County —Kauai County 80 70 m 60 A 50 d 40 30v a 20- 10 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 1984, 1998, and 2004 The annual number of visitors to the island is dependent on several factors ranging from the state of the economy, vacation trends affected by the promotion of Hawaii and other international destinations, to issues of national security. The number of domestic visitors to the State, County of Hawaii, and Kona has dramatically fluctuated throughout the last 15 years. The visitor rates were also affected by the weakening Japanese market, 9/11, the Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome (SARS) epidemic, and a slowing U.S. economy. Domestic visitor arrivals to Hawaii County increased 8.8 percent from 1995 to 2000. During the same period, due to the start of direct international flights in 1996, international visitor arrivals increased 40.8 percent (County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004). Between 2000 and 2004, both domestic and international arrivals leveled, increasing at a more sustainable rate of 5.4 and 11.4 percent, respectively. However, 2005 had the greatest visitor arrival as 1,285,248 visitors arrived at Kona International Airport, a 19.8 percent difference from 2004 (State Data Book, 2005). The number of private jets landing at Kona International Airport has been rising steadily since 2001, increasing 71 percent between 2001 and 2005 with 1,173 private jets landing in Kona in 2005 (Nedd, 2006). In 2006, higher-than- expected crude petroleum prices undermined earlier forecasts of tourism growth. However, Big Isle tourism remains healthy. The first eight months of 2006 shows Hawaii Island's arrival rates up 5.8 percent, compared to the 18.8 percent surge in 2005 (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). Kona Community Development Plan 21 Demographic Characteristics Chart 10: Total Number of Passengers (Enplaned and Deplaned) at Kona International Airport N a`) 2500000 rn y 2000000 N 1500000 a. Interisland 0 1000000 —Overseas a 500000 E 0 Z 1960 1965 1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 Chart 11: Domestic Visitors to Kona, 1990 to 2004 15 m 10 — 5 �— L 0 r� —State of Hawaii 5 98 1998 �00� —County of Hawaii m10 Kona a -15 Sill -20 Year Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 Historically, the County records the lowest visitor unit occupancy rates of all the major Hawaiian Islands. Bed and breakfast units, although not a significant part of the total visitor unit count for the County, have been the fastest growing segment of the industry, growing from 55 units in 1990 to 171 units in 1998. Only in 1998 did the County's occupancy rate finally surpass that of Kauai (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-7). During the period of 1980 to 1998, six new resort properties were developed for a total of 900 visitor units, including the completion of the 243 -unit Hualalai Resort at Kaupulehu in North Kona and the 263 -time share unit Kona Coast Resort in Keauhou. North Kona now accounts for over 45 percent of total hotel rooms on the island. As of 2004, visitor accommodation units within Kona totaled 4,144 units in 2004, up from 4,004 units in 1999. More recently, between 2005 and 2006, there was a 0.7 percent decline in hotel/condominium resort occupancy in the County, while the occupancy rate in Kona remained the same. More recently, DBEDT has announced that Hawaii Island attracts the 22 Kona Community Development Plan Demographic Characteristics largest proportion of high-income visitors in the state as 24.7 percent of visitors hold incomes exceeding $150,000 (Nedd, 2006). Once the major visitor industry area on the island, the North Kona district now shares this distinction with the South Kohala district. The visitor industry in North Kona is expected to grow at a moderate rate. Unlike the North Kona area, the South Kona district has limited accommodations for overnight visitors. There are approximately 88 units located at Captain Cook (Manago Hotel), catering primarily to local business travelers and agricultural workers. Hokulia, a 665 -unit agricultural -residential and golf course community with 168 affordable homes is being developed north of Kealakekua Bay in South Kona. This development will cater primarily to out-of- state second homebuyers. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-29) Of those visiting Kona from the mainland and overseas, the majority seek hotel accommodations, while approximately 10 to 15 percent prefer condos, which could be attributed to longer stays. Seventy-five percent of international visitors book their stay at hotels, while domestic visitor accommodations vary. Approximately thirty percent of domestic visitors are split between timeshare, friends/relative, or cruise ship accommodations. Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 The County's natural beauty, historical and cultural attributes and its numerous educational institutions and programs create conditions for new niche markets to develop and flourish. Niche markets for the County's visitor industry, such as eco -tourism, health and wellness tourism and educational tourism, have growth potential. The health and fitness resources of the various luxury hotels look towards health and wellness tourism as one of its target markets. The expansion of tourism should include careful planning to identify, promote and preserve the island's unique resources. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-8) Kona Community Development Plan Chart 12: Accomodation Characteristics of Visitors to Kona, 2004 100% ■Rental House 80% ■Bed and Breakfast ■Cruise ship 60% ■Friendstrelatives u 40% ■Timeshare a ■Condo 20% ■ Hotel 0% Domestic Visitors International Visitors Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 The County's natural beauty, historical and cultural attributes and its numerous educational institutions and programs create conditions for new niche markets to develop and flourish. Niche markets for the County's visitor industry, such as eco -tourism, health and wellness tourism and educational tourism, have growth potential. The health and fitness resources of the various luxury hotels look towards health and wellness tourism as one of its target markets. The expansion of tourism should include careful planning to identify, promote and preserve the island's unique resources. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-8) Kona Community Development Plan Demographic Characteristics 2.3. Income Distribution Refer to Chart: (13) Per Capita Income Rate of Change, 1990 to 2000. Refer to Figures: (9) Income, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison, (10) Income, 2000 CDP, (11) Income Comparison, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison, and (12) Poverty, 1990 to 2000 CDP Comparison. Per capita income in the County grew at an annual compounded rate of 5.18 percent during the 1980s and 2.91 percent through 1996. The increase during the 1980s are reflective of the strong economic conditions that existed at the time with a corresponding decrease in per capita income growth during the recessionary periods of the 1990s. Over a ten-year span, from the 1990 to 2000 census, the per capita rate of the State, County, and Kona districts increased 27 percent. Between 2000 and 2005, the per capita income of the County of Hawaii increased 12.8 percent to $21,174. Median household income also increased at a healthy rate from 1980 to 1990, increasing at an annual compounded rate of 5.76 percent. Without taking into account inflation, the median household income from 1990 to 2000 increased 33.9 percent. And from 2000 to 2005, the median household income continued to increase at 21.9 percent. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-11 and 2005 American Community Survey) Between 1990 and 2000, each of the nine Kona CDPs reported an increase in median household, family, and per capita incomes (Figure 9). In 2000, Kalaoa, Holualoa, and Kahaluu-Keahou each reported an approximate nineteen percent increase of the population generating incomes greater than a hundred thousand, the highest proportion in Kona (f=igure 10). These three CDPs also had the highest median household incomes and median nonfamily incomes of all Kona CDPs. With the exception of Captain Cook and Hawaiian Ocean View Estates, which experienced an increase of incomes less than ten thousand dollars, Kona CDPs experienced a decline of incomes less than fifty thousand, and an increase of higher incomes (Figure 11). Nearly half of all incomes from residents living in Hawaiian Ocean View Estates and slightly over thirty percent of income earners in Honalo and Kealakekua generate less than 25 thousand dollars. Between 1990 and 2000, the number of families living in poverty increased for all CDPs except those found in the upper portions of North Kona (Figure 12). The greatest increase of family poverty occurred in areas such as Honalo and Hawaiian Ocean View Estates. 24 Kona Community Development Plan Characteristics Chart 13: Per Capita Income Rate of Change, 1990 to 2000 40% 35% 30% 0 0 0 20% 10% 0% State of Hawaii County North Kona South Kona Hawaii Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 Kona Community Development Plan 25 )AW0AV428-01 \Demographic Comparison Figures.PPT Figure 9: Income, I 990-2000CDP Comparison Legend 1990 2000 1 Kalaoa 2 Kailua 3 Holualoa 4 Kahaluu-Keauhou 5 Honalo 6 Kealakekua 7 Captain Cook Hawaiian 8 Honaunau Napoopoo 9 Hawaiian Ocean View 24 2 350.000 3 4 5 6 7 8 Legend 1990 2000 1 Kalaoa 2 Kailua 3 Holualoa 4 Kahaluu-Keauhou 5 Honalo 6 Kealakekua 7 Captain Cook Hawaiian 8 Honaunau Napoopoo 9 Hawaiian Ocean View 24 Median Household Income 350.000 S313.0DO $20,000 $10.000 $0 3 4 5 a 7 Median Family Income, $70.000 $130.000 $501000 W.,00 430.00D $10.000 n� A 5 5 7 8 Median Nonfarnity income, $40.000 $20.000 ff $10,000 $0 3 4 5 B 7 a Per Capita Incorne $40,000 1 1 2 3 1 5 5 4 7 5 �igure 10: Income, 2000 CDI 3 - Holualoa 14% 6% 16%3 32% 1 29% 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 10% 33% 22% 7 - Captain Cook 11° 7 12% 18% 35 % \ 27 % , 2 - Kailua 2% 7% 7% 18% 30% 35% 5 - Honalo M / 11% 30% 20% 31% i - Hawaiian Ocean View A5° 14% 23% i� 33% 25% 27 Legend Ej Less than $10,000 I:j $50,000 to $99,999 Ql $10,000 to $24,999 Ej- $100,000 to $199,999 $25,000 to $49,999 I:j $200,000 or more 7 25 4\7428-01Temographic Companson Figures PPT 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 40*A 30% 20% 10% 0% 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% 26 r igure i 1 : CDP Income Comparison, 19 g0-2000 H olualoa 2 3 4 Honalo 1 2 3 4 5 Kahaluu-Keauhou 2 3 4 Kailua 2 3 4 Kalaoa 20% 20%- 10%. 0% 40% 30% 20% 20% Legend 1 Less than $10,000 2 $10,000 to $24,999 1990 3 $25,000 to $49,999 (~'{ 2000 4 $50,000 to $99,999 �J 5 $100,000 and over Captain Cook 1 2 3 4 5 Honaunau Napoopoo 2 3 4 Kealakekua 2 3 4 Hawaiian Ocean View \WOA\7428-01\nemographic Comparison Figures.PPT Figure 12-: Poverty, 1 990-2000 CDP Comparison 7 Families in Poverty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 8 \ / 15% 1 1990 1 Kalaoa 2 2000 2 A10% 5% 3 3 Holualoa o% 4 5 Kahaluu-Keauhou 7 Families in Poverty 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 a 9 8 \ / Legend 1990 1 Kalaoa 2000 2 Kailua 3 Holualoa 4 Kahaluu-Keauhou 5 Honalo 6 Kealakekua \ 7 Captain Cook 1( 8 Honaunau Napoopoo 9 Hawaiian Ocean View 41 27 Demographic Characteristics 2.4. Housing Refer to Charts: (14) The Percent Change of Housing Units, (15) Housing Occupancy, 1990 and 2000, and (16) Number of Households. Refer to Figures: (13) Housing Tenure, 2000 CDP, (14) Housing Tenure, 1990 to 2000 CDP Companson, and (15) Housing Occupancy, 2000 CDP. A person's home is not only a place of security and comfort, but allows a person to express his/her individual living styles by providing a place where one can seek a psychological, sociological, economic and aesthetic balance. If the various functions that take place in the home do not meet the individual's needs, a housing problem may exist. (County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005: 9-1) Several major issues and problems faced by Hawaii County continue to involve housing. Rapid population growth in some areas has not been accompanied by parallel growth in affordable residential housing construction. The increasing rate of land prices, the cost of construction and the growth of earning power contribute to the lack of affordable housing opportunities. Thus, proportionately fewer residents are able to afford purchasing a home. In 1997, SMS Research & Marketing Services and Locations, Inc., in cooperation with the State Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) and the various Counties' housing agencies, prepared the Hawaii Housing Policy Study Update 1997 that reviewed various housing issues throughout the State of Hawaii. According to the study, a family with a median annual income of approximately $30,300 would qualify for an "affordable" home priced in the neighborhood of $140,000, in which case, approximately 36 percent of the total households on the island of Hawaii fall below the median annual income. (County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005: 9-4) The number of housing units between North and South Kona vary dramatically. In 1990, 70 percent of housing units in the Kona district were located in North Kona, and in 2000, the number grew to 75 percent. Yet, this is proportional to the population as 77 percent of the 2000 population in Kona resided in North Kona. Housing units in North Kona have increased from 9,150 in 1985 to 12,254 in 1997, representing an annual growth rate of approximately 2.8 percent. In spite of continuing moderate growth of subdivision activity and housing construction in the North Kona district, housing problems for the low and moderate -income groups have been particularly acute. In 1990, approximately seven percent of all households within the district reported incomes below the poverty level. Many of these families compete with the visitor market for rental of apartment and condominium units. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 9-24) 30 Kona Community Development Plan Characteristics Source: County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005 ' Home ownership rate in North Kona has remained steady at 43 to 44 percent of housing units, whereas South Kona's homeownership rate increased from 49 to 55 percent during the 1990s. With the exception of Kalaoa, the Kona CDPs demonstrate a consistent growth of owner -occupied housing units and decline of renter -occupied units between 1990 and 2000 (Figure 13 and 14). Although a significantly greater number of housing units exist in North Kona, South Kona demonstrates greater population stability and a higher rate of homeownership. In the last decade, South Kona's housing vacancy rate remained around 11 percent, while North Kona's vacancy rate ranged from 21 to 25 percent. Kahaluu-Keauhou has the highest vacancy of housing units (57 percent), as approximately thirty percent of the vacancies are due to the units used as seasonal, recreational, or occasional use (Figure 15). Unlike Hawaiian Ocean View Estates with over a quarter of the housing units vacant, Kahaluu-Keauhou's vacancy is attributed to housing units primarily used as a second home. Based on housing units alone, North Kona has been developed to support greater populations than South Kona; yet, North Kona's housing problem can be attributed to the high real estate prices. South Kona demonstrates a population with little to no growth, where residents are able to invest in home ownership. I I Kona Community Development Plan 31 I DAMAV428-010emographic Companson Figures.PPT Figure 15: Housing enure, 2000 CDP 1 Kahaluu-Keauhou Captain Cook 2 3 5 c;1 Honaunau Kailua Honalo 54% 1 46% Hawaiian Ocean View Legend Owner -Occupied Housing Units Renter -Occupied Housing Units a )AMAU428-01\Demographic Comparison Figures.PPT Figure i + Housing Tenure, 1990-2-000 CDP Comparison Holualoa 80% Legend 60% 40% ^: 1990 2000 zo% 0% 1 Owner -Occupied Housing Units 2 2 Renter -Occupied Housing Units so% Honalo 80% Captain Cook 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% 1 2 2 80% 809'° Kahaluu-Keauhou Honaunau Na o0 oo 60% 60%- 40% 40% 20% 20% 0°% 0% 1 2 2 80/6Kailua 60,/° Kealakekua 60% 60% 40% �� �i 40% 20% v{' 200/( 1 2 1 2 Kalaoa Hawaiian Ocean View 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20°% 20% 0% 0% 2 2 31 \WOA17428-01Temographic Companson Figures PPT ig'ure 15: Housing OCCU ancc�, 2000 CDI 1 - Kalaoa _ 2 - Kailua 0 82°k 95% 1 3 - Holualoa 5 - Honalo 7% 2 10% 21% 3 72% 89% 4 5 6 4 - Kahaluu-Keauhou 7 6 - Ke l�kekua 8 �y8% 43% 31% 26% 92% 7 - Captain Cook 8 - Honaun u Napoop o 9 - Hawaiian Ocean View 6% 50/ 100 \� 27% 89% 68% 94% Legend Occupied Housing Units Vacant Housing Units fi Vacant Housing Units. For seasonal, recreational, or occasional use 32 Demographic Characteristics Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the proportion of households in North Kona increased 72 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then another 38 percent during 1990 to 2000. South Kona households grew 40 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, North Kona had more than twice the number of households than South Kona. Chart 15: Housing Occupancy, 1990 and 2000 ■ Vacant Units 0 Occupied Units 4 16000 12000 —North Kona —South Kona c 12000 D - —j0522 ° 8000 a` a = 8000 10522 a 4000 7898 E 6000 2591 3114 0 4000 1990 2000 1990 2000 North Kona South Kona Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the proportion of households in North Kona increased 72 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then another 38 percent during 1990 to 2000. South Kona households grew 40 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, North Kona had more than twice the number of households than South Kona. Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1, 2000 Moderate growth in both population and housing construction has occurred in the district of South Kona. Although the district is still dependent upon agriculture, some of the growth has been the direct result of the urban and resort growth in North Kona. This is reflected in an even distribution of new housing construction in sections from Kealakekua town to Captain Cook. Subdivision activity has not occurred at equal rates to housing construction suggesting an in -fill of existing agricultural and rural parcels. In North Kona, it is anticipated that the rate of in - Kona Community Development Plan 35 Chart 16: Number of Households —North Kona —South Kona 12000 - —j0522 10000 8000 a I E 6000 4000 §...` it 13 1 2000 0 1980 1990 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DP -1, 2000 Moderate growth in both population and housing construction has occurred in the district of South Kona. Although the district is still dependent upon agriculture, some of the growth has been the direct result of the urban and resort growth in North Kona. This is reflected in an even distribution of new housing construction in sections from Kealakekua town to Captain Cook. Subdivision activity has not occurred at equal rates to housing construction suggesting an in -fill of existing agricultural and rural parcels. In North Kona, it is anticipated that the rate of in - Kona Community Development Plan 35 Demographic Characteristics migration into the North Kona district will continue, as will the need for housing for residents. Rezoning actions for large scale residential subdivisions have occurred in the area between Kailua and Keauhou. When subdivided, additional lands will be provided for residential use. Nevertheless, land costs and market prices that have been influenced by investor and resort/residential markets may preclude purchase of house and lot packages by many households in the district. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 9-25 and 9-26) The county has determined the best strategies for North and South Kona would be to (1) Encourage the use of innovative types of housing developments, such as cluster and planned unit developments, that take advantage of the steep topographic conditions, ,(2) Increase affordable housing opportunities in the Kailua-Kona area, and for North Kona, and (3) Require developments that create a demand for employee housing provide for that need. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 9-26). 36 Kona Community Development Plan i Demographic Characteristics 3. Land Use The total area of the island of Hawaii is approximately 2.5 million acres or 4,028 square miles: 4,023 square miles of land and 4.4 square miles of inland water. All of these lands are divided into approximately 125,000 parcels. The land use element sets forth goals, policies, and standards to guide the location and density, and building intensities of land uses in particular areas. Regional and/or Community Development Plans are intended to implement the broad goals within the General Plan on a regional basis. They serve to designate and coordinate detailed development patterns and infrastructure needs throughout the County. The Plans detail land use policies and infrastructure priorities, transportation, recreation and other major land use policies within each area, and must be developed with participation by the affected communities and adopted by ordinance by the County Council. (County of Hawaii, 2005 14-1) 3.1. State Land Use Districts Refer to Charts: (17) State Land Use Districts and (18) Proportion of State Land Use Districts within Kona. Kona Community Development Plan 37 Hawaii was the first state to implement a State Land Use Law. Today, Hawaii remains unique among the fifty states with respect to the extent of control that the State exercises in land use regulation. Some of the actions leading to the passage of the State Land Use Law resulted from concerns and discussions predating World War II. In the post -World War II period, there was a perception that government action to control land uses was desirable because of the very limited area of the islands. It was also perceived that development of land for urban uses in many cases tended to occur in areas where it was uneconomical for public agencies to provide proper and adequate service facilities, and that there was a consequent lag in the provisions of such facilities. Further, there was a perception that development of land for urban uses in many cases occurred on land having a higher capacity for contributing to the basic economy of the State, namely agriculture, than the uses that were developed thereon. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 14-2) The passage of the Land Use Law in 1961 established the State Land Use Commission It called for the classification of all lands in the State and authorized the adoption of rules of practice and procedures and regulations for land use within the various State land use districts. The four land use districts: Urban, Rural, Agricultural, and Conservation, created by the State Land Use Commission provide the basic legal framework for land uses in the State of Hawaii. The Urban District is generally defined as lands in urban use with sufficient reserve to accommodate foreseeable growth. In the Kona Districts this Urban district is comprised of approximately 19,525 acres or 3 8 percent of the Kona Community Development Plan 37 Demographic Characteristics Kona Districts total land area. Rural Districts are defined as lands comprised of small farms mixed with low-density residential lots that have a minimum lot size of one-half acre under the State Land Use Law. Of the four districts, this is the smallest, with approximately 552 acres of the Kona Districts total land area. The Agricultural District includes lands with a high capacity for intensive cultivation as well as those with low capacity. The minimum lot size in this district under the State Land Use Law is one acre. In the Kona District, the Agricultural District has the largest land area with approximately 270,424 acres, or slightly over 52.8 percent of the total land area of the Kona District. Conservation Districts are primarily those lands in the existing forest and water reserve zones. This Kona district approximately 221,580 acres or 43.3 percent of the total land area of the Kona Districts. Land uses within the Urban Districts are administered exclusively by the counties. The State Land Use Commission establishes regulated uses for Agricultural and Rural Districts and each county is responsible for their administration. The counties, however, may adopt more stringent controls than those imposed by the State within these two districts. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 14-2) The composition of State Land Use Districts for North Kona is distinctively different from South Kona as South Kona focuses on its agricultural industry. North Kona has the highest proportion of urban land, followed closely by the State of Hawaii with 5.12 and 4.79 percent, respectively. North Kona, County of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii have a proportionately insignificantly difference of Agricultural land as each has approximately 44 to 46 percent of land dedicated to Agriculture compared to South Kona, in which 76 percent of South Kona land use is designated Agricultural. **Rural Districts not included, insignificant percentage of State Land Use. Source. County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 38 Kona Community Development Plan 1 1 1 1 f Demographic Characteristics The pie chart illustrates the proportion of State Land Use Districts found within the Kona districts The chart emphasizes the presence and potential of the agricultural industry as over half of the Land Use Districts are classified as Agricultural and 43 percent of the land is designated Conservation. A larger proportion of the conservation lands is found in North Kona The 1961 State Land Use Law (Act 187) vested the Department of Land and Natural Resources with jurisdiction over the Conservation District. Subzones were formulated within the Conservation District in order to regulate land uses and activities therein. The Conservation District has five subzones: Protective, Limited, Resource, General and Special. Omitting the Special subzone, the four subzones are arranged in a hierarchy of environmental sensitivity, ranging from the most environmentally sensitive (Protective) to the least sensitive (General); the Special subzone is applied in special cases specifically to allow a unique land use on a specific site. Chart 18: Proportion of State Land Use Districts within Kona 4% 0% 43% 53% Urban ®Rural DAgricultural Monservation Source County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 3.2. County of Hawaii Zoning Refer to graphs: (19) Zoning Classification by District and (20) Zoning Classification by District excluding Agricultural and Open Zoning. The Zoning Code for the County of Hawaii is the legal instrument that regulates the use of land. The Zoning Code implements the General Plan and is a document dealing with existing conditions and shorter range needs. The Zoning Code is the County's primary land use control The Zoning Code implements the General Plan. It deals with existing conditions and shorter range needs. The Zoning Code sets out the various types of zoning districts and the allowable uses for each. Zoning maps, established by ordinance, set out the zoning for the island on a parcel -by -parcel basis. (County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005: 14-3) Kona Community Development Plan 39 Demographic Characteristics The following graphs demonstrate the proportion of each zoning classification within North and South Kona. The data illustrates that three-fourths of South Kona land is designated for Agriculture, while slightly less than half of the land in North Kona is zoned Agricultural. 47 percent of North Kona land is designated Open, whereas only 8.3 percent of the land in South Kona is zoned Open. As part of the 1996 amendments to the Zoning Code Agricultural zoned land can also include lands transferred from Unplanned to Agriculture. In the last six years, rezoning has primarily occurred in the urban core of Kailua-Kona and is also consistent with the General Plan (Planning Department, 2006). The many small rezoning actions do not add much new potential growth, even taken collectively, have not rezoned much agricultural land, and have no changed the basic growth patterns that are built into prior zoning (Planning Department, 2006). The latter chart removes Agricultural and Open zoned land in order to focus on other zoning classifications. As of August 2005, North Kona identified approximately 2,300 acres as resort zoning, while South Kona zoned 15 acres as resort. Less than one percent of the land in North Kona and 0 25 percent in South Kona are zoned for single-family residence. Approximately 3,000 acres of land in North Kona is zoned for Industrial use in North Kona, where as there is no land set aside for industrial uses in South Kona. Most of Kona's industrial development is service oriented and located in the northern portion of the North Kona district from Kailua to the Kona International Airport at Keahole. Quarrying operations for building materials are conducted in North Kona. The Old Kailua Industrial Area and the Kaloko Industrial Area provide the largest concentration of industrial activities within West Hawaii. The Kona Industrial Subdivision in Kailua-Kona has transformed into a mixed-use industrial -commercial area over the years. Newer industrial areas, including the Kaloko Industrial subdivision, are being developed to the north of Kailua-Kona. The industrial activities within these newer areas include warehousing, lumber storage yards, auto body shops, wholesaling and other service oriented activities. The energy and aquaculture activities at the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii at Keahole have become major employment generators in the district. Though located in industrial zoned districts, these alternate energy and aquaculture activities are not traditional uses typically found in industrial areas. These industrial areas in North Kona accommodate a wide range of manufacturing, service, wholesale and retail activities. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-26 and 14-39) There are no Industrial zoned lands in the South Kona district. The agricultural sector is more important to Hawaii County than any other county in the state. The major export activity is coffee and macadamia nut milling and roasting. There are approximately 650 farms cultivating coffee on the western slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai mountains in the Kona district. Approximately, 3,500 acres of land is utilized for Kona coffee farming, producing about 3.8 million pounds a year, valued at about' $14 million (County of Hawaii, 2006). Other 40 Kona Community Development Plan Demographic Characteristics activities include slaughterhouses, fish packing and processing and ancillary ' agricultural services. Many of these industrial activities are located on Agricultural zoned lands and approved through the issuance of Special Permits. Other service related industrial uses such as warehousing, garages and auto body shops are located in pockets along the Mamalahoa Highway. Because of its topographic condition, however, level land necessary for development in South Kona is limited in the mauka areas. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 14-39) No zone 1l Residential -agriculture r_ Open 0 m Agricultural 0 a [Industrial N A Corm arcial U IM Resort C N res. tvLlli-Famly Single-Fanily res. Chart 19: Zoning Classification by District North Kona ■ South Kona 0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 Percentage ource: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 Chart 20: Zoning Classification by District Excluding Agricultural and Open Zoning Residential-agdcul c Indu: 0 m w Comme m Re U m cS Multi -Family N Single -Family 'MM■■■■■■ 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10 North Kona III South Kona Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 Kona Community Development Plan S 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 10 North Kona III South Kona Source: County of Hawaii Data Book, 2004 Kona Community Development Plan S Demographic Characteristics I This page left blank intentionally. 42 Kona Community Development Plan I 1 �I 1 ISII l _J 71 L Demographic Characteristics 4. References 1. Bank of Hawaii Hawaii Economic Trends. Prepared by Paul Brewbaker. 2006 October 30. https://boh com/econ.. 2. County of Hawaii. County of Hawaii Agriculture: Coffee: 1998. http //www.hawaii-county.com/bigislandag/konacoffee.html 3. County of Hawaii. County of Hawaii General Plan. February 2005 4. Department of Research and Development. 1998 County of Hawaii Data Book. County of Hawaii, July 1999. 5 First Hawaiian Bank First Hawaiian Bank Economic Forecast. 2006 November 9. http://www fhb com/hm_newsl 10906.htm 6. First Hawaiian Bank. First Hawaiian Bank Economic Forecast — Big Island. 2006 September 13. http://www.fhb.com/hm_news091306.htm 7. Department of Business, Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) Hawaii Census 2000. State of Hawaii. 8. DBEDT. Monthly Economic Indicators. Released: 2006 December 4. http.//www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/data_reports. 9. DBEDT. State of Hawaii Data Book 1984. http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook. 10. DBEDT. State of Hawaii Data Book 1990. http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook. 11. DBEDT. State of Hawaii Data Book 1998. http.//www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook. 12. DBEDT. State of Hawaii Data Book 2004. http.//www. hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook. 13. DBEDT. State of Hawaii Data Book 2005. http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info%conomic/databook. 14. Big Island Bonds Rated A+ by Fitch. Honolulu Advertiser, 20 December 2006. http://honoluluadvertiser.com Kona Community Development Plan 43 Demographic Characteristics 15. Nedd, Harold. Swinging Retirees Flock to Kona-Kohala Coast. Pacific Business News, 15 December 2006. Pg. 19. 16. October Tourism: Few Visitors Spent a lot; Quake not a Big Factor. Pacific Business News. 30 November 2006. http://pacific. bizjournals. com/pacific/stories/2006/11 /271daily38. htm I 17. Planning Department. Subject. Overview of Land Use Trends. Prepared by C. Yuen, Director. Prepared for: Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair and Members of the County Council. 9 March 2005. 18. Planning Department. Council Zoning Overview, Re: Land Use Trends, 2005-2006. Prepared by C. Yuen, Director. Prepared for: Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Member of the Committee on Planning. 22 December 2006. 19. UHERO: Hawaii Spending Power Flattens Out. Pacific Business News December 2006. http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/11 /27/daily54.html 20. University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO). UHERO County Economic Forecast. Slowing Evident in County Economies. Prepared by C. Bonham, B. Gangnes, and L. Laney. 5 July 2006. 21. U.S. Census Bureau. 2000 Census. http://factfinder.census.gov 22. U.S. Census Bureau. 2005 American Community Survey. http://factfinder.census.gov 44 Kona Community Development Plan 1 ' KONA REGIONAL PROFILE Wilson Okamoto Corporation January 2007 C KONA REGIONAL PROFILE KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Submitted to: " County of Hawaii Department of Planning January 2007 WILSON OKAMOTO CORPORATION 1 11 1 r 1 1 11 KONA REGIONAL PROFILF Kona Community Development Plan Prepared for Planning Department County of Hawaii Prepared by Wilson Okamoto Corporation 1907 S. Beretania Street, Suite 400 Honolulu, Hawaii 96826 January 2007 Table of Contents Kona Community Development ment Plan 1 Environmental Setting TABLE OF CONTENTS Page 1 PLANNING 1.1 FOR KONA.................................................................................1 Introduction .. ..... ........ ..................................................................1 12 What is the General Plan?...............................................................1 1.3 1.4 What is the Kona Community Development Plan? ............................... 2 Previous Plans .............................................................. ............ 1.41 A Plan For Kona (1960).. ...... .................. ..........••••••••••• 3 1.4.2 Kealakehe Development Plan (1968) . ............. .............. .... 4 1.4.3 Kona Regional Plan (1982) .................................................4 1.4.4 Kailua Village Design Plan (1988) ........................................ 1.4.5 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (1991) ........................ 1.4.6 Master Plan for Kailua-Kona (1994) ............. .................... 5 5 6 1.4.7 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan (1997) .................................... ................... 14.8 Keahole to Kailua Roadway Master Plan (2001) .................. 8 8 1.4.9 Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (2003) ....... 9 2 COMMUNITY 2.1 PROFILE................................................................................11 Kona Region .............. ....................... ..... ................ .............11 2.1.1 Population......................................................................15 2.1 2 Ethnicity ................................... .... ...................................17 2.1.3 Economy ............................. ...... .....................................18 2.1 3.1 Economic History . .............................................18 2.132 Major Industries...............................................21 2.1.3 2.1Visitor Industry ....................................... 21 2.1.3.2.2Agriculture.......................................... 23 2.1.3.2.3Construction Industry . ........................ 2.1.3.2.4Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii 23 Authority ................ ........................ .... .. 25 2.1.3.3 Employment ......................................... ...... .. 25 2.1.3.4 Housing ........................................................... 27 2.1 3.5 Income Distribution.........................................29 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING......................................................................31 3.1 Geology and Topography ........................ .................. ................. 31 3.2 33 Climate........................................................................................... Regional Soils...............................................................................31 31 3.4 Natural Resources...................................................................... 33 3.5 Water Resources .......................... ................. ..... ..... ........ . 35 3.6 Natural Hazards ........................ .... .................................. ...... 36 3.7 History ......................................................... ....................... .36 4 REFERENCES..............................................................................................43 Kona Community Development ment Plan i Table of Contents List of Figures Page Figure1 Planning Area.....................................................................................12 Figure2 Land Cover........................................................................................13 Figure 3 Rainfall and Topography.................................................................... 32 Figure 4 Natural Resources.............................................................................. 34 Figure 5 Island of Hawaii Aquifer System and Sector Areas ............................ 35 List of Tables Table 1 List of Previous Plans for North and South Kona Districts .................... 3 Table 2 Total Visitors...................................................................................... 21 Table 3 2006 New Residential Permits (Up to End of November) ................... 25 Table 4 Number of Building Permits................................................................ 24 List of Charts Chart 1 Resident Population...............................................................................15 Chart 2 Rate of the Residential Population Growth, 1970 to 2000 ......................16 Chart 3 Population Density, 1970 to 2000 ......................................... Chart 4 Race and Ethnicity by Race alone, 2000 and 2005 ...............................17 Chart 5 Employment by Major Economic Sector in the County of Hawaii, 1960 to 1997................................................................................................26 Chart 6 The Percent Change of Housing Units ................................................... 28 Chart 7 Number of Households.......................................................................... 29 Chart 8 Per Capita Income Rate of Change, 1990 to 2000 ................................ 29 Kona Community Development Plan IPlanning for Kona I1 PLANNING FOR KONA 1.1 Introduction Planning for Kona ranges from the comprehensive Hawaii County General Plan, which provides the planning framework for the North and South Kona districts within the context of the entire County, to urban design planning specific to Kailua-Kona. The range of plans overlap in geography and time frame, reflecting the goals, aspirations and community's perception and understanding of issues and concerns as the Kona region has grown. 1.2 What is the General Plan? General Plan studies in the County were initiated in the late 1950's and were limited to certain regions of the island such as Kona, Hilo, Kohala, Hamakua and Puna districts. These initial documents lacked a comprehensive, coordinated and integrated overview of the entire County. These regional plans were adopted by Ordinance 317 in July 1965, as the General Plan for the County of Hawaii. The Kau District was the only area not covered by this plan. With the adoption and ratification of the County Charter in 1968, the General Plan emerged as the main policy document. The mayor planning guide for the County of Hawaii, the General Plan, was adopted in 1971 as Ordinance 439. The 1971 General Plan provided a long-range comprehensive framework for the island of Hawaii and includes goals, policies and standards to guide the development of the island. Develo ment Plan Kona Community p The County Charter requires that a review of the General Plan be initiated every ten years. The County Council approved the most recent update of the Plan in February of 2005. The General Plan is the County's long range planning policy document Organized into 13 Elements, the Plan identifies broad Goals, Policies, and Standards relating to land use, conservation and protection of natural and historical resources, transportation, and public infrastructure on the Island of Hawaii. The purposes of the 2005 General Plan are to: ■ Guide the pattern of future development in this County based on long-term goals; 9 Identify the visions, values, and priorities important to the people of this County, a Provide the framework for regulatory decisions, capital improvement priorities, acquisition strategies, and other pertinent government programs within the County organization and coordinated with State and Federal programs; C Improve the physical environment of the County as a setting for human activities, to make it more functional, beautiful, healthful, interesting, and efficient. Develo ment Plan Kona Community p Planning for Kona • Promote and safeguard the public interest and interest of the County as a whole. ■ Facilitate the democratic determination of community policies concerning the utilization of its natural, man-made, and human resources. ■ Effect political and technical coordination in community improvement and development ■ Inject long-range considerations into the determination of short-range actions and implementation. 1.3 What is the Kona Community Development Plan? In 1973, consultants began preparing the Kona Community Development Plan (CDPD to fulfill the 1971 General Plan. The CDP provided the public and private sector guidance on a 15 -year strategy Tfori improving economic, social, and environmental conditions in Kona. In 1975, a draft was submitted for review by the public, however, the draft plan was never adopted by the County. Decades later, the County of Hawaii offers a program for regional planning. The County Council approved the update of the General Plan on February 9, 2005 as Ordinance 05-025 in compliance with Hawaii County Charter. Under the General Plan, each judicial district will have a community development plan (CDP) prepared that further defines long-range goals and policies for that district. Through the creation of CDPs, communities are invited to participate in creating policies as well as to determine implementing actions designed for their specific region of the County. The Kona CDP is the first to be enacted under the General Plan and is designed to be a model for CDPs to be prepared for other regions of the island. It translates the broad goals and policies of the County's General Plan, into specific actions and priorities for specific geographic areas in the districts of North and South Kona. The CDP gives detail to the elements addressed by the General Plan, such as the economy, energy, environmental quality, flooding and other natural hazards, historic sites, natural beauty, natural resources and shoreline, housing, public facilities, public utilities, recreation, transportation, and land use. Emphasized are elements most relevant to the issues and conditions in the Kona planning area. The Kona CDP process is guided by a Steering Committee composed of a broad cross-section of the community. The Steering Committee, appointed by the Mayor and confirmed by the Council on February 1, 2006, provides guidance, assists in the preparation of the plan, and recommend the plan's approval to the Planning Commission. See Appendix A for a list of the Steering Committee Members. The General Plan requires CDPs be adopted by the County Council as an "ordinance", giving the plans force of law. This is in contrast to plans created in past years that were adopted by "resolution" and hence, served only as guidelines or reference documents for decision -makers. 2 Kona Community Development Plan 1 1 1 11 1 1 t w 0 1 i� Planning for Kona 1.4 Previous Plans Various plans addressing issues such as land use, infrastructure and urban design have been prepared over the years. The following sections briefly discuss these plans and Table 1-1 lists them by chronologically: Table 1 List of Previous Plans for North and South Kona Districts Tvpe of Document Date Name of Plan Land Use Infrastructure Urban Design 1960 A Plan for Kona X X 1968 Kealakehe Development Plan X X 1971 General Plan X X 1975 Kona Community Development Plan X X 1982 Kona Regional Plan X X 1988 Kadua Village Design Plan X 1991 Keahole to Kadua Development Plan X X 1994 Master Plan for Kadua-Kona X X X 1997 Keahole to Kadua Development Plan X Revised Roadway Plan Implementation Strategy 2001 Keahole to Kadua Roadway Master X Plan 2003 Keahole to Honaunau Regional X Circulation Plan 2005 General Plan X X 2007 Kona Community Development Plan X X X 1.4.1 A Plan For Kona (1960) "A Plan for Kona" (Harland Bartholomew and Associates, March 1960) was prepared for the State Office of Planning and was one of the first studies prepared for North and South Kona. At that time, the need for guiding and coordinating development in the region was recognized. This plan examined the issues and opportunities facing Kona, as well as Kona's economic, environmental and community resources. The study area Included the Kona shoreline up to an elevation of 4,000 feet, from Makalawena in the north to Hookena in the south. The planning objectives of the Plan were to: 1. Preserve the unique attractions of the "Kona Way of Life." 2. Conserve and enhance the striking natural beauty of the region. 3. Establish a healthy and efficient pattern of land use to promote the general well being of the community. 4. Provide for a safe and efficient transportation of people and goods within Kona, recognizing a need for local roads designed for leisurely sightseeing. Kona Community Development Plan 3 Planning for Kona 5. Advance Kona's position as a potential tourist destination area. 6. Coordinate land use planning with the development of an economical water system. 7. Foster continuation of a health agricultural enterprise. 8. Create attractive residential neighborhoods with a full range of facilities of urban living. A Plan for Kona recommended that Kailua-Kona expand into a series of destination resort centers. Additional resort centers, each laid out to make use of a particular shoreline resources were established at: 1. Kaloko Fishpond area. 2. Honokohau Fishpond area. 3. Airport Bay (small bay at the northerly end at the present day Old Kona Airport) 4. Holualoa Beach, extending south to Disappearing Beach 5. Kahaluu Bay Village, extending south to surround Kahaluu Bay park 6. Kainaliu Beach 7. South shore of Limukoko Point 8. Kealia Beach north of Hookena Kailua-Kona is the major resort center in this Plan. A major element of this plan is the creation of pedestrian squares or malls. The Plan also proposed locations for marinas, recreation areas and the need for community facilities, infrastructure and a Kona Regional Center for Federal, State, and County offices. 1.4.2 Kealakehe Development Plan (1968) The State of Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources contracted Charles Yoon & Associates, Inc. to prepare the Kealakehe Development Plan (1968), a comprehensive planning, engineering, and economic plan to determine the potential for development and supporting facilities necessary to enhance Honokohau Harbor. The purpose of the plan was to recommend an appropriate development program adaptable to approximately 1,600 acres comprising the Kealakehe Lands in North Kona owned by the State of Hawaii. The study area extended from the Kona Airport in the north to Keauhou Bay in the south and Kona coastline up to Mamalahoa Highway. The report sets forth specific findings, conclusions and recommendations, relative to development potentials, area allocations, and pertinent design criteria. The development plan included a marina, golf course, hotels, recreational resources, and housing and vacation homes. 1.4.3 Kona Regional Plan (1982) As mentioned previously, the Draft Kona Community Development Plan (1975) was submitted for review but never adopted by the County. 4 Kona Community Development Plan 1 iPlanning for Kona During the preparation of the Kona CDP, Kona experienced rapid development as a result of the booming industry. Growth consumed land of various residential, commercial, industrial, and resort uses. In late 1979, the Planning Department started work on the "Kona Regional Plan" (County of Hawaii Planning Department, 1982) that covered North and South Kona districts. The objective of the plan was to provide the Planning Department and the Commission with a land use document by which evaluations of changes in land use could be made on a consistent basis. This plan identified urban areas and an overall pattern of development in the Kona region. The Kona Regional Plan was initiated to serve as a guide for land use actions by the public and private sector. The following are the Kona Regional Plan's Planning Principles: 1. Adequate land area should be designated for each respective land use. 2. Designation of land area for the differing uses should be sufficient to allow for low and moderate density development. 3. Spatial separation of resort and residential uses. 4. Infrastructure capacities such as roads and water supplies must be adequate to handle the loads generated by new development. 5. Protect groundwater resources. 6 Those areas not necessary for urban development should be kept in open type uses and maintained in large lot sizes. 1.4.4 Kailua Village Design Plan (1988) In 1960, the Plan for Kona first described a series of urban design suggestions for the village of Kona. The County of Hawaii adopted the Kailua Village Design Plan in 1976 that reiterated many of the concepts and principals of the 1960 Plan for Kona. An update program was conducted to re-examine the design guidelines in the 1976 plan and to recommend new strategies. The 1988 update plan was not formally adopted. The Kailua Village area includes the northern side of Palani Road (north), the area makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (east), Kona Hillcrest (south) and the shoreline including the strip makai of the Old Kona Airport (west). The Kailua Village Design Plan was prepared to guide the Kailua Village Design Commission, the Planning Department, the Planning Commission, the County Council and other governmental agencies in addressing urban design issues for Kailua Village. 1.4.5 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (1991) The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (K to K Plan), adopted by the Hawaii County Council on April 3, 1991, represents an ongoing effort by the County of Hawaii to prepare for the future urbanization of the region to meet the growing needs of West Hawaii. The K to K Plan encompasses the area from Kona International Kona Community Development ment Plan 5 Planning for Kona Airport at Keahole (Kau Ahupuaa) to Kailua-Kona (Palani Road), and from the shoreline mauka towards Mamalahoa Highway. The K to K Plan addresses land use, infrastructure, and provides cost estimates for infrastructure in order to address future development in the region. The plan included a land use plan, infrastructure plan, and financing and implementation plan for the next 20 years that provide a framework for future development of the Keahole to Kailua area. The preferred concept plan that emerged incorporates ideas from several of the alternative concept plans. The preferred plan was shaped by a development themes or concepts. These themes are summarized below: A. Three Major Development Zones The plan organized land uses into three zones corresponding with identified physiographic/ecological/historical zones. The coastal zone would provide recreational opportunities. The zone just mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway would be planned for denser urban uses, such as industrial uses, new civic center, retail and commercial development. The upland zone is planned for residential development, including schools, parks and village centers. B. New Government and Business Center Civic and commercial uses would be located on the mauka side of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, a couple of miles north of Kailua Village. C. Major New Roadways New north -south and mauka-makai roads were proposed to connect the planned developments. D. Regional Greenbelt System To complement the proposed road system, landscaping, bicycle/jogging/Wal king paths would be located along roadways. The greenbelts would serve a number of purposes, including providing greenery and shade, visually screening urban uses, providing recreation uses, and defining different land uses. 1.4.6 Master Plan for Kailua-Kona (1994) The planning area boundary of the Master Plan for Kailua-Kona are defined by the Kailua Village Special District (Hawaii County Ordinance §25-7-1). The area extends north to include the northern side of Palani Road, east to include the area makai of the Queen Kaahumanu Highway (east), south to include Kona Hillcrest and the shoreline strip makai of the Old Kona Airport. The Master Plan for Kailua-Kona is a comprehensive plan that conveys the opportunities and constraints concerning: 6 Kona Community Development Plan IPlanning for Kona ■ Land development controls including, land use options, special design treatment areas, physical design treatment and design criteria guidelines; ■ Pedestrian and vehicular circulation patterns; ■ Other infrastructure assessments, including energy, communication requirements, public and private community facilities; ■ Historic and cultural sites; ■ Significant natural land forms and water features, views and vistas; and ■ Basic concepts of environmental character including architectural design goals. The Master Plan discusses planning concepts for various development components, including village image, development patters (resort, commercial, residential), historic sites, public/community facilities, open space/recreation, circulation and the pier/seawall area. The Master Plan emphasizes the "Village core", with the intense uses being centralized and densities decreasing progressively away from the core. The following are the recommendations for each of the development components: A. Village Image ■ Maintain low scale structures with height limits. ■ Provide community design guidelines. ■ Provide village entries and landscape features. B. Development Patterns Limit strip malls ■ Utilize The Great Wall of Kuakini as transition element. ■ Reinforce village and development standards. ■ Create pedestrian scale. C Resorts ■ Limit resorts to areas makai of Kuakmi Highway. ■ Provide for appropriate commercial uses within resort areas. D. Commercial ■ Limit strip malls. ■ Provide small office and neighborhood convenience commercial. E. Residential ■ Provide variety of residential types and densities. ■ Cluster to increase open space. ■ Reinforce village core . ■ Reduce densities away from core. ■ Provide incentives to encourage cluster developments ■ Allow small scale convenience commercial. Kona Community Development Plan Planning for Kona F. Historic Sites ■ Preserve remaining portions of the Great Wall of Kuakini • Develop a brochure regarding historic sites in the Village for distribution to visitors. ■ Develop action plans for preservation and maintenance of historic sites. G. Public/Community Facilities ■ Create a civic park(s) along Alii Drive. H. Open Space/Recreation • Increase neighborhood parks and open space. ■ Utilize area adjacent to the Great Wall of Kuakini as linear park. I. Pier/Seawall ■ Relocate parking from pier. ® Create a pedestrian environment. ■ Improve streetscape along seawall. ® Repair plan for seawall. The Master Plan also provided evaluation mechanisms and an implementation time table. 1.4.7 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan (1997) Since the preparation of the K to K Plan, development was progressing quickly and the need for a more in-depth roadway analysis became apparent. Townscape Inc. was retained by the Hawaii County Planning Department to expand on presented concepts from the 1991 K to K Plan. A detailed roadway plan and implementation strategy for the major roadways within the K to K planning area was needed. Implementation was phased over three time periods, 2005, 2020, and 2050. The development of this detailed plan involved updating the status of various projects planned within the region and identifying roadway corridors that would be needed to accommodate future traffic. The Roadway Plan recommended improvements to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Palani Road, Kealakehe Parkway, Makala Road, and Hina Lani Drive; the construction of North-South Roads, including Waena Drive and Kealakaa Street, Mid -Level Road and University Drive. 1.4.8 Keahole to Kailua Roadway Master Plan (2001) The following is a summary from Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (2001). This study revised the Keahole to Kailua Roadway Plan to accommodate developments planned or constructed since the 1997 publication. The study reviewed development plans affecting Mid -Level Road and Waena Drive. It also 8 Kona Community Development Plan 1 11 Kona Community Development Plan Planning for Kona assessed the feasibility of alternative realignments for these roads and identified potential traffic impacts. The plan recommended the following: ® Realign Mid -Level Road mauka of Kohanaiki Business Park to the Waena Drive alignment as it crosses Kaiminani Drive. ® Terminate Waena Drive at its intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. ® Increase the Mid -Level Road right-of-way requirements from 120 feet to 150 feet. The increase accounts for future widening of the road which would offset the elimination of Waena Drive. ® Designate existing Mid -Level alignment as Main Street increasing right -of- way from 60 feet to 80 feet to account for loss of Waena Drive. 1.4.9 Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (2003) This regional transportation plan was initiated to address the peak hour traffic congestion on the region's arterial roadways during peak hours through parts of North and South Kona. According to the plan, urban sprawl, population growth, uncoordinated development, and resulting traffic congestion are severely affecting the quality of life and character of the Kona region. The plan identified needs for new roadways and/or expansion of existing roadways for commercial vehicles, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems. Three types of recommendations were presented: 1. Corridor Management programmatic recommendations. ® County Council Resolution on Transportation Corridor Management R Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 2. Proposed short term 9 range concepts that address projects and Ion transportation needs for the next 20 years. ® Ke Ala O Keauhou and Mamalahoa Highway Bypass — Traffic Access Management ® Hienaloli Road/Keanalehu Road and Kealakaa Street/Kealakehe Parkway — Extension Projects ® Bikeways and Paths — Improvements Projects ® Mass Transit — Improvement Projects ® Fixed Rail Mass Transit ® Future North-South Corridors 3. Projects and programs that require further study were identified. ■ County Historic Preservation Policies ® Community Character Benchmarks ® Green Open Space ® Heritage Corridor ® General Plan Update ® Regional Development Plan 1 11 Kona Community Development Plan Planning for Kona This page intentionally left blank. 10 Kona Community P Develo ment Plan I r [J 11 Community Profile 2 COMMUNITY PROFILE West Hawaii is known for its great weather, beautiful waters and amazing scenery. Both residents and visitors recognize and appreciate Kona's unique qualities that contribute to the "Kona way of life". During the past 25 years, the population of Kailua-Kona has more than doubled. Resort development boomed in the 1970s and has grown steadily since, evolving and diversifying into forms such as time-shares and vacation homes, vacation rentals and bed and breakfast businesses. Significant changes in the North and South Kona are occurring as a result of expanding resort and residential development. Traffic congestion, affordability of housing, loss of open space are among concerns voiced by residents regarding the "quality of life" and the ability of the government sector to serve residents. The County's 2005 General Plan and the on-going preparation of Community Development Plans (CDPs) are intended to guide future development and coordinate governmental facilities and services needed to support a growing community. For the first time, the County of Hawaii offers a program for regional planning under the legal umbrella of the General Plan. Through the creation of CDPs, communities are invited to participate in creating policies as well as to formulate implementing actions designed for their specific region of the County. The General Plan requires CDPs be adopted by the County Council as an "ordinance", giving the plans force of law. This is in contrast to plans created in past years that were adopted by "resolution" and hence, served only as guidelines or reference documents for decision -makers. 2.1 Kona Region The Island of Hawaii has a land area of 4,030 square miles, making it the largest County in the State with a land area exceeding that of all the other islands combined. The 800 square miles of land area comprising the North and South Kona districts is about 20% of the total land area of the Island of Hawaii (see Figure 1). Kona is characterized by vast open spaces offering varied landscapes (see Figure 2). These landscapes ranged from barren lava plains and rugged coastline interspersed by white sand beaches, and dense native forests, transitioning from dryland forests to leeward rainforests on the slopes of Hualalai and Mauna Loa. Kailua-Kona in North Kona is the heart of the visitor industry on the island. The original resort destination on the west side of the island has attracted retailers, shopping centers, residential and vacation home development as well as industrial uses fueled by development. South of Kailua-Kona is the Keauhou resort area. Kona Community Development Plan Kallua Keauhou Kealakekua Legend •i Planning Area Major Roads Other Roads 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Figure 1 Planning Area Kona Community Development Plan Mamalahoa � � NORTH KONA a ...- r 1 3 1 SOUTH KONA i i t Community Profile This page intentionally left blank. 14n Plan i Kona Community Development A 7 ICommunity Profile 1 1 [7 Chart 1: Residential Population Comparison of the Countyvof,Hawaii fi ` and Kona Di`strict -" ,1200000 1000000 w , 800000 a 600000 a° 400000, 200000 197Q 1980 1983 r + County of HI State of Hawaii 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984, 1990, 1998, 2004, and 2005 Between 1980 and 1990, the North Kona population growth rate began to slow, yet was still higher than South Kona, the County of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii (see Chart 2). The 1990 census revealed a Kona resident population of 29,942 residents, or an increase of 52 percent over the 1980 Kona resident population. The census registered 37,132 Kona residents in 2000, a 24 percent increase over the 1990 resident population. About 65 percent of the county population growth during this Kona Community Development ment Plan 15 South Kona is home to the Kona Coffee Belt, located above Kealakekua. The coffee belt runs parallel to the ocean from 700 feet above sea level to 2,000 feet elevation. The majority of South Kona is zoned agriculture and many residents are farmers growing coffee,macadamia nuts, avocado, and a variety of fruits and vegetables. 2.1.1 Population According to the U.S. Census Bureau, the State of Hawaii residential population reached 1,275,194 in 2005. In 2005, thirteen percent, (167,293) of the state population resided in the County of Hawaii. Within the County, 25 percent of the 2000 County population was living in the Kona District (37,132 people). In 1970 thepop ulation in the County of Hawaii numbered 63,468 and was the first to show an increase, albeit small, since 1930 when the population peaked at 73,325, largely as a result of the importation of labor for the sugar industry. The population decline between 1930 and the 1960s was primarily due to the increasing mechanization of the sugar plantation, limited job opportunities in other economic sectors, and the out -migration of residents. This decline was reversed during the 1960s with a modest growth of 2,140 residents between the 1960 and 1970 census. Since 1970, the County's population has continued to grow, with the largest population increase occurring during the 1970's in North Kona (see Chart 1). The 1980 census registered a Hawaii island -wide resident population of 92,053 people representing a 45 percent increase over the 1970 census In the North and South Kona Districts, the 1980 census total population of both areas increased 122.5 percent over the 1970 census 1 1 [7 Chart 1: Residential Population Comparison of the Countyvof,Hawaii fi ` and Kona Di`strict -" ,1200000 1000000 w , 800000 a 600000 a° 400000, 200000 197Q 1980 1983 r + County of HI State of Hawaii 1990 1995 2000 2005 Source: The State of Hawaii Data Book, 1984, 1990, 1998, 2004, and 2005 Between 1980 and 1990, the North Kona population growth rate began to slow, yet was still higher than South Kona, the County of Hawaii, and the State of Hawaii (see Chart 2). The 1990 census revealed a Kona resident population of 29,942 residents, or an increase of 52 percent over the 1980 Kona resident population. The census registered 37,132 Kona residents in 2000, a 24 percent increase over the 1990 resident population. About 65 percent of the county population growth during this Kona Community Development ment Plan 15 Community Profile 2.1.3 Economy 2.1.3.1 Economic History The following is an updated summary initially presented in from the Kona Regional Plan (9982): 1950-1960 During the 1950s primary basis of the Kona economy was agriculture. In 1950, 52 percent of the employed persons in Kona listed farm laborer, farm manager or farmer as their occupation, and were involved in coffee, cattle, and other smaller agricultural endeavors. The remainder of the employed persons where in various occupations such as professions/technical workers, managers, clerical, sales, and construction providing the private and governmental services for agricultural activities and the resident population. Total employment at that time was 2,420 workers which supported a population of 7,330 persons. Between 1950 and 1960 the coffee market improved and higher prices were paid. The opportunity provided by these price increases attracted people into the Kona area where total employment reached 3,859 in 1960 with a resident population of 8,743 persons. However, as the basis for this growth was agriculture, the structure of the economy, i.e. the types of jobs available in Kona, did not change dramatically. The visitor industry at that time was comparatively small consisting of 400 units centered around Kailua, and it was estimated that there were 291 workers employed in the hotels, as compared with 1,449 persons in agriculture. 1960-1970 By 1970s the relative roles of the visitor industry and agriculture were completely reverse. The 1970 census reported that there were 333 agricultural employees in Kona, a decrease of 1,116 workers since the 1960 census count. Meanwhile, the number of persons in the visitor industry increased by a large amount. In 1970, the number of people in the personal service sector, which includes hotels, was 659 compared to the 344 in 1960. Similarly, there were significant increases in the transportation and retail sectors, and, substantially more persons engaged in construction, which is also related to the development of the visitor industry. By 1970 there were 1,449 visitor accommodation units in Kona, more than three times the units which were in-place ten years earlier. Between 1960 and 1970 there was another kind of economic change occurring. The "urban service" sector which included finance, insurance, real estate, and business and repair services, health, education, professional services and communication increased, reflecting an expanding array of services to the resident population and businesses. Thus, from 1960 to 1970 the structure of the Kona economy changed from a relative dominance of the agricultural sector to the dominance of the visitor industry. However, the combined increases in the visitor industry, construction industry, and 8 Kona Community Development Plan While not directly comparable to the 1970 census data there was a definite increase in construction sector, manufacturing, communications and utilities, wholesale/retail trade, and finance/insurance/real estate sectors. Interestingly, the agricultural sector also showed considerable expansion even though the traditional commodities of cattle and coffee appear to have remained stable or declined in output. The estimate employment growth in agriculture may have be due to several factors including: 1) while the farmers and farm workers often work the land on a part time basis newer entries to the field maybe more likely to consider themselves as agricultural workers primarily, 2) expansion in other crop types such as macadamia nuts, greenhouse culture and illicit marijuana cultivation. While most, if not at all, sectors had increases during the 1970 — 1980 period, the principal basis for this expansion was in the export sectors of agriculture and tourism 1980-1990 In the1980s there was a dramatic slowdown in the growth of Kona coincident with a national economic recession. Construction activity for condominiums, retail facilities, housing and industrial development slowed The visitor industry was flat and experienced downturns in 1980 and 1982, something which is contrary to Kona's historic growth trends. Meanwhile, the coffee industry has been undergoing a revitalization with the increase in coffee prices and the introduction of additional Iwholesale buyers Kona Community Development Plan 19 Community Profile "urban service" were offset by the decline in agriculture, thus both in terms of total employment and population there was little overall change in Kona. By 1970, there were only 27 more employed persons and 93 more residents in Kona than there were in 1960 1970-1980 The 1980 population for North and South Kona was approximately 20,000 people l based 1980 census. This amounted to a growth of approximately 11,000 over the 1970 count or a 10 -year increase more than doubling the population. This rapid growth rate had not been matched in Kona over the preceding 80 years. The economic changes that have spurred and supported this growth were largely in the visitor industry. From 1970 to 1979 visitor activity in Kona, as measured by occupied visitor units grow, from 978 and 2,324 occupied rooms. This growth resulted in more hotel employees along with increases in the retail and transportation services which are also part of the visitor industry. The tourism created demand for more hotels and spurred a dramatic increase in resort condominium construction. Both the visitor industry employee and construction employee growth added income from outside sources to the Kona economy and provided increased opportunities for businesses serving these industries and residents. While not directly comparable to the 1970 census data there was a definite increase in construction sector, manufacturing, communications and utilities, wholesale/retail trade, and finance/insurance/real estate sectors. Interestingly, the agricultural sector also showed considerable expansion even though the traditional commodities of cattle and coffee appear to have remained stable or declined in output. The estimate employment growth in agriculture may have be due to several factors including: 1) while the farmers and farm workers often work the land on a part time basis newer entries to the field maybe more likely to consider themselves as agricultural workers primarily, 2) expansion in other crop types such as macadamia nuts, greenhouse culture and illicit marijuana cultivation. While most, if not at all, sectors had increases during the 1970 — 1980 period, the principal basis for this expansion was in the export sectors of agriculture and tourism 1980-1990 In the1980s there was a dramatic slowdown in the growth of Kona coincident with a national economic recession. Construction activity for condominiums, retail facilities, housing and industrial development slowed The visitor industry was flat and experienced downturns in 1980 and 1982, something which is contrary to Kona's historic growth trends. Meanwhile, the coffee industry has been undergoing a revitalization with the increase in coffee prices and the introduction of additional Iwholesale buyers Kona Community Development Plan 19 Community Profile 1990-2000 Tourism replaced sugar as the County's primary economic generator during the mid- 1980s and saw its peak visitor arrival numbers in 1989 and later in 2005. Since 1990, external factors such as the Asian economic crisis, the Persian Gulf War, and a brief economic downturn in the U.S. Mainland have contributed toward the State's protracted economic doldrum. In 1990, employment increased to 55,200 on a population base of 120,317. From 1990 to 1997, employment grew at an annual compounded rate of only 1.61 percent, a reflection of the County's recessionary economy during this period. Nevertheless, the County successfully attracted several world-class events such as the Ironman World Championship, PGA Seniors MasterCard Tournament of Champions at the Hualalai Resort and Golf Course, and Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament and saw the completion of the 243 -room Hualalai Resort and its second championship golf course. Kona Airport also began to increase the number of direct national and international flights to Kona, which can be attributed to the 29 percent increased of visitors between 1990 and 2000. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-2) The County's overall economic outlook remained mixed due to the County's dependence on the condition of the State's economy. Since 1990, the State's economy has been in a period of decline and only in recent years has shown improvement. While there are opportunities for expansion into new and existing industries such as astronomy, high technology, renewable energy, health and wellness, agricultural and eco -tourism, and diversified agriculture and aquaculture, external factors such as the world economies impact the County economy. However, the State and County's continuing support of research and development of emerging fields will ensure a promising future for the island's economy and its residents. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-7) 2000-2005 Hawaii's economy is healthy, which is demonstrated through the state's low unemployment rate, visitor industry growth, high hotel occupancy and busy construction industry. Tourism continues to be healthy, especially in the cruise ship market (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). From 2000 and 2005, visitor arrival in the County of Hawaii increased 20 percent with the all time high visitor arrival count in 2005 (DEBT, 2005). Throughout 2006, Hawaii County continued to share in the statewide economic expansion. Taxable value in the County has risen a remarkable 14.5 percent per year since fiscal 2001 (Honolulu Advertiser, 2006). Hawaii County showed positive wage and salary job growth from 2005 to the third quarter of 2006; the highest growth among all counties (DBEDT, 2006). The agricultural sector is more important to Hawaii County than any other county in the state. The major industrial export activity is coffee and macadamia nut milling and roasting. There are about 650 farms cultivating coffee on the western slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai mountains in the Kona district. Approximately, 3,500 acres of land is utilized for Kona coffee farming, producing about 3.8 million pounds a year, valued at about $14 million (County of Hawaii, 2006). 20 Kona Community Development Plan 1 ICommunity Profile 1 1 The Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) located south of Kona International Airport at Keahole was established to research the potential of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) processes and related technologies. Today, over thirty tenants utilize the deep seawater for business ventures, generating approximately $30 to $40 million per year and providing over 200 jobs (NELHA, 2006). The University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) forecasts five percent inflation in 2006--DBEDT predicts a 4.8 percent, and 3.4 percent inflation in 2007 (Pacific Business News, 2006). However, for the first time in a decade, 2006 is showed signs of a slowing construction industry. The University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) predicts that in 2007, construction employment will be flat and decline slightly in 2008 (Pacific Business News, 2006). 2.1.3.2 Major Industries 2.1.3.2.1 Visitor Industry West Hawaii, especially the North Kona and South Kohala Districts have emerged as the County's principal visitor destination, making the visitor industry the major source of economic activity for the County. Employment opportunities have flourished by the growth of the visitor industry. As tourism became the primary economic generator during the 1980s, a shift in employment from the non -service to service industry sector was apparent. In 1980, the service industry accounted for approximately 60.6 percent of average employment, rising to 71 3 percent in 1990 and 78.5 percent in 1997 (County of Hawaii, February 2005). In 2004, the average daily census for Kona visitors was 189,577 and 21,940 in 2005, an 18.1 percent increase. In 2005, Kona had a total of 1,285,248 visitors, a 19.8 percent increase from 2004 (see Table 2). The hotel occupancy rate for the Big Island increased by 2.2 percent in 2005. Historically, the County records the lowest visitor unit occupancy rates of all the major Hawaiian Islands. Bed and breakfast units, although not a significant part of the total visitor unit count for the County, have been the fastest growing segment of the industry, growing from 55 units in 1990 to 171 units in 1998. Only in 1998 did the County's occupancy, rate finally surpass that of Kauai (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-7). During the period of 1980 to 1998, six new resort properties were developed for a total of 900 visitor units, including the Kona Community Development Plan Table 2 Total Visitors 2005 2004 % change Statewide 7,416,574 6,912,094 73 Big Island 1,521537 1,281,159 18.8 Kona 1,285,248 1,072,933 198 Source DBEDT, 2005. In 2004, the average daily census for Kona visitors was 189,577 and 21,940 in 2005, an 18.1 percent increase. In 2005, Kona had a total of 1,285,248 visitors, a 19.8 percent increase from 2004 (see Table 2). The hotel occupancy rate for the Big Island increased by 2.2 percent in 2005. Historically, the County records the lowest visitor unit occupancy rates of all the major Hawaiian Islands. Bed and breakfast units, although not a significant part of the total visitor unit count for the County, have been the fastest growing segment of the industry, growing from 55 units in 1990 to 171 units in 1998. Only in 1998 did the County's occupancy, rate finally surpass that of Kauai (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-7). During the period of 1980 to 1998, six new resort properties were developed for a total of 900 visitor units, including the Kona Community Development Plan Community Profile completion of the 243 -unit Hualalai Resort at Kaupulehu in North Kona and the 263 - time share unit Kona Coast Resort in Keauhou. North Kona now accounts for over 45 percent of total hotel rooms on the island. As of 2004, visitor accommodation units within Kona totaled 4,144 units in 2004, up from 4,004 units in 1999. More recently, between 2005 and 2006, there was a 0.7 percent decline in hotel/condominium resort occupancy in the County, while the occupancy rate in Kona remained the same. More recently, DBEDT has announced that Hawaii Island attracts the largest proportion of high-income visitors in the state as 24.7 percent of visitors hold incomes exceeding $150,000 (Medd, 2006). Visitor expenditures in 2005 for the State were $11,904 million, in which 14.0 percent was spent on the Hawaii Island. Tourism continues to be healthy, especially in the cruise ship and labor market. The cruise ship industry has contributed to the 'growth of the County. In 2005, 317,602 passengers visited the Big Island. On shore spending for cruise passengers per person per day was $75.50. 2.1.3.2.1.1 Ironman Triathlon What began as a challenge between fifteen Oahu runners and swimmers in 1978 has become a competition hosting up to 1,800 of the world's top tri -athletes chosen from among 50,000 athletes competing to qualify. The Hawaii Visitors and Convention Bureau estimates the event attracts seven to ten thousand visitors (Lynch, 2000). There were 1,727 entries in 2004, 1,743 entries in 2005, and an estimated 1,649 athletes from 50 countries scheduled to participate in 2006. The Department of Business Economic Development and Tourism (DBEDT) economic impact study found that the Ironman competition generates approximately $20 million in direct sales. With a multiplier effect, which takes into account periphery revenues such as additional food and retail sales and money being re - spent, the race may generate $26.2 million, resulting in $2.5 million in tax revenues. The economic impact of the Ironman athletes and their friends and families spans over 17 days, benefiting island businesses and promoting the island economy. DBEDT economic impact study found around half of the participants have an income of over $75,000, and on average, spend $1,187 on lodging (Thompson, 1998). For the locals, the competition provides a fluctuation of revenue not typically seen throughout the year. Hotels such as King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel, the headquarters of the Ironman, must temporarily employ an additional 60 people to assist with the increased demands. According to King Kamehameha's Kona Beach Hotel corporate director of hotel operations, Mark McGufie, the Ironman accounts for at least a ten percent increase in hotel occupancy for hotels, condominiums, vacation rentals and bed and breakfasts in Kailua-Kona (HIEDB, accessed: 2006). Many local businesses appreciate the added revenue as the Ironman has the power to keep local people employed and provide added income for island families. 22 Kona Community Development Plan ICommunity Profile 2A.3.2.1.2 International Billfish Tournament Renowned for its blue marlin, Kona has hosted the annual Hawaiian International Billfish Tournament (HIBT) since 1959. Founded by Peter S. Fithian, the International Billfish Tournament is a symbol of big -game fishing tournaments. Anglers come from around the world to compete in this invitational tournament known for its prestige, location, and big catches. The 2006 International Billfish Tournament was comprised of 28 teams: 130 anglers from eight countries, 45 family members, and 75 captain and crewmembers. The 1998 University of Hawaii at Hilo's economic study determined an anglers competing in the Billfish Tournament spend on average $8,000 throughout the competition. The study also found that the 224 anglers competing in the 1998 Tournament spent approximately $1.8 million. Taking into consideration the multiplier effect, which accounts for periphery revenues such as money being re - spent, the estimated spending as a result of the tournament totaled $3.7 million A record eighty teams have competed in the tournament. However, during the Nineties, the number of teams dropped to record lows. In recent years, the numbers of teams competing has steadily risen. There were 25 teams in 2005, 28 teams in 2006, and Billfish Tournament Officials expect at least 30 teams to participate in 2007. 2.1.3.2.2 Agriculture The agricultural sector is more important to Hawaii County than any other county in the state The major export activity is coffee and macadamia nut milling and roasting. The coffee belt is a narrow belt of land approximately 2 miles wide running parallel to the Kona coast from 700 feet elevation to 2,000 -foot elevation. South Kona produces the bulk of the island's coffee crop. There are about 650 farms cultivating coffee on the western slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai mountains. The Kona district produces about 3.8 million pounds a year, valued at approximately $14 million (County of Hawaii, 2006). Macadamia nuts may not be as highly recognized as kona coffee, but it is an important agricultural product to South Kona. The district is home to MacFarms of Hawaii and Kapua Orchards, the primary producers of macadamia nuts. During the 2003 and 2004 growing season, Hawaii produced 53 million pounds of macadamia nuts with a significant amount coming from South Kona (Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce, 2005) Other agricultural activities such as fruits, plants and flower, and specialty and diversified food crops are also expanding the agricultural base in Kona. 2.1.3.2.3 Construction Industry Data from the 2000 U.S. Census show the island of Hawaii gained more than 28,0000 residents between 1990 and 2000. Thus, the Kona districts experienced a building boom in residential construction due to the increase in newcomers attracted Kona Community Development ment Plan 23 Community Prole to living here in Kona. The locations of residential building permits in the County are extremely significant as most are in the private subdivisions approved in the 1950s and 1960s. Hawaiian Ocean View Estates/Hawaiian Ranchos was one of the major areas with older subdivisions and many new building permits. Between 2004 and 2005, building permits allowed 422 new homes in this area (Planning Department, 2006). Construction has been strong due to retirees and large population of baby bombers are moving to Kona for the weather and the lifestyle. There are many subdivisions, condominium, and resort -residential projects under construction in Kona. However, for the first time in a decade, 2006 has showed signs of a slowing construction industry. The University of Hawaii Economic Research Organization (UHERO) predicts that in 2007, construction employment will be flat and decline slightly in 2008 (Pacific Business News, 2006). Since 2005, building permits in North Kona has declined from the very high levels during the previous two years (Planning Department, 2006). The following table presents the number of residential building permits in the Kona region by tax map key zones: Table 3 2006 New Residential Permits (Up to End of November North Kona 2006 Permits Jan -Nov South Kona 2006 Permits Jan -Nov Kiholo 1 Captain Cook 18 Kau ulehu 52 Na o0 oo 6 Kukio-Hualalai-Kalaoa 91 Keei 2 Kealakehe 6 Honaunau 1 Kailua-Kona 106 Kiilae 1 Royal Poinciana Drive 16 Hookena 2 Holualoa-Ma is Sands 23 O ihi Hale 14 Keauhou 15 Papa Bay 20 Kainaliu-Kealakekua 3 Milolii 2 *Planning Department, 2006 According to the 2006 First Hawaiian Bank's Economic Forecast for the Island of Hawaii, previously permitted construction projects are being built, which are contributing to the continuing construction boom. However, companies connected to the industry recognize emerging signs of cooling. Building permit values in the state slowed in the third quarter of 2006 and although construction jobs continued to increase the pace of growth has slowed from the rapid growth of the eighteen months (State of Hawaii, DBEDT, 2006). Economist Dr. Leroy Laney believes in 2006, the state will set a new record for construction completed in current dollar terms. Yet, the decline in private building permits suggests an upcoming slowdown in the industry (First Hawaiian Bank, 2006). Table 4 demonstrates the increase of building permits since 1980 up until 2004: 24 Kona Community Development Plan i 1 1 1 Community Profile Table 4 Number of Building Permits Location 1980 1985 1990 1995 2000 2004 Hawaii State 22,771 23,332 27,689 17,231 19,074 22,043' Hawaii County 3,732 2,933 4,720 2,707 3,254 4,321 North Kona n/a n/a n/a 767 1,139 1,338 2003 South Kona n/a n/a n/a 150 144 213 2003 Source, Data Book 1984, 1987, 1996, 1997, 2004, and 2005; County of Hawaii Data Book 2004 Kauai County total includes residential data only. 2.1.3.2.4 Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority The Hawaii State Legislature established the Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA) in 1974. Located on 322 acres of land at Keahole Point on the coastline south of Kona International Airport at Keahole, NELHA was originally established to research the potential of ocean thermal energy conversion (OTEC) processes and its related technologies to produce alternative energy through the use of the temperature difference between deep sea water and surface water. In 1998, legislation approved the expansion of NLHA to include business activities that enhance economic development and generate additional revenues to support the growing park. Today, a variety of tenants utilize the deep seawater for business ventures. Uses for the deep seawater include cultivating seaweed, abalone, microalgae, lobster, black pearls, shellfish, strawberries, and the production of drinking water mandated in Japan as a health supplement. Today, NELHA is the home to 30 successful enterprises which generate about $30 to 40 million per year in total economic impacts, including tax revenues, over 200 fobs, construction activity and high value product exports (NELHA, 2006). 2.1.3.3 Employment Within the past forty years, the growth of Hawaii County in terms of employment, population, income and economic activity has become more closely tied to the visitor industry than any other sector of the economy. Employment opportunities spurred by the growth of this industry has been the catalyst for economic growth in the North and South Kona Districts. As tourism became the primary economic generator during the 1980s, a shift in employment from the non -service to the service industry sector became unparalleled. Employment opportunities on the Island have increased by over 22,700 jobs from 1970 through 1997. The 1980s saw employment grow at an annual compounded rate of three percent as service industries (wholesale/retail trade, finance, hotels, etc.) accounted for approximately 61 percent of the private industry workforce and 49 percent of the total wages earned (see Chart 5). In 1980, employment within the County totaled 40,850 on a population base of 92,053 residents. In 1990, Kona Community Development Plan 25 Community Profile employment increased to 55,200 on a population base of 120,317. From 1990 to 1997, employment grew at an annual compounded rate of only 1.61 percent, a reflection of the County's recessionary economy during this period. Employment in secondary industries also expanded, while the largest employment decrease was in the sugar industry as the last sugar processing facility closed in 1997. By 1997, the service industries dominated private industry, accounting for approximately 79 percent of the total workforce and 74 percent of the total wages earned. The 2000 population was 148,677 with an employment base of 69,937 (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-9 and 2-11). Employment levels continue the strong growth, and in 2005 employment levels peaked at a rate not seen since 1990. During the third quarter of 2006, 635,950 people were employed in the state, an increase of 16,400 people or 2.6 percent from the third quarter of 2005. Also in the third quarter of 2006, Professional and Business Services added the most jobs, an increase of 3,350 jobs or 4.5 percent, as compared to the third quarter of 2005. Natural Resources, Mining and Construction sector and the Visitor -related industries also did well (DBEDT, 2006). Chart 5 Employment by Major Economic Sector in the County of Hawaii, 1960 to 1997 ®Hotels ®Other services ®Total service employment Agriculture 35% 30% 25% c 20% V a 15% 10%- 5 o/c 0%5% 0% 1960 1970 Year 1984 1997 Source: County of Hawaii General Plan Unemployment rates during the 1980s and 1990s followed a similar trend as employment rates. Unemployment rates dropped drastically from 1980 to 1990 (6.2 percent to 3.8 percent, respectively) due to the County's strong economy during this period. As the economy slowed during the 1990s, by 1997, unemployment peaked at 10.2 percent (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-9). As the global economy and tourism began to improve, so did unemployment. The 2000 unemployment rate for the County declined to 4.9 percent. During this time, Holualoa and Kalaoa CDP had the highest employment rates (98 percent), while Hawaiian Ocean View Estates' unemployment rate was significantly higher than the other Kona CDPs. Over half of those residing in the Kona CDP are private wage and salary workers. The County of 26 Kona Community Development Plan s• � a, / i i ♦ rr�'4'o� 2� _�Sr S Source: County of Hawaii General Plan Unemployment rates during the 1980s and 1990s followed a similar trend as employment rates. Unemployment rates dropped drastically from 1980 to 1990 (6.2 percent to 3.8 percent, respectively) due to the County's strong economy during this period. As the economy slowed during the 1990s, by 1997, unemployment peaked at 10.2 percent (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-9). As the global economy and tourism began to improve, so did unemployment. The 2000 unemployment rate for the County declined to 4.9 percent. During this time, Holualoa and Kalaoa CDP had the highest employment rates (98 percent), while Hawaiian Ocean View Estates' unemployment rate was significantly higher than the other Kona CDPs. Over half of those residing in the Kona CDP are private wage and salary workers. The County of 26 Kona Community Development Plan ICommunity Profile 2.1.3.4 Housing Several major issues and problems faced by Hawaii County continue to involve housing. Rapid population growth in some areas has not been accompanied by parallel growth in affordable residential housing construction The increasing rate of land prices, the cost of construction and the growth of earning power contribute to the lack of affordable housing opportunities. Thus, proportionately fewer residents are able to afford purchasing a home. In 1997, SMS Research & Marketing Services and Locations, Inc., in cooperation with the State Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) and the various Counties' housing agencies, prepared the Hawaii Housing Policy Study Update 1997 that reviewed various housing issues throughout the State of Hawaii. According to the study, a family with a median annual income of approximately $30,300 would qualify for an "affordable" home priced in the neighborhood of $140,000, in which case, approximately 36 percent of the total households on the island of Hawaii fall below the median annual income (County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005: 9-4). Kona Community Development Plan 27 Hawaii unemployment rate in 2005 was slightly less at 4.6 percent (2005 American Community Survey). Since the mid-1980s, the County of Hawaii has seen a dramatic shift in its agricultural employment profile. Since the demise of the sugar industry in 1997, the island of Hawaii has since established itself as the center of diversified agriculture production, scientific research, and education in the State. Agricultural employment will increase significantly as former sugarcane lands are brought into production with import replacement, export and value added crops and products. Additional employment will be derived from expanding agro-tourism enterprises. The �i expansion of the industry will be facilitated by the establishment of a new air cargo # distribution center and post-harvest processing facilities that will allow for significant increases in the volume and types of products exported to the continental United States and foreign countries. The shift in employment trends has significantly changed the economic make-up of the County as workers have in -migrated to meet the demands of employment growth in the service industry, which is primarily fueled by the tourism sector. Additionally, non -service industry workers, primarily in agriculture, adjusted and shifted to new employment opportunities in the service industries as agricultural jobs dwindled. Upon completing high school, an increasing proportion of the County's youth have pursued higher education. Despite this trend, there is still scarcity of employment opportunities for the college-educated that desire to return to the island. In the year 2020, the Planning Department anticipates a population of 217,718 with an employment base of 106,492 or 49 percent. Average annual employment growth rates are anticipated at 2.11 percent between 2005 and 2010, and 2.16 percent between 2010 and 2020. These employment projections are below the robust 3.05 percent average annual employment growth rates during the 1980s, but above the 1.61 percent average annual growth rate during the 1990s. (County of Hawaii, 2005: 1-9 and 2-11) 2.1.3.4 Housing Several major issues and problems faced by Hawaii County continue to involve housing. Rapid population growth in some areas has not been accompanied by parallel growth in affordable residential housing construction The increasing rate of land prices, the cost of construction and the growth of earning power contribute to the lack of affordable housing opportunities. Thus, proportionately fewer residents are able to afford purchasing a home. In 1997, SMS Research & Marketing Services and Locations, Inc., in cooperation with the State Housing Finance and Development Corporation (HFDC) and the various Counties' housing agencies, prepared the Hawaii Housing Policy Study Update 1997 that reviewed various housing issues throughout the State of Hawaii. According to the study, a family with a median annual income of approximately $30,300 would qualify for an "affordable" home priced in the neighborhood of $140,000, in which case, approximately 36 percent of the total households on the island of Hawaii fall below the median annual income (County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005: 9-4). Kona Community Development Plan 27 Community Profile The number of housing units between North and South Kona vary dramatically. In 1990, 70 percent of housing units in Kona were located in North Kona, and in 2000, the number grew to 75 percent (see Chart 6). Yet, this is proportional to the population as 77 percent of the 2000 population in Kona resided in North Kona. Housing units in North Kona have increased from 9,150 in 1985 to 12,254 in 1997, representing an annual growth rate of approximately 2.8 percent. In spite of continuing moderate growth of subdivision activity and housing construction in the North Kona district, housing problems for the low and moderate -income groups have been particularly acute. In 1990, approximately seven percent of all households within the district reported incomes below the poverty level. Many of these families compete with the visitor market for rental of apartment and condominium units (County of Hawaii, 2005: 9-24). Source. County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005 Home ownership rate in North Kona has remained steady at 43 to 44 percent of housing units, whereas South Kona's homeownership rate increased from 49 to 55 percent during the 1990s. Although a significantly greater number of housing units exist in North Kona, South Kona demonstrates greater population stability and a higher rate of homeownership. In the last decade, South Kona's housing vacancy rate remained around 11 percent, while North Kona's vacancy rate ranged from 21 to 25 percent. Based on housing units alone, North Kona has been developed to support greater populations than South Kona, yet, North Kona's housing problem can be attributed to the high real estate prices. South Kona demonstrates a population with little to no growth, where residents are able to invest home ownership. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the proportion of households in North Kona increased 72 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then another 38 percent during 1990 to 2000 (see Chart 7). South Kona households grew 40 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, North Kona had more than twice the number of households than South Kona. 28 Kona Community Development Plan Chart 6 The Percent Change of Housing Units 70 00% x Ft 60.00% _; 5000% - 3 40.00% ® North Kona a=� ®South Kona 30 00% IL 20.00%- 0.00% 1000% 1000% 000% 1970-1980 1980-1985 1985-1992 1992-1997 1997-2000 Source. County of Hawaii General Plan, 2005 Home ownership rate in North Kona has remained steady at 43 to 44 percent of housing units, whereas South Kona's homeownership rate increased from 49 to 55 percent during the 1990s. Although a significantly greater number of housing units exist in North Kona, South Kona demonstrates greater population stability and a higher rate of homeownership. In the last decade, South Kona's housing vacancy rate remained around 11 percent, while North Kona's vacancy rate ranged from 21 to 25 percent. Based on housing units alone, North Kona has been developed to support greater populations than South Kona, yet, North Kona's housing problem can be attributed to the high real estate prices. South Kona demonstrates a population with little to no growth, where residents are able to invest home ownership. According to the 2000 U.S. Census Bureau, the proportion of households in North Kona increased 72 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then another 38 percent during 1990 to 2000 (see Chart 7). South Kona households grew 40 percent between 1980 and 1990 and then 20 percent between 1990 and 2000. In 2000, North Kona had more than twice the number of households than South Kona. 28 Kona Community Development Plan 1 1 f Ll 1 L 1 1 11 Community Profile Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DR 1, 2000 2.1.3.5 Income Distribution Per capita income in the County grew at an annual compounded rate of 5.18 percent during the 1980s and 2 91 percent through 1996. The increase during the 1980s are reflective of the strong economic conditions that existed at the time with a corresponding decrease in per capita income growth during the recessionary periods of the 1990s. Over a ten-year span, from the 1990 census to the 2000 census, the per capita rate of the State, County, and Kona districts increased an average of 27 percent (see Chart 8). Between 2000 and 2005, the per capita income of the County of Hawaii increased 12.8 percent to $21,174. Median household income also increased at a healthy rate from 1980 to 1990, increasing from $16,975 to $29,712 at an annual compounded rate of 5.76 per cent. Without taking into account inflation, the median household income from 1990 to 2000 increased 33.9 percent. And from 2000 to 2005, the median household income continued to increase at 21.9 percent (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-11 and 2005 American Community Survey) Source, County of Hawaii Data Book 2004 Kona Community Development Plan 29 Chart 7 Number of Households North Kona South Kona 12000 — -(10522 10p000 v �Pt3{t 0000 E 6000- �0 02� � � � z 4000 � ` 3113 2000 = 0 1980 1990 2000 Source: U.S. Census Bureau, DR 1, 2000 2.1.3.5 Income Distribution Per capita income in the County grew at an annual compounded rate of 5.18 percent during the 1980s and 2 91 percent through 1996. The increase during the 1980s are reflective of the strong economic conditions that existed at the time with a corresponding decrease in per capita income growth during the recessionary periods of the 1990s. Over a ten-year span, from the 1990 census to the 2000 census, the per capita rate of the State, County, and Kona districts increased an average of 27 percent (see Chart 8). Between 2000 and 2005, the per capita income of the County of Hawaii increased 12.8 percent to $21,174. Median household income also increased at a healthy rate from 1980 to 1990, increasing from $16,975 to $29,712 at an annual compounded rate of 5.76 per cent. Without taking into account inflation, the median household income from 1990 to 2000 increased 33.9 percent. And from 2000 to 2005, the median household income continued to increase at 21.9 percent (County of Hawaii, 2005: 2-11 and 2005 American Community Survey) Source, County of Hawaii Data Book 2004 Kona Community Development Plan 29 Community Profile This page intentionally left blank. 30 Kona Community Development ment Plan I 1 IEnvironmental Setting 1 3 ENVIRONMENTAL SETTING Kona climate is warm and humid Temperatures range from the 70s in the winter to the 90s in the summer. Inland at the higher elevations are usually cooler than the coast. 3.3 Regional Soils According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Services (1977), 36 soil types are identified in North and South Kona. Major soils series include: Kona Community Development Plan 31 3.1 Geology and Topography The island of Hawaii is composed of five volcanoes — Kohala, Mauna Kea, Mauna Loa, Hualalai, and Kilauea. Of these five volcanoes, only three (Hualalai, Mauna Loa, and Kilauea) remain active within historical times (late 1700's). Further only Mauna Loa and Kilauea have erupted in recent years. Kona is situated along the western slopes of both Hualalai and Mauna Loa volcanoes, and is geologically quite young, being covered by recent prehistoric and historic lavas. Kona has not experienced extensive erosion and lacks streams or well-defined drainage channels due to the climate of the region. The Kona area has ground elevations ranging from 40 feet along the coast to 13,000 feet at the top of Mauna Loa The coastal areas are characterized by lava fields with mixed shrub and grass. In North Kona, between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway the land experiences a steady increase in elevation (slope of about 8 — 10%). Individual sections, fairly large in area have slopes above 10% and present considerable difficulties for urban development. In South Kona, the land is steep Upland forests are found above Mamalahoa Highway due to increase rainfall. The prime agricultural belt runs parallel to the coast at 700 — 2,000 feet. The Kona region is unique due to the wide range of climatic conditions in a relatively small distance. Kona provides different physical environments from the coastline to high elevations. 3.2 Climate The high central mass of the Island shelters the Kona district from the strong prevailing pattern of the northeast trades. Instead, the Kona coast has an alternating land -sea system of air circulation resulting from the differential heating of the land and water mass. On -shore breezes prevail in the morning and early afternoon, while offshore breezes develop in the late afternoon and evening. The average rainfall varies from 30 inches along the coast to more than 100 inches on the mountain slopes above the prime agricultural belt, then proceeding mauka drops to 50 inches at an elevation of 5,000 feet (see Figure 3). In summary, the coastal areas of Kona are characterized by almost ideal climatic conditions of bright sunshine and steady breezes with occasional light afternoon showers. Kona climate is warm and humid Temperatures range from the 70s in the winter to the 90s in the summer. Inland at the higher elevations are usually cooler than the coast. 3.3 Regional Soils According to the U.S. Soil Conservation Services (1977), 36 soil types are identified in North and South Kona. Major soils series include: Kona Community Development Plan 31 Kallua Keauhou Kealakekua Legend Planning Area Rainfall (inches) 500 -Foot Contours Major Roads Other Roads 0 2.5 5 10 Miles Figure 3 Rainfall & Topography Kona Community Development Plan (A 9500 ry JI Milolil qj L OKI �-6QR0 / (A 9500 ry JI Milolil qj L OKI IEnvironmental Setting The Agricultural Lands of Importance in the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map, prepared by the State Department of Agriculture, classifies agricultural lands into three categories: 1) prime agricultural land, 2) unique agricultural land, and 3) other important agricultural land. Unique and other important agricultural land are found within the North and South Kona districts. 3.4 Natural Resources Differences in climate, topography, and soils have resulted in unique natural ecosystems. The classification of terrestrial ecosystems is based on the elevation at which they occur. Before human settlement the North and South Kona districts were made up of the following ecosystems: ■ Subalpine forest, woodland, and shrubland ■ Montane dry and mesic forest and woodland ■ Wet forest and woodland ■ Lowland and dry and mesic forest, woodland, and shrubland ■ Lowland dry shrubland and grassland In the past several hundred years of human habitation the size of natural ecosystems have diminished. Human activity and introduction of non-native plants and animals have displaced these natural communities. Today, lowland dry shrubland and grassland and lowland dry and mesic forests have decreased (see Figure 4). Human habitation not only has affected natural ecosystems, but also the plants and animals inhabiting those ecosystems. A few areas in Kona are remaining habitat for rare and endangered species and are protected. Kona Community Development ment Plan 33 ■ Apakuie ■ Kahaluu ■ Beaches ■ Kaimu ■ Hanipoe ■ Keel ■ Honaunau ■ Kekake ■ Honuaulu ■ Kiloa ■ Kainaliu ■ Kealakekua ■ ■ Kona Lalaau ■ Manahaa ■ Lava flows, as and pahoehoe ■ Puukala ■ Puu Pa ■ ■ Mawae Puna ■ Rough Broken Land ■ Puanahulu ■ Waiaha ■ Rock Land and Very Stony Land ■ Cinder Land ■ Huikau Soils in the region supports crops, including macadamia nuts and coffee. Soils are also ideal for pasture and wildlife habitats. The Agricultural Lands of Importance in the State of Hawaii (ALISH) Map, prepared by the State Department of Agriculture, classifies agricultural lands into three categories: 1) prime agricultural land, 2) unique agricultural land, and 3) other important agricultural land. Unique and other important agricultural land are found within the North and South Kona districts. 3.4 Natural Resources Differences in climate, topography, and soils have resulted in unique natural ecosystems. The classification of terrestrial ecosystems is based on the elevation at which they occur. Before human settlement the North and South Kona districts were made up of the following ecosystems: ■ Subalpine forest, woodland, and shrubland ■ Montane dry and mesic forest and woodland ■ Wet forest and woodland ■ Lowland and dry and mesic forest, woodland, and shrubland ■ Lowland dry shrubland and grassland In the past several hundred years of human habitation the size of natural ecosystems have diminished. Human activity and introduction of non-native plants and animals have displaced these natural communities. Today, lowland dry shrubland and grassland and lowland dry and mesic forests have decreased (see Figure 4). Human habitation not only has affected natural ecosystems, but also the plants and animals inhabiting those ecosystems. A few areas in Kona are remaining habitat for rare and endangered species and are protected. Kona Community Development ment Plan 33 1 IEnvironmental Setting 1 3.5 Water Resources 11 1 1 f r �I r' Water resources in the Kona area are associated with groundwater reserves. The North and South Kona districts overlies the Hualalai and Southwest Mauna Loa Aquifers. Figure 5 shows the aquifer system area boundaries for the Island of Hawaii. As illustrated on the map, hydrologically related aquifer system areas are grouped into aquifer sectors. KOiiAl:A f! 1.'�11GDtte/ r -u raes NANUKONA w n+i.+►urta KEA N.�V,)1fAUNA LOA HlfAL'ALAf �"$�\ Sb�IGD1889i'..s' S\Y. h1AUNA LOA laonlcureos S"UMMIGI / 110 MIO[ KALAD "MOMINSU ISLAND OF HAWAII TOTAL= 2431 MOD HYDROLOGIC UNITS Sustainable Yield /Aquifer Code E. DIAUNA KEA 88811GDlie! KtLAUE.4 618 tlGDl[nB Figure 5: Island of Hawaii Aquifer System and Sector Areas. The aquifer system code and ground water sustainable yield for each aquifer system and sector area are as noted in the figure Source State Commission on Water Resource Management (http 1/www hawau gov/dlnr/cwmVdata/gwhawaii pdt) There are no perennial streams in the Kona area. However, several well defined drainage channels or watercourses are found within the high rainfall areas situated on the slopes of Mauna Loa and Hualalai. Kona streams are significantly affected by the seasonal rainfall pattern and geologic character of the region which ten to limit the existence and frequency of actual flow. The marine waters off of West Hawaii are designated "Class AA', these waters are to remain in their natural pristine state with minimum pollution or alteration of water quality from any human -caused source or actions. p Kona CommunityDevelopment Plan 35 Environmental Setting Watersheds within North and South Kona Districts: ■ Kiholo ® Keahole ■ Honokohau ■ Waiaha ® Kealakekua ■ Kilae ■ Kauna ■ Pohakuloa 3.6 Natural Hazards The U.S. Geological Survey prepared maps to determine the history and severity of volcanic hazards on the island of Hawaii. The island is divided into 9 zones based on past coverage of lava flows, Zone 1 being the most hazardous and Zone 9 being the least hazardous. Lava flow zones 1 — 4 are located within the North and South Kona districts. The Kona region has experienced several earthquakes between 1929 and 1993, of magnitude 5 or greater (Juvik and Juvik, 1998). Earthquakes are a result of the movement of magma within Kilauea and Mauna Loa or movements along fault. The entire coastline of North and South Kona is subject to inundation due to high seas and swells caused by hurricanes and storms. Coastal areas have received damage to roads, harbor facilities and oceanfront buildings. The shoreline areas are also subject to tsunami activity. Tsunami runup has been recorded in two locations along the South Kona shoreline, in Milolii and Hookena. Kailua and Keauhou have also recorded run up and damage from tsunami activity in the past. Being geologically young, North and South Kona lack well-defined drainage features characteristic of the older islands in the Hawaiian archipelago. Nevertheless, erosion has formed numerous drainage -ways and water courses leading towards the ocean. Drainage -ways that have been identified as potential flood zones extend mauka from the coastline between Kailua Bay to the north and Kauhako Bay, south of Hookena. These water courses generally are non -flowing except in times of heavy and extended rainfall. Most rainfall runoff sheet flows and percolates into the ground. Surface runoff occurs during high intensity rainfall of long duration. 3.7 History The following is a summary from the Kona Regional Plan: Pre -History Kona's tradition for the later part of the pre -historic period are tied to the ruling chiefs, more so than other districts on the Island of Hawaii. Here according to accounts of native scholars, alii and moi from the 15th century to the 19th century 36 Kona Community Development Plan IEnvironmental Setting pil i resided in Kona. Prior to the 15th century, other than district chiefs, indications are that the residences of the senior lines were maintained in the Hamakua District. Tradition as a cohesive body begins for the Kona district with mention of Ehukaimalino, a Kona district chief in the 10 century. As second in seniority to the titular Island sovereign, Liloa, he sent his son to Waipio Valley as a steward. Upon the death of Liloa, his rule was passed to his sons Hakau, of chiefly rank and Umi, of lesser rank. Umi ultimately gained sole control of his father's jurisdiction and moved the seat of government from Waipio Valley to Kona. Sources indicate that both North and South Kona was probably the most populated area on the Island of Hawaii at the time of contact. Archaeological evidence and remains are suggestive of the large population. Numerous habitation sites and shelters are strung along the coast. In addition, there are numerous religious structures and burial platforms which occur within a mile of the coastline. The indications through radio -carbon and basaltic glass dating techniques are that Kona has been occupied at least as early as the 12th century The coastal remains are indicative not only of the residential pattern but also the utilization of a rich marine environment. Food sources from this environment were not only utilized, but also cultivated in fishponds such as those at Kahaluu, Honokohau, and Kaloko. In addition to the productivity of the sea, the availability of agriculturally productive lands within a short distance from the coast contributed to the settlement of Kona. While much of the population lived along the coast, ethnographic material indicate that others lived in dispersed clusters among the upland farms. The early agriculturally productive areas have been described as stretching from mauka Honokohau Harbor southward to mauka Kealia Agricultural crops planted were wauke (paper mulberry), sweet potatoes, breadfruit, dry land taro, ti, sugarcane and bananas. If the marine and land environments provided a bountiful food resource, other aspects of the natural environment placed some constraints on the location and size of the population. One which appears repeatedly in the early accounts is water. The native culture resolved part of this limitation through the use of brackish water from wells and springs along the coast. Other sources which were utilized were drippings from ground seepage through caves and high elevation springs. 1778-1850 The period and the changes for Kona began in 1779 with the visit and subsequent death of the English discoverer of the Hawaiian Islands, Captain James Cook, at Kealakekua Bay. Within four years of the discover by Captain James Cook, Kona Community Development Plan 37 Environmental Setting Kalaniopuu then ruling chief of the Island of Hawaii died, leaving the jurisdiction of the land to his son Kiwalao and his new nephew Kamehameha. At the battle of Mokuohai, in 1782, Kiwalao met his death. It took Kamehameha the next nine years to once again reconsolidate the Island under the jurisdiction of his rule. During this period, Hawaii was visited by many foreign ships, particularly those of the British fur trading companies. The first of the trading ships arrived in 1785 and other continued to find anchor and replenishment for their voyages to the Pacific Northwest Coast. By 1790, Kamehameha managed to acquire guns and cannons from two English seaman, Isaac Davis and John Young, who became counselors in the use of foreign arms and war tactics. Having consolidated the rule of the Island of Hawaii in 1791, Kamehameha then proceeded to establish control over the rest of the island chain. By 1796, the islands of Maui, Molokai and Oahu were under his domain. This conquest was also accomplished with the use of foreign arms and advice. Vancouver, a British explorer, affected the Hawaiian Islands in a lasting way. During his second visit, he presented to Kamehameha a gift of cattle and sheep, together with plantings of grapes, vegetable seeds and other produce. With the unification of Hawaii, Maui and Oahu, Kamehameha returned to reside at Kailua. The move from Oahu to Kona was a deliberate attempts by Kamehameha to isolate and control his contacts, hence the government's contacts, with foreigners, since by this time Honolulu was becoming an active commercial center as foreign ships found it a better anchorage than elsewhere in the islands. This move to seat the capital of government in Kona had the effect of maintaining Kona within the stream of political activity and part of the scene of rapid cultural change. It was at Kailua, at Kamakahonu that Kamehameha died in 1819. Like his uncle Kalaniopuu, ruling chief before him, Kamehameha passed the care of the kingdom and land to his son, Liholiho and the care of the god Kukailimoku to his nephew, Kekuaokalani. His favorite wife Kaahumanu, he established as regent and chief counselor. After the death of Kamehameha, his heir Liholiho, in concert with Kaahumanu, his mother Keopuolani and others of the royal court, in an act of eating with women, nullified the old kapu system. This act of invalidating the eating tabu had the profound effect of hastening the adoption of changing conditions and the forsaking of the traditional culture and religion. 38 Kona Community Development Plan Environmental Setting sandalwood extended the utilization of the land into the forest areas. During the lifetime of Kamehameha, control of the sandalwood logging was under his sole authority. Upon his death, however, the monopoly on this trade item was divided among the chiefs. This led to the intensification of the logging to the extent that within a period of thirty years the resource was essentially depleted for commercial purposes. Once Liholiho removed the capitol of the kingdom first to Lahaina then to Honolulu, the pace of change slowed for Kona. Nevertheless, events and increased foreign economic activities occurring principally in Honolulu made themselves felt in the Kona districts Indirectly the effects felt in the Kona district were 1) a shift in agricultural products from growing traditional items for subsistence to that of growing produce for trade 2) interest in lands by foreigners. During this period opportunities to engage in trade with shipping agents and other foreigners were limited to the chiefs. The economic system was a juxtaposition of the traditional Hawaiian system along with western economic system. The traditional economic system operated by barter or exchange of goods by the maka-ainana within an ahupuaa on one level. The collection of goods by the higher ranking konohiki and in turn the still higher alii were supported through a system of Kona Community Development Plan 39 In 1820, American Christian missionaries arrived in Kailua to petition the ruling chief Liholiho for permission to establish mission stations in the islands. Permission was granted and the missionaries established a station just outside of Kailua. In that year, also, Liholiho and the counsel of chiefs advising him moved the capitol of the Hawaiian islands to the new trading centers of Honolulu and Lahaina, however the governorship of the Island of Hawaii remained in Kailua. It is during this period, beginning immediately with the discovery of Hawaii, that foreign economies and markets were introduced. As first the barter was water, food and fuel with the fur traders who gathered their cargos in the West Coast of North America and stopped in Hawaii on their voyages to and from China. These were needed not only to provision ships, but also to supply the needs of the Russians, Americans, Spanish and British colonies along the Pacific Northwest Coast as well as the China Market. Trade export items which developed during this period included native products such as salt, sandalwood, pork and rope (sennit). As exotic items were introduced and grown here, the list grew to include cattle for food and hide, sheep, sheepskin, vegetables oranges and melons. In addition to the traditional agricultural zones, the discovery and exportation of sandalwood extended the utilization of the land into the forest areas. During the lifetime of Kamehameha, control of the sandalwood logging was under his sole authority. Upon his death, however, the monopoly on this trade item was divided among the chiefs. This led to the intensification of the logging to the extent that within a period of thirty years the resource was essentially depleted for commercial purposes. Once Liholiho removed the capitol of the kingdom first to Lahaina then to Honolulu, the pace of change slowed for Kona. Nevertheless, events and increased foreign economic activities occurring principally in Honolulu made themselves felt in the Kona districts Indirectly the effects felt in the Kona district were 1) a shift in agricultural products from growing traditional items for subsistence to that of growing produce for trade 2) interest in lands by foreigners. During this period opportunities to engage in trade with shipping agents and other foreigners were limited to the chiefs. The economic system was a juxtaposition of the traditional Hawaiian system along with western economic system. The traditional economic system operated by barter or exchange of goods by the maka-ainana within an ahupuaa on one level. The collection of goods by the higher ranking konohiki and in turn the still higher alii were supported through a system of Kona Community Development Plan 39 Environmental Setting produce and labor taxes. In this, the ohana (extended family) of the maka-ainana (commoner) exchanged goods; those living at the shore and engaged in exploitation of the marine resources exchanged these with family members engaged in agriculture in the upland. This economic system was closely tied to the system of land holding in Hawaii. Each of the islands in the Hawaiian chain were divided into districts or moku. Each moku was further divided into units of land running from the shore to mountain slope. These were called ahupuaa and functioned as the basic land holding unit. Rights to the use, resources and management of these units went to the chiefs. Interest in the land however was not in fee, nor necessarily hereditary. At the death of the chief, the land was reallotted. During times of a consolidated rule such as that of Kamehameha, the authority to reallocate land rested with this ruler. This combined system of land holding and economic units continued to operate during this period in tandem with the market and economic system of the foreigners. As foreigners came to reside in the island, either as missionaries, traders, shipping agents, or farmers, western land holding concepts of fee simple, lease, and transfers by individual owners of land came into conflict with the native concepts. The misunderstandings which occurred led ultimately to a series of agreements in 1848 between Kamehameha III and the Council of Chiefs regarding land rights. The agreements were collectively known at the Great Mahele. With this agreement, Kamehameha III gave up the right of the ruling alii of perpetual stewardship of all lands, he retained for himself as the ruling alii, lands called "crown lands" and recognized the interest of the existing chiefs in certain lands, likewise the tenants. The Mahele also recognized the government of the kingdom as separate from the person of the ruling alii and set aside "government lands". These divisions and allocation to chiefs and tenants were later validated by a series of Land Commission Awards and patents. 1850-1900 Between the years of 1850 and 1900, the Hawaiian nation passed through the reign of 6 sovereigns, Kamehameha III, IV, V, Lunalilo, Kalakaua, and Liliuokalani. Moreover, the overthrow of Hawaiian constitutional monarchy occurred in 1898, with American citizens establishing first the Republic of Hawaii, a provisional government. Then finally to close the century, Hawaii was annexed to the United States. External events occurring on an international scale affected the commerce and population in Hawaii. On continental North American, the settling of California and Oregon, the Gold Rush, the Civil War all had the effect of encouraging the exportation of items produced in Hawaii. The successful marketing of products such 40 Kona Community Development Plan 1 1 1 1 1 Environmental Setting as sugar in turn encouraged the importation of laborers from multi -national sources, and changed irrevocably the population and culture of the Hawaiian Islands. All indications are that while the Hawaiian nation underwent the series of major changes in government, commerce, and population; Kona moved at much slower pace, seemingly unaffected by the major shifts. In part, the nature and geography of Kona prevented the wholesale shift of the area into the "modern world" Still, the series of governmental actions changing the old system of land holding or stewardship by the alii to one of the simple interest was of major consequence for Kona during the period between 1850 and 1900. In addition to the division and subsequent awarding of land to government, alii and commoner, the changes included provisions for the sale of government lands, authorized in 1850 by both the monarchy and legislature. Within this fifty year period some 253 Hawaiians purchased approximately 33,150 acres of government lands in both North and South Kona. Within the same period some 70 or so foreigners also purchased 21,648 acres of land. While these purchases effectively removed some 54,798 acres of generally agriculturally desirable lands from government ownership, it also allowed the establishment of a variety of diversified agricultural ventures. Kona remained basically supported by agriculture in the form of diversified truck crops, coffee, and ranching. During this period and well into 1950, nearly every commercial agricultural experiment conceivable in Hawaii was tried in Kona. These have included growing oranges, potato (white, sweet and yams), sugar, squash, bananas, avocadoes, tobacco, rubber, timber and raising of sheep and turkey. Of the many commercial ventures, none (except coffee and ranching) have proved to have had lasting or widespread success. Coffee had adapted to the Kona environment and has since 1850 provided an economic support for the district. The industry has greatly influenced the economic and human geography. It is well therefore to capsulize the history of the industry to 1900. The collapse of the world coffee market in 1899 when prices dropped to six cents per pound was only one of many economic crises which have rocked the coffee industry and which seemed then to mark its end in Kona, as it actually did in other parts of the Islands. One of the significant changes in the Kona coffee industry following this crises was the shift from plantation cultivation under the control of Haoles, to individual or family operation with Japanese occupying most of the land as independent tenants or owners. The influx of Japanese to Kona as workers on the coffee plantations is reflected in the census returns of eight in 1890, followed by 888 just six years later, and mounting to 1,718 in 1900." Kona Community Development ment Plan 4 Environmental Setting i This page intentionally left blank. 42 Plan 1 Kona Community Development References 1 4 REFERENCES 9. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Kona Regional Plan. 1982. 10. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. Prepared ' by R.M. Towill Corporation, April 1994. 11. First Hawaiian Bank. First Hawaiian Bank Economic Forecast. 2006 November 9. http-//www.fhb.com/hm—news1109O6 htm 12. First Hawaiian Bank. First Hawaiian Bank Economic Forecast — Big Island. 2006 September 13. http://www.fhb.com/hm—news09l3O6.htm 13. Hawaii State Department of Agriculture. The Agricultural Lands of Importance in the State of Hawaii. 1977 14. Hawaii State, Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT). 2005 Annual Visitor Research Report. 2005 Kona Community Development Plan 43 1. Big Island Bonds Rated A+ by Fitch. Honolulu Advertiser, 20 December 2006. http://honoluluadvertiser.com 2. County of Hawaii, Civil Defense Agency. Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan. February ' 2005. 3. County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works. Summary Chart for Building Permits. Updated January 3, 2003: http-Hco.hawaii hi us/info/bp/sc.htm 4. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. County of Hawaii General Plan. February 2005. ' 5. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Hawaii County General Plan. February 2005. 6. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Kailua Village Design Plan. Prepared by Wil Chee — Planning, July 1988. 7. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan. Prepared by R.M. Towill Corporation, April 1991. 8. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan Implementation Strategy. Prepared by Townscape and Traffic Management Consultant, February 1997 9. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Kona Regional Plan. 1982. 10. County of Hawaii, Planning Department. Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. Prepared ' by R.M. Towill Corporation, April 1994. 11. First Hawaiian Bank. First Hawaiian Bank Economic Forecast. 2006 November 9. http-//www.fhb.com/hm—news1109O6 htm 12. First Hawaiian Bank. First Hawaiian Bank Economic Forecast — Big Island. 2006 September 13. http://www.fhb.com/hm—news09l3O6.htm 13. Hawaii State Department of Agriculture. The Agricultural Lands of Importance in the State of Hawaii. 1977 14. Hawaii State, Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT). 2005 Annual Visitor Research Report. 2005 Kona Community Development Plan 43 References 15. Hawaii State, Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT). Monthly Economic Indicators. http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/data—reports. Released: 2006 December 4. 16. Hawaii State, Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT). State of Hawaii Data Book2005. http://www.hawaii.gov/dbedt/info/economic/databook. 17. Hawaii State, Department of Business Economic Development & Tourism (DBEDT). 2005 Visitor Plant Inventory. 2005. 18. Hawaii State Planning Office. Highlights from A Plan for Kona. Prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates, March 1960. 19. Juvik and Juvik. Atlas of Hawaii, Third Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1998. 20. Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce. The Big Island Data Book & Newcomer's Guide.. 2003 — 2004. 21. Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce. The Source A Guide to Business & Lifestyle in West Hawaii. 2005 22. Natural Energy Laboratory of Hawaii Authority (NELHA). http://www.nelha.org. August 29, 2006. 23. Nedd, Harold. Swinging Retirees Flock to Kona-Kohala Coast. Pacific Business News, 15 December 2006. Pg. 19 24. Planning Department. Subject. Overview of Land Use Trends. Prepared by C. Yuen, Director. Prepared for: Honorable Gary Safarik, Chair and Members of the County Council. 9 March 2005. 25. Planning Department. Council Zoning Overview, Re: Land Use Trends, 2005- 2006. Prepared by C. Yuen, Director. Prepared for: Honorable K. Angel Pilago, Chair and Member of the Committee on Planning. 22 December 2006. 26. United States Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Services. Soil Survey of Island of Hawaii, State of Hawaii. December 1973. 27. University of Hawaii, Department of Geography. Atlas of Hawaii. The University of Press of Hawaii, Honolulu. Third Edition 1998. 44 Kona Community Development Plan 1 References 28. UHERO: Hawaii Spending Power Flattens Out. Pacific Business News. http://pacific.bizjournals.com/pacific/stories/2006/11/27/daily54.html. December 2006. ' FIGURES — DATA SOURCES IAll Figures 1. State of Hawaii, Office of Elections. Major and Other Roads (January 2002). Rectified by County of Hawaii Planning Department, December 2003. Updated: February 13, 2004. 2. State of Hawaii Planning Office. Kona boundaries. Judicial Districts, 1983. Figure 1: Planning Area 1. See "All Figures" Figure 2 Land Cover 1. NOAA Coastal Services Center. Land Cover. www.csc.noaa.gov/crs/Ica/hawaii.htmi via State of Hawaii Planning Office, 2000.* *This project was accomplished through the assistance of the Hawaii Department of Land & Natural Resources, the Hawaii Coastal Zone Management Program, other agencies associated with the Hawaii Gap Analysis Program (U S. Geological Survey, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U S. Department of Agriculture, University of ' Hawaii, Bernice Pauahi Bishop Museum, The Nature Conservancy of Hawaii, Hawaii Natural Heritage Program), and the U.S. Geological Survey EROS Data Center. Figure 3 Rainfall 1. State of Hawaii Planning Office. Rainfall. 1986. 2. State of Hawaii Planning Office. Elevation Contours 500 -Foot Contours. 1983. Figure 4 Natural Resources ' 1. State of Hawaii Planning Office. Reserves 2004. 2. U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Critical Habitat: U.S F.W.S, Pacific Islands Office, 2004 ** Kona Community Development Plan 45 References 3. Hawaiian Natural Heritage Program. Rare and Endangered Species, Natural Communities. University of Hawaii at Manoa, Center for Conservation Research and Training, 2005. 4. Hawaii Natural Heritage Program. Natural Communities. November 2005. * Compiled 2002 by SOH, DLNR, DOFAW from various sources including the data provided by DSP and the C&C parcel boundaries with input from State foresters and other familiar with the reserve boundaries. The boundaries in these coverages are not final; they are updated frequently. Updated 11/6/03 — Added addition to Volcano National park. Updated December 2004 — edits to Molokai. ** Includes KokDry, Blackburn's Sphinx Moth, and Various Plant Species. Kona Community Development Plan 1 1 1 1 t 1 1 Appendix A 'Steering Committee Members t 1 1 Search: Go! na Ko -a Steering Committee KuNw cuMMUNI I Y ut:VI:LUPMENT PLAN STEERING COMMITTEE In accordance with the Hawaii County General Plan, Mayor Harry Kim has appointed the Kona Community Plan Steering Committee in the winter of 2006. The SC assists in the preparation of the plan and recommends approval to the Planning Commission, which in turn reviews and forwards it recommendation to the Council. The SC is to: ❑ Identify stakeholder interests ❑ Review work products for clarity Hawaii Island Plan » Steering Committee ❑ Encourage community participation ❑ Work constructively towards effective and acceptable conflict resolution ❑ Monitors process and suggest improvements ❑ Recommend approval/denial to the Planning Commission 1. Roger P. Dilts, Jr. Is a 7 -year resident of Kona and is owner and operator of the Aloha Farms, which is a bed and breakfast operation and a coffee and macadamia nut farm. He is currently a board member on the Kona Soil and Water Conservation District Council, is a member of the Kana-Kohala Chamber of Commerce - Committee of Environment and Natural Resources, Plan to Protect, and Kona Farmer's Alliance. Roger states that he has a love for the aina and the community and a respect for those who came before us. 2. JoAnn Farnsworth is a 25 -year resident of Kona and is self employed as a consultant for non- profit management focusing on children and family policy. She is presently Vice President for the Habitat for Humanity -Kona and Treasurer of the Neighborhood Place of Kona. JoAnn states that she truly believes it is Important to engage as broad a segment of the community as possible to find solutions and build our future. She has a deep compassion for the challenges we face and continues to work in linking grassroots issues and effective public policy. 3. Maralyn (Marni) Herkes Is a 52 -year resident of Kona and owns an Organizational and Community Development consulting business. She is presently a board member of the Kohala Center and Pulama is Kona Historical Corridor. Marni states that she has a broad knowledge of many facets of the Kona community and has much to learn. She has lots of energy, loves Kona and wants It to thrive and feel proud of itself. 4. Thomas Hickcox is a 30 year resident of Kona and is a retired Assistant Police Chief formerly with the County of Hawaii Police Department. He has served as Vice President of the West Hawaii Hawaiian Men's Golf Club and the West -Hawaii Crime Prevention Committee. Thomas states that his family has roots here that date back for more than 5 generations. He cares about his community and wants to be a part of an organization that will assure that growth in his community is done correctly. 5. Kate Jacobson is a 4 -year resident of Kona. She is a self-employed professional ceramic artist and Is currently contracted by Innovations Public Charter School as the Capital Campaign Director. She has experience working with community involvement projects and non-profit organizations in the State of Washington and Hawaii. Kate states that she would eagerly participate in exploring the highest potential for balance between the economic social, environmental and cultural assets of our island. Public partnerships, collaboration and long-term planning is important to her. Page 2 of 4 Hawaii Island Plan)) Steering Committee 6. Gretchen Lawson is a 10 -year resident of Kona and is presently the President/CEO of The Arc of Kona, formerly Kona Crafts. She is also the Vice President of the Kona-Kohala Chamber of Commerce. Gretchen states that during her residency in Kona, both her profession and private experience has helped her to develop relationships with many people who have enriched her life. She would like to return the favor by participating on this steering committee. 7. Lydia Mahi has been a resident of Kona for more than 40 years and is presently West Hawaii District Manager of Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council. She has spent more than 30 years working an an educator, outreach counselor and facilitator in Kona. She is also on the board of Directors for the West Hawaii Community Health Center and the Na Kokua Kaloko-Honokohau. Lydia states that she learned how to jump off the cliff at Ka Lae, and hung on to an ahl tied to the boat so that she could rest before swimming back to the cliff ...she has had a wonderful life growing up! 8. Stacy Mandaguit is a 13 -year resident of Kona who is presently employed by the Family Support Services of West Hawaii. She is presently a coach with the AYSO, Assistant Coach of the Kealakehe High Varsity Soccer Team, and a member of the Kahakal PISA. Stacy states that being on this committee is her attempt to be part of the solution to the inevitable growth in Kona. She believes we owe this to our youth/children of Kona who will be calling Kona their home. 9. Michael Matsukawa Is a 27 -year resident of Kona, and is self-employed as an Attorney. He is a past member of the Central Kona Union Church Council, Kona Adult Day Center Board and Hawaii Conference Foundation Board. Mike states that his knowledge of land use law, the community and leadership skills and abilities would make him a valuable steering committee member. 10. Ken Melrose is a4 -year resident of Kona and is presently Project Manager of Paahana Enterprises, LLC. a land use project management firm. He is chairman of the Hawaii Leeward Planning Council and a member of the Big island Soccer Referees Association. Ken states that he brings a career In real estate development & land use and experience In community organization. He is willing to work with others of varying backgrounds to balance public and private interests. 11. Janice Palma-Glennle is a 22 -year resident of Kona and is self employed as a Horticulturalist/Landscape Designer. She is a core group member of the Kohanaiki Ohana, a task force member of Kekaha Kai State Park and a board member of the Sierra Club. Janice states that her experience working with diverse groups, including kelk! and kupuna, has taught her that community planning needs to be inclusive because it affects everyone's quality of life. Page 3 of 4 M = M -rte a = M 1n -rte a■� Hawaii Island Plan » Steering Committee 12. Ed Rapoza is a life long resident of Kona and is presently self-employed as a realtor and developer. He was involved in the collaborative effort between the County of Hawaii which resulted in the purchase of Honl's Beach for the County. Ed states that he is a native Big Island resident who grew up in Kona and is raising his family here. He is interested in seeing diversified quality growth for our community. 13. Curtis J. Tyler III is a 59 -year resident of Kona and is presently self-employed as a Cultural Resource Consultant and was a member/vice chair of the Hawaii County Council. He is presently a member of the U.S. Army Cultural Advisory Committee, Pohakuloa Training Area. Curtis states that he brings substantial experience in land use planning, sustainable development and watershed management. He is a problem -solver who appreciates challenges, enjoys meeting new people and has a good sense of humor. 14. Chrystal Yamasaki is a 26 -year resident of Kona and is presently Chief Land Surveyor and President of West Thomas Associates. She is also treasurer of the Hawaii Society of Professional Engineers -Kona Kohala Chapter. Chrystal states that with good planning and enforcement we can have a community we want and so desperately need and deserve. Her background and perspectives are wide ranging and she wants to be a part of shaping the future of Kona. 15. Anne Irene Young is a 30 -year resident of Kona and is currently retired. She was formerly employed by the Kona Family YMCA as Executive Assistant. She is a board member of the Hawaii Island YMCA, Kona Outdoor Circle and Kona Historical Society. Annie states that It was her dad that taught her to listen to all sides and help to facilitate when arguments arise. She has a love for the land as well as the ocean. CDP Horne I CDP Overview North Kona North Kohala I South Kona I South Kohala I Puna I Hamakua I North Hilo ( South Hilo I Ka' u I Kona CDP I Web Design, Development and Hosting by Empowered Internet Solutions OW Page 4 of 4 1 1 1 11 t 1 ' LAND USE STRATEGIES The Environmental Simulation Center July 2007 t 'I] 1 1 404 A. Land Use Strategies for Kona Introduction ENVIRONMENT AI Results of the Public Involvement Process The land -use strategies recommended in this section build on the outcomes of the SIMULATION extensive public involvement process, including two well attended public workshops and charettes "Mapping the Future" and "How Do We Grow" (2006). CENTER, LTD The process was done in series of iterations beginning with focus group interviews to identify key issues and development patterns that were deemed inconsistent with Kona's distinctive built and landscape character. Next, 3,400 ideas were collected through 109 public meetings. These ideas were distilled into Ten Principles which were presented, tested and ranked during the "Mapping the Future" workshop. The Ten Principles, listed in order of importance, include: C 1 MICHAEL KWARFLER FAP, 4. Future growth should provide more parks. Piewdenl GEORGE JANES, AICP Ftdcum e I hrrnar 5. Future growth should occur in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and a mix of homes, shops, and places to work. 6. Density in South Kona should be kept low and the character should remain rural 7. Future growth should occur where and when infrastructure (roads and utilities) is already in place. 8. The majority of future growth should be directed north of Kailua Kona. 9. Most future growth in South Kona should occur around existing villages, such as Honaunau, Captain Cook, and Kealakekua. ' 10. Some future growth should be directed to the Kealakekua area. At the workshop, the Ten Principles were concretized by the participants who ' recommended where growth should go. The workshop concluded that growth should be directed toward North Kona and be concentrated in new compact higher ' LU Strategics July 2007 doc C Cop)rtght 2007 Enutronmental Simulation Center Ltd L 1. The coastline, watershed areas, flood plains, important agricultural land, open space, and areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway should be protected both inside and outside of the Urban Expansion Area. 261 WEST 35111 STREET SUITE 1408 2. Future growth should connect with other communities and offer alternatives NE�i YORK NY 10001 on how to move around. T 212 279 1851 F212279 5150 www simoenter org N 3. Future growth should offer a broad range of housing choices that are affordable and close to places of work. C 1 MICHAEL KWARFLER FAP, 4. Future growth should provide more parks. Piewdenl GEORGE JANES, AICP Ftdcum e I hrrnar 5. Future growth should occur in the form of compact villages that offer increased density and a mix of homes, shops, and places to work. 6. Density in South Kona should be kept low and the character should remain rural 7. Future growth should occur where and when infrastructure (roads and utilities) is already in place. 8. The majority of future growth should be directed north of Kailua Kona. 9. Most future growth in South Kona should occur around existing villages, such as Honaunau, Captain Cook, and Kealakekua. ' 10. Some future growth should be directed to the Kealakekua area. At the workshop, the Ten Principles were concretized by the participants who ' recommended where growth should go. The workshop concluded that growth should be directed toward North Kona and be concentrated in new compact higher ' LU Strategics July 2007 doc C Cop)rtght 2007 Enutronmental Simulation Center Ltd L Finally at subsequent public meetings participants linked land -use preferences to 2 open space, cultural, and natural environmental resources (Green Infrastructure) density mixed use Transit -Oriented Urban Villages or North Kona Growth and preserved as open space and mauka-makai open space connections. Opportunity Areas (GOAs) that were spatially located on a GIS map of Existing �- Conditions overlayed with constraints. Recommendations for South Kona focused ENVIRONMENTAL on retaining the rural character of the area by directing most of the anticipated Urban Villages (GOAs) where concentrated, connected and serviced development growth to existing villages, hamlets and compact PUDs, and providing for the SIMULATION retention of agriculture, a defining characteristic of South Kona. recommended that the rural character be conserved by directing new development CENTER, LTD The subsequent "Way to Grow" workshop addressed the density and character of r continued support of agriculture and the conservation of agricultural lands, and future development with the focus on the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages the stewardship of South Kona's natural landscape and ecosystem (see Green (GOAs). In order to both conserve land and promote a Kona character of development, the workshop participants reached consensus that the density of future development should be greater than the average density of current trends— agreeing on an average density of 5 to 8 dwelling units per acre. The design and character of communities was important, preferring well-defined centers that leave parking in the back and create a walkable and social environment, - neighborhoods that offer varied lot sizes, house types, and setbacks that are characteristic of Kona's communities that have grown organically. Finally at subsequent public meetings participants linked land -use preferences to open space, cultural, and natural environmental resources (Green Infrastructure) including the identification of areas that should be protected from development and preserved as open space and mauka-makai open space connections. �- Visions emerged for North and South Kona. In North Kona future growth is to be directed toward the Urban Expansion Area—specifically the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages (GOAs) where concentrated, connected and serviced development in the form of villages and neighborhoods would reduce the land consumption, conserve open space and cultural resources. In South Kona, the vision recommended that the rural character be conserved by directing new development to existing villages, hamlets and compact PUDs on non-agricultural land, the r continued support of agriculture and the conservation of agricultural lands, and the stewardship of South Kona's natural landscape and ecosystem (see Green Infrastructure Report). Structure of the Land -Use Strategies The land -use strategies are organized by the geography of the strategy. For example, regulatory strategies dealing with vesting and entitlement rights, apply to all of Kona while those focusing on the GOAs apply to the Urban Expansion Area in North Kona. C Copyright 2007 Enciromnenut Simulation Center Ltd I CENTER, LTD 11 L� 1 u r] 3 The land -use strategies are or anized as follows: .. YF '+Eki'i 31i'�'i� ( 4 ? p n 31Straf�estia �pp o tI1,North anci.St ut1l� ¢' 4i$ ,L'J7//. rfix "" B deg a c?icalCx �, r t rl�l�tyo R .�� i a +"e`+'ib •... a'*.. t^sg '^g-yv StFatte TrEczusioainr �3s='7'`�?''`�'�' ,•5y'`*�- ��',;r* '«�,,'war�� 1. Address Entitlements and 1. Create a Zoning and 1. Create Incentives for Vesting Rights ENVIRONMENTAL Infill Development SIMULATION CENTER, LTD 11 L� 1 u r] 3 The land -use strategies are or anized as follows: .. YF '+Eki'i 31i'�'i� ( 4 ? p n 31Straf�estia �pp o tI1,North anci.St ut1l� ¢' 4i$ ,L'J7//. rfix "" B deg a c?icalCx �, r t rl�l�tyo R .�� i a +"e`+'ib •... a'*.. t^sg '^g-yv StFatte TrEczusioainr �3s='7'`�?''`�'�' ,•5y'`*�- ��',;r* '«�,,'war�� 1. Address Entitlements and 1. Create a Zoning and 1. Create Incentives for Vesting Rights Regulatory Climate that Infill Development 2. Create Overlay Districts is Collaborative 2. Create Transit -Oriented 3. Establish Kona 2. Guide Future Growth Urban Villages (GOAs) Community Planning toward existing settlements 3. Formulate Urban Design Board 3. Formulate Urban Design Guidelines. 4. Adopt Performance Guidelines Evaluation Framework 4. TDB's and other and Annual "Report mechanisms to conserve Card" Agricultural Land 5. Formulate a Zoning 5. Provide Affordable and Framework that Directs Agricultural Worker Growth to Preferred Housing Locations 6. Support Public Access to 6. Require Connectivity and Private Land Concurrence 7. Funding Mechanisms 7. Develop a TDR Program 8. Protect Natural Features and Cultural Resources 9. Provide Open Space, Parks and Recreation 10. Provide Affordable Housing 11. Financing 12. Establish a Kona Design Center Because land -use does not exist in a vacuum other sections and reports of the CDP are referenced e.g., Transportation, Affordable Housing Report and The Green Infrastructure Technical Report. Typically, each strategy is discussed in terms of the issues it is addressing followed by recommendations, where appropriate. A. Strategies that apply to both North and South Kona Both regulatory and non -regulatory strategies determine how land is used. When orchestrated, they can provide the appropriate mix of incentives (directing growth to desired locations) and disincentives (permitting growth but making it less desirable in non -preferred locations). These strategies have been formulated to achieve a balance between the goals and objectives of the CDP and individual property rights by making the property owner "whole" to the degree possible. Each of the sections that follow discuss land -use strategies at different geographic scales from Kona to the Transit -Oriented Development (TOD) Urban Villages (referred to in the workshops discussed above as Growth Opportunity Areas or GOAs). 0 Cop r[ght 2007 Emtronmental Simulation Center Ltd 4 A" 1. Entitlement and Vesting Rights "Vestment rights" or "entitlements" are a significant policy issue. There appear to be two issues around vesting rights and entitlements that need to be addressed if ENVIRONMENTAL the goals and objectives of the CDP are to be realized. • The first is the vesting of zoning changes and approvals, that in SIMULATION most instances do not sunset or expire after a certain period of time if not acted upon. CENTER LTD • The second addresses the future and has three parts. Should there be a time limit on an approved action (e.g., site plan) that has not been acted upon, if so what should that time limit be, and should the approval needed to be updated or refreshed? The first entitlement issue is a conundrum because, as participants during the public involvement process noted, it appears that a significant amount of future development that is already accounted for is not in areas where the CDP would like to direct growth nor is it consistent with the CDP urban design guidelines. In general policies regarding "entitlements" that have not been acted upon for an extended period of time should be re-evaluated. The second will require clarifying current rules and procedures. 1 [l J z; Copynght 2007 EmtronmentalSimulation Center Ltd I r 1 [I 1 1 t n 1 CENTER LTD To achieve consistency with the CDP we recommend the following: 1. All properties with zoning changes but without an approved site plan would expire after a period of time to be determined and the zoning revert to current zoning which would then apply. 2. All developments with site plan approval that have exhausted all approved extensions would expire and the zoning revert to the current zonings which would then apply. 3. All developments with site plan approvals that are requesting an extension of the approval would, within a period of time to be determined need to refresh the terms of approval. (e.g., Environmental Assessment Statement). Before permits are issued, if deemed appropriate, the site plan is revised to reflect current conditions and policies (e.g., CDP) 4. Development approvals and zoning changes that are renewed and "refreshed" become subject to the New Development Vesting Rules 1. All zoning changes should be linked to the development e.g., if the development does not happen the zoning reverts back to the original zoning designation. 2. Approvals and zoning changes should have a time limit that, on application, would be granted an extension for a total of up to 10 years. 3. Extensions on approvals and zoning changes should be "refreshed" because the context has changed and assumptions made at the time of the approval may no longer be applicable (e.g., Environmental Assessment Statement) 4. Establish a clear vesting point. For example many locations recognize developments as vested when foundations are completed. If a development is not vested, changes in zoning that implement the CDP would then apply to the 2. Create a Kona District and North and South Kona Subdistrict Overlay districts, Currently, zoning is county -wide so that changes to the generic "one -size -fits -all" zoning regulations affect places as disparate as Hilo and Kona. In order to make the zoning place -based and responsive to the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP, a series of overlay districts should be created that recognize the unique climate, geophysical, ecological and settlement patterns that collectively make Kona and the Big Island unique. This process would begin with Kona followed by each of the regions formulating CDPs. C Cop�nght 2007 EtntronmentaI SunuIatiou Center Ltd r ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION 1 [I 1 1 t n 1 CENTER LTD To achieve consistency with the CDP we recommend the following: 1. All properties with zoning changes but without an approved site plan would expire after a period of time to be determined and the zoning revert to current zoning which would then apply. 2. All developments with site plan approval that have exhausted all approved extensions would expire and the zoning revert to the current zonings which would then apply. 3. All developments with site plan approvals that are requesting an extension of the approval would, within a period of time to be determined need to refresh the terms of approval. (e.g., Environmental Assessment Statement). Before permits are issued, if deemed appropriate, the site plan is revised to reflect current conditions and policies (e.g., CDP) 4. Development approvals and zoning changes that are renewed and "refreshed" become subject to the New Development Vesting Rules 1. All zoning changes should be linked to the development e.g., if the development does not happen the zoning reverts back to the original zoning designation. 2. Approvals and zoning changes should have a time limit that, on application, would be granted an extension for a total of up to 10 years. 3. Extensions on approvals and zoning changes should be "refreshed" because the context has changed and assumptions made at the time of the approval may no longer be applicable (e.g., Environmental Assessment Statement) 4. Establish a clear vesting point. For example many locations recognize developments as vested when foundations are completed. If a development is not vested, changes in zoning that implement the CDP would then apply to the 2. Create a Kona District and North and South Kona Subdistrict Overlay districts, Currently, zoning is county -wide so that changes to the generic "one -size -fits -all" zoning regulations affect places as disparate as Hilo and Kona. In order to make the zoning place -based and responsive to the goals and objectives of the Kona CDP, a series of overlay districts should be created that recognize the unique climate, geophysical, ecological and settlement patterns that collectively make Kona and the Big Island unique. This process would begin with Kona followed by each of the regions formulating CDPs. C Cop�nght 2007 EtntronmentaI SunuIatiou Center Ltd ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER, LTD 1 The Kona District would be an overlay zone with two subdistricts: North Kona Subdistrict and South Kona Subdistrict. The current county -wide "generic" regulations would be the base on which Kona specific regulations would be overlayed and become a subset of the county -wide regulations. The county -wide zoning regulations would be applicable unless superceded by the Kona District and Subdistrict zoning regulations and include administrative processes and reviews that are particular to Kona. We also envision additional overlay districts, e.g., TDR "receiving" and "sending" areas, Transit -Oriented Urban Villages, etc. 3. Establish a Local Kona Community Planning Board The public involvement workshops demonstrated a strong interest in the planning of Kona's future. A Local Kona Community Planning Board could be created that would potentially perform a number of functions. The board would be advisory and function similarly to the way local community boards on the mainland function; reviewing plans and applications, holding public hearings, commenting, and making non-binding recommendations to the decision making entity. The Local Kona Community Planning Board could also assume a ministerial role reviewing plans for compliance with CDP freeing up Planning Department staff time, similar to the way in which states alienate or devolve powers to municipalities or counties. In addition, the Local Kona Community Planning Board could also issue the annual Kona "Report Card" using information in the Performance Evaluation Framework (discussed below) that would evaluate the performance of the past year's development activities against the goals and objectives of the CDP and baseline and provide transparency and accountability, including periodic reassessment of the CDP over time. 4. Adopt the Performance Evaluation Framework and Annual Report Card As described in the County's RFP, the Community Profile and Indicators Catalog "...would compile existing demographic and social data from census and other sources, and analyze trends. The data would be collected and organized with the objective of using the data not only to profile the community, but to also derive a catalog of measurable indicators that relate to community goals and objective." This has been expanded into the Kona CDP Performance Evaluation Framework. The Kona CDP Performance Evaluation Framework (PEF) is a scalable tool that is designed to track change over time, measure the performance of the CDP, and evaluate how well the Kona approved developments are performing against expectations—the Ten Principles that guide the Land -Use Strategies and the CDP. It will also provide a degree of accountability for those who participated in its formulation that the CDP is being implemented and working. It is a dynamic tool: as new projects are approved they are added to the existing conditions, which then becomes the new baseline. The PEF incorporates the Ten Principles that emerged from the community workshops and charettes. It has two levels of evaluation, one area -wide Copyright 2007 Environmental Simulation Center Ltd 1 A t L 1 CEN CER, LTD corresponding to the "Map of the Future" workshops and the other corresponding to the "How Do We Grow" workshops which focused on physical development and design issues. The PEF would be a profile of Kona at a moment in time, (the baseline) and record changes on an annual basis, track changes and identify trends. The evaluation component would consist of benchmarks and indicators where benchmarks are goals to be achieved and indicators that evaluate the level of performance. The simplified PEF (see earlier Nov. 2006 Draft PDF) would be easy to administer and useful in project site plan review. The "Mapping the Future" component would have simplified measures indicating the degree to which a Principle (or component of a Principle) is satisfied. For example, the goal for affordable housing units would be measured in the number of units produced and the degree to which the number of units met expectations. The "How Do We Grow" component is essentially performance-based development design guidelines e.g., the number of developments that have exceeded the basic connectivity index which has been used in communities on the mainland to great effect against a recognized connectivity index. It would also be useful in development reviews not only to evaluate connectivity but the urban design preferences that emerged from the "How Do We Grow" (see Public Involvement Process: Appendix). An urban design example would be setbacks. e.g., houses should not align but be offset from the adjoining houses by no more than 10 ft. and no less than 5 ft. The site plan submitted by the developer would show compliance with the goal which could be satisfied in more than one way. (See Urban Design Guidelines). S. Zoning Framework The focus of the land -use strategies is directing growth to preferred locations in North and South Kona, the form that the growth takes, and the tools to implement that strategy including leveraging public investment in new transportation, infrastructure, and open space and parks. The zoning framework outlines the implementation strategy for the changes to existing county -wide generic zoning required to implement the Kona CDP. We do not recommend replacing the existing county -wide zoning but rather localizing zoning to Kona by introducing a series of overlay districts that would encourage development implementing the CDP's vision for the future. In the Kona Overlay ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION L 1 CEN CER, LTD corresponding to the "Map of the Future" workshops and the other corresponding to the "How Do We Grow" workshops which focused on physical development and design issues. The PEF would be a profile of Kona at a moment in time, (the baseline) and record changes on an annual basis, track changes and identify trends. The evaluation component would consist of benchmarks and indicators where benchmarks are goals to be achieved and indicators that evaluate the level of performance. The simplified PEF (see earlier Nov. 2006 Draft PDF) would be easy to administer and useful in project site plan review. The "Mapping the Future" component would have simplified measures indicating the degree to which a Principle (or component of a Principle) is satisfied. For example, the goal for affordable housing units would be measured in the number of units produced and the degree to which the number of units met expectations. The "How Do We Grow" component is essentially performance-based development design guidelines e.g., the number of developments that have exceeded the basic connectivity index which has been used in communities on the mainland to great effect against a recognized connectivity index. It would also be useful in development reviews not only to evaluate connectivity but the urban design preferences that emerged from the "How Do We Grow" (see Public Involvement Process: Appendix). An urban design example would be setbacks. e.g., houses should not align but be offset from the adjoining houses by no more than 10 ft. and no less than 5 ft. The site plan submitted by the developer would show compliance with the goal which could be satisfied in more than one way. (See Urban Design Guidelines). S. Zoning Framework The focus of the land -use strategies is directing growth to preferred locations in North and South Kona, the form that the growth takes, and the tools to implement that strategy including leveraging public investment in new transportation, infrastructure, and open space and parks. 0 K. Cop}nght 2007 Enwomnental Simulation Cents Ltd The zoning framework outlines the implementation strategy for the changes to existing county -wide generic zoning required to implement the Kona CDP. We do not recommend replacing the existing county -wide zoning but rather localizing zoning to Kona by introducing a series of overlay districts that would encourage development implementing the CDP's vision for the future. In the Kona Overlay District, North and South Kona subdistricts we envision a series of subarea overlay districts and plans and the Urban Village Design Guidelines, many of which are in the complimentary Green Infrastructure Technical Report recommending a series of overlay districts such as the Open Space Plan. 0 K. Cop}nght 2007 Enwomnental Simulation Cents Ltd 8 In order to achieve the primary goal of directing growth to preferred locations in North and South Kona two policies are recommended: ENVIRONMENTAL • Minimize the approval of the zoning district changes, amendments and variances unless they are consistent with the goals and SIMULATION objectives of the CDP. • Adopt the recommended vesting and entitlement rules. CENTER. LTD "Carrots and Sticks " While zoning has traditionally been a system of preventing harm, the zoning framework recommends an approach that is oriented toward creating a good by orchestrating an array of incentives ("carrots") and disincentives ("sticks"). It does not preclude development outside of the preferred growth areas in the Urban Expansion Area (but rather assumes that development will take place in those areas). The intent is to distinguish between individuals and relatively small developments and large developments in the Urban Expansion Area and Kona. To achieve the goal of directing growth to preferred locations we propose a series of incentives, including public investment in roads and infrastructure that will make it less desirable to develop outside of the preferred growth areas in North and South Kona. The incentives include density bonuses, TDR's, site planning flexibility, waivers of fees, and preferred administrative review process. The disincentive is the lack of these incentives in locations where growth is not preferred. In general the recommended approach is to reverse the traditional administrative process in which as -of -right subdivisions have the least administrative friction while what is desired typically must go through a lengthy discretionary review process. This objective, we believe, can be achieved within the as -of -right ministerial review process. To achieve this re -ordering of the review process we recommend a two-tier system. The first tier is the Development Evaluation Punchlist and the second tier is a Performance Evaluation and/or Form -Based Development Code or a combination of the two. The Development Evaluation Punchlist The Development Evaluation Punchlist would have two purposes. The first would be to ensure that the proposed development passes a basic threshold allowing it to go through a ministerial rather than a lengthy discretionary review by permitting the developer to use the Performance Evaluation and/or Form -Based Development Code discussed below. A complying development would also pass an initial threshold qualifying it for density bonuses, TDR's, waivers of fees, and other incentives that would not be available to developments that are as -of -right or are going through a discretionary review. Cl Copyright 2007 Emtronmental Simulation Center Ltd I Iwo ilk ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER, LTD 1 i 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 Z The Development Evaluation Punchlist is a scoring system where the higher the score the greater the eligibility to utilize the incentives listed above. It is designed to evaluate the degree to which a development leverages public investment in transportation and other infrastructures. The punchlist below is not meant to be exhaustive but representative of the kind of thresholds, benchmarks and indicators that would be used to evaluate a development's compliance and performance with a threshold. In the example below, we have also applied importance factors giving greater value to some factors and less weight to others. A simpler version would have all indicators be equal. ,mmb."v`' `'.4.`t'Xe a :"" 'aMws ,', ` '1�"y. "'#til" "'�,`h; ;€< < y,.a -.'3' ;`!<"..'' �;}`a•t'87 Fe>oprtmenE aluationP,,.,,,�:..�3,a- : A. Within the Five Transit Villages Measure: Yes=1.0, No= 0.0 Importance Factor: 5.0 B. Proximity to Transportation B.1. Proximity to Mid -Level Road Measure: %2 Mile = 1.0, > '/z Mile = 0.5 Importance Factor: 4.0 B.2. Proximity to Public Transportation Stop Measure: 1/4 Mile = 1.0, %2 Mile = 0.5 Importance Factor: 4.5 C. Proximity to Neighborhood Shopping Measure: 5 Minute Walk ('/4 Mile) = 1.0, > 5 Minute Walk = 0.5 Importance Factor: 4.0 D. Proximity to Existing Parks and Publicly Accessible Open Space Measure: 1 Mile = 1.0, > Mile = 0.5 Importance Factor: 2.0 E. Provision of Public Open Space On -Site Measure: Preferred Ratio of DU's to Open Space = 1.0 < than Preferred Ration of DU's to Open Space Importance Factor: 3.5 F. Protection and Preservation of Environmental Features and Cultural Resources F.1. Protection of Flood Plains Measure: Yes = 1.0, Partial = 0.5, No = 0.0 Importance Factor: 3.0 F.2. Preservation of Cultural Features Measure: Yes = 1.0, Partial = 0.5, No = 0.0 Importance Factor = 3.0 G. Proximity to Employment Center Measure: 5 Miles = 1.0, 7.5 Miles = 0.5, > 7.5 Miles = 0.0 Importance Factor = 3.0 H. Provision of Affordable Housing On -Site Measure: 20% of Total DU's 1.00, 15.0% 0.75 < 15% = 0.25 none = 0.0 Importance Factor 4.5 It, (op)nslit 2007 Emironmental Simulation Center Ltd *Connectivity and the Provision of Infrastructure Concurrency with the Development is mandatory. C 10 1 We expect there to be some need for flexibility evaluating a development based ENVIRONMENTAL on demonstrated site constraints e.g., Flood Plains. The Development Evaluation Punchlist would provide both transparency and accountability in compliance with SIMULATION the Kona CDP. CENTER, LTD Performance Evaluation and Form -Based Development Codes In a performance system, it is assumed that full compliance is not always achievable, that there are trade-offs between performance goals leaving room for choice by the developer and architect, and that partial compliance with a goal is acceptable. Further, performance assumes that there are multiple "right answers," because performance sets out the problem to be solved, rather than solving the problem. The passing score is the sum of the performance evaluation. Performance-based zoning clearly states the goal to be achieved, how it is to be evaluated or a program, a formula for measuring, and an importance factor that recognizes that some goals are more important than others and that some aspects of the site design process are easier to accomplish than others. For example: Goal. To create a more diverse place, building setbacks should not be uniform. Program: Front yard building setbacks should not align with eachother and be no greater than 10 ft. and no less than 5 ft. from adjoining building setbacks. Compliance: The total number of lots that comply divided by the total number of lots in the development. Importance Factor: 1.25 As an alternative, form -based codes (a form of "pattern book") accomplish the same goals but in a more prescriptive way. Because they are prescriptive and pre - design the solution they are sometimes preferable but have certain inherent drawbacks. Performance-based development codes are self -adapting to a multiplicity of situations, locations, and development programs, because they do not prescribe a solution but rather describe the design problem to be solved, while form -based development codes typically are written for a specific situation and location. In the case of the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages (GOAs) this would necessarily require a different form -based code for each Village if the desired end is to create a specific identity for each Village. The third way would be to combine both approaches using the Form -Based Development Code as "building blocks" which can be assembled in different patterns and evaluated by the Performance Evaluation Development Code. Either way, a discretionary process would be replaced by a ministerial review. 1 J 1 P, EI 1 Cl Copyright 2007 En%ironmentat Simulation Center Ltd I 1 VS Cop}nght 2007 Enwonmentai Sunulaaon Center Ltd .... Incentives are discussed in the context of the North and South Kona subdistricts. 6. Connectivity and Concurrence ENVIRONMENTAL Connectivity: An interconnected transportation system and its relationship to 1 land -use strategies is addressed in KCDP Transportation Chapter_. The sections SIMULATION that focus on connectivity are abstracted and follow below: CENTER LTD Objective T-2 A system of interconnected roads in Kona shall provide direct transportation routes for automobiles, pedestrians, bicycles and public transit. . Overview. A highly connected transportation system within Kona's UEA serves to: (a.) provide choices for drivers, bicyclists, and pedestrians; (b.) promote walking and bicycling; (c.) connect neighborhoods to eachother and to destinations, such as employment centers and workplaces, schools, parks and cultural sites, shopping, libraries and post offices among others; (d.) provide new and existing affordable housing easy access to 1 transportation opportunities; (e.) provide opportunities for residents to increase their level of physical activity each day by creating walkable neighborhoods with adequate connections to destinations; (f.) reduce vehicle miles traveled and travel time to improve air quality and mitigate the effects of auto emissions on the health of residents; (g.) reduce emergency response times; (h.) increase effectiveness of municipal delivery service; and (i.) restore arterial street capacity to better service regional long-distance travel needs. provide increased emergency evacuation opportunities Policy T -2.1a Roadway systems in Kona shall be designed and improved to be interconnected. Strategy T-2.1 a Proposals for new development within Kona's UEA shall provide a roadway system based on the Kona's Connectivity Standards. Kona's Connectivity Standards are: (1) A proposed development shall provide multiple direct connections (connectivity) in its local street system to and between local destinations, such as employment centers and workplaces including resorts, parks, schools and shopping, without requiring the use of arterial streets. The spacing criteria used for providing connections 1 are as follows: VS Cop}nght 2007 Enwonmentai Sunulaaon Center Ltd 12 1 �C� �l • Every 300 to 500 foot grid for pedestrians and bicycles • Every 500 to 800 foot grid for automobiles. (2) Each development shall incorporate and continue all collector or ENVIRONMENTAL local streets stubbed to the boundary of the development plan by previously approved but unbuilt development or existing SIMULATION development. (3) Gated street entryways into residential developments are prohibited CENTER, LTD (4) Cul-de-sacs and permanent closed-end streets shall be prohibited except where construction of a through street is found to be impracticable. When cul-de-sacs or closed-end streets are allowed under subsection, they shall be limited to 200 feet and shall serve no more than 25 dwellings. (5) Where new streets end at areas that are undeveloped, a street stub out with a temporary turnaround is required in which only pedestrians and cyclists would have access. Cul-de-sacs and adjacent to public land would be prohibited. Policy T-2.2 Connectivity shall be improved within and between existing developments. Strategy T -2.2a The County shall study, identify, and prioritize existing roads that shall be connected, including both North-South, as well as Mauka-Makai corridors. Strategy T -2.2b The County shall work with the community to identify opportunities to increase pedestrian and bicycle route connectivity, including options such as easements linking existing cul-de-sacs with adjacent roads (Policy T -2.1a(5)) Policy T-2.3 Road plans for new Urban and Rural subdivision shall provide a minimum of two corridor connections to the adjacent road(s). Policy T-2.4 Establish goals and benchmarks to measure progress towards road connectivity and increased pedestrian and transit facilities (Performance Evaluation Framework and Annual Report Card) Policy T-2.5 Connect streets between existing and new communities. When new developments are not well connected with existing neighborhoods they contribute more cars and create greater traffic congestion on collector roads. When developers are compelled to integrate new neighborhoods into existing street patterns, and provide a variety of choices for movement in and out of the neighborhood, new developments can actually increase connectivity within the region. r 1 1 1 1 1 0 Copyright 2007 Emtroumental Snnulatton Center, Ltd I Ic_ Copyright 2007 Enytrontnentat Simulation Center Ltd L • Ensure that there are more development rights than there are buyers to create a market in development rights. The design and 13 study based on the particulars of Hawaii enabling legislation, the 7. Develop a TDR Program delineation of "sending" areas (the "receiving" areas are discussed The concept of TDRs is based on compensating a property for participating in the ENVIRONMENTAL creation of a public good such the preservation of open space and natural habitats, • "receiving" and "sending" areas should be clearly delineated by aquifer protection, preservation of historic buildings and sites, etc. There is a SIMULATION substantial literature on TDRs system and their assets and problems. That is well program of incentives. These recommendations are discussed in summarized in a paper prepared for the Conservation Fund in 2006 and can be CENTER. LTD found in Appendix # 6 in the Green Infrastructure Technical Report. development. We recommend that the TDR mechanism be adopted by Kona and be applicable and reflect the needs, interests, and economics of each subdistrict, in both North and South Kona. They would be voluntary, obviating much of the notwithstanding whether having one Kona District rather than having two "takings" issue. In addition, in some situations it will also make sense to leave economics, etc. There is still the nexus issue. For example, transferring residual development rights that the "sender" can use on their property, development rights from South Kona to North Kona raises the issue of impact and particularly in South Kona. Other components of a successful TDR program away in South Kona. Further, transferring development rights from North to South Kona inherently does not make sense if one of the primary reasons for TDR include: Ic_ Copyright 2007 Enytrontnentat Simulation Center Ltd L • Ensure that there are more development rights than there are buyers to create a market in development rights. The design and calibration of the TDR system should be the subject of a separate study based on the particulars of Hawaii enabling legislation, the delineation of "sending" areas (the "receiving" areas are discussed in the land -use strategies for North and South Kona), the potential market and transaction costs. • "receiving" and "sending" areas should be clearly delineated by overlay districts, • the purchase of TDR's should be mandated as part of the CDP's program of incentives. These recommendations are discussed in the context of the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages and directing growth in South Kona to existing villages and hamlets, and cluster development. North and South Kona should probably have separate TDR programs that address and reflect the needs, interests, and economics of each subdistrict, notwithstanding whether having one Kona District rather than having two "sending" districts (North and South Kona subdistricts) is valid on its merits, economics, etc. There is still the nexus issue. For example, transferring development rights from South Kona to North Kona raises the issue of impact and benefit, e.g., the impacts will be fast in North Kona while the benefit is miles away in South Kona. Further, transferring development rights from North to South Kona inherently does not make sense if one of the primary reasons for TDR in South Kona is supporting the rural character and agricultural economy of South Kona and making property owners "whole" for preserving its rural character and ecosystem. 8. Protect Natural Features and Cultural Resources (See: Green Infrastructure Technical Report, Conservation Fund, February 2007) Ic_ Copyright 2007 Enytrontnentat Simulation Center Ltd L ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER LTD 14 9. Open Space, Parks and Recreation (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report, Conservation Fund, February 2007) 10. Provide Affordable Housing and Workplace and Agricultural Housing Zoning density bonuses are discussed in B. Strategies to Protect Rural Areas and Quality of Life in South Kona and C. Strategies for the North Kona Urban Expansion Area and the Affordable Housing Report (David Rosen and Assoc.) 11. Financing- TBD. 12. Design Center -TBD. C Copyright 2007 Environmental Simulation Center, Ltd B. Strategies to Protect Rural Areas and Quality of Life in South Kona 1. Create Zoning Regulatory Climate that is Collaborative ENVIRONMFN 1AI (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report/Nature Conservancy: February 2002 Leadership Forums and Appendix #1 Working Groups, Appendix #3 Mauka Land SIMULATION Group, Appendix #4 Olaa-Kilauea and Three Mountain Partnerships, and Appendix #5 Convening Leadership Forums.) CENTER, LTD 2. Guide Future Growth Toward Existing Settlements Infill and PUDs. Infill Development The concept of infill development is to connect two or more pre-existing developments, and infill in existing villages or hamlets, and should not be confused with extending an existing development, village or hamlet into a "greenfields," or beyond the village or hamlet boundaries. By definition infill is associated with small scale developments of approximately 10 acres or less that have been leapfrogged by the surrounding or adjacent developments and occur in 261 WES 1 35TH STREET areas that are already urbanized or developed but not built -out. SUI rE 1405 NEbS YORK NY 10001 The South Kona Infill Development Policy can be a powerful tool T 212 279 1351 accommodating a portion of the anticipated residual growth that does not occur in r 212 279 5350 wwwmmenterorg North Kona by directing it toward South Kona'a existing villages: Kealakekua, Captain Cook, Honaunau and Ho'opuloa/Miloli'i, hamlets, existing subdivisions and agricultural workers housing on existing working agriculture farms, orchards N41C HAEL KWARTLER, 1'AlA and coffee plantations. (We have assumed a portion of the anticipated growth will 1'reudent GEORGE IAIvES, AIC'P also go to unbuilt lots in existing subdivisions.) l� �ecntli e 1 h� ec tar Infill Development would: 0 Preserve existing open space, prime agricultural land, forests and coastline areas; C Tap into existing infrastructures; C Be a catalyst to build -out existing villages and hamlets and make them more complete places; ' • Implement zoning incentives to encourage infill development, and to the degree possible, affordable housing, in and around existing villages and hamlets and discourage "greenfields" development (Strategy T -14c) ' e Provide opportunities for affordable housing; and ® Increase connectivity by providing connections to existing roads, pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths (see KCDP Transportation Opportunities and Challenges) A series of incentives are proposed to encourage infill rather than "greenfields" development (Note: the disincentive to "greenfields" development in South Kona is that it is subject to the base zoning as a matter of CDP policy). In addition, 1 LU Strategies fuly 2007 doc C Copyright 2007 Emuoranental Simulation Center Ltd ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER LTD 16 zoning district changes, variances and incentives would not be available outside of preferred growth areas (See A. Strategies that Apply to Both North and South Kona) The infill development incentive program would be voluntary. It would be a two- tier system; a variation on the one proposed in the Zoning Framework section described in A. Strategies that Apply to both North and South Kona. The first tier would be a qualification threshold punchlist to determine whether the proposed infill development qualifies as infill for the infill incentives. The second tier would be a subset of the Performance Evaluation Development Code for Infill Developments. The Infill Development Evaluation Punchlist would have two purposes. The first would be to ensure that the proposed infill development qualifies as an Infill Development that would allow it to go through an expedited ministerial review process by permitting the development to use The Performance Evaluation Code: Infill Development. The complying infill development would then qualify for TDRs and affordable housing bonuses, change of use (e.g., residential to mixed- use), waivers of fees, site planning flexibility and reduction of lot sizes that would not be available to as -of -right developments. Site planning (e.g., road, block and lot layouts, lot sizes and configurations, yards, setbacks, etc.) is of considerable value when trying to fit a new development into an existing context to: • Provide for road, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity; • Create publicly accessible and dedicated open space such as connecting two portions of Open Space Network Infill Development Evaluation Punchlist To qualify the infill development must have a positive response to each element of the punchlist: InfII.De elii m_ent;E at8a..+.To k7Funch A. Within the Urban Expansion Area: Yes No B. Does Not Exceed 10 Acres: Yes No C. Does Not Develop In: C1. Flood Plains Yes No C2. Agricultural Land Yes No C3. Designated Open Space Network Yes No C4. Protected Natural Areas and Habitats Yes No C5. Coastline Protection Area Yes No D. The Site Plan complies with the minimum Connectivity Index (See Performance Evaluation Framework in Index): Yes No E. Taps into and/or expands or improves existing infrastructure. Yes No * Connectivity and the provision of Infrastructure concurrent with the development would be mandatory. V Cop}nght 2007 En%ironmental Simulation Center Ltd 1 n 1 1 CENTER LTD 17 We expect there to be some needed ministerial flexibility in evaluating an Infill Development based on demonstrated site constraints (e.g., Flood Plains). Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development Because each infill site will be different in configuration and built and natural context posing different challenges, a zoning system that self -adapts to a multiplicity of site conditions is recommended. The Infill Development Performance Evaluation or a variation that utilizes a Form -Based Development Code as "building blocks" (See Zoning Framework A. Strategies that Apply to Both North and South Kona) that can be assembled in different patterns and be evaluated by the Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development is recommended. Either way a discretionary site plan review process would be replaced by a ministerial review with the applicant demonstrating compliance. Not all of the Performance Evaluation Development Code measures and indicators would be applicable to Infill Developments in South Kona. They would be, where appropriate, modified to reflect the rural character of South Kona. The exception would be Captain Cook, whose character and development pattern is similar to villages and hamlets in the North Kona Urban Expansion Area. (Examples of the performance measures and indicators and how they would work can be found in the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages section of Strategies for the North Kona Urban Expansion Area). Incentives The incentive system begins with the existing underlying zoning district's use, density, lot coverage, yard and building height regulations as the base. An analysis of the current zoning districts in South Kona reveals that the predominant district is low-density agricultural. This is good, since it provides the low-density base for the incentives without significant down -zoning, which is often required to make the incentives work without dramatic changes in the scale, building type, and character of development. The incentive system for South Kona Infill Development would be tiered as is proposed for the North Kona Infill Development and the North Kona Urban Villages, with each tier fine tuned to its development program and location. Assuming the Infill Development satisfied the Punchlist thresholds it would avail itself of the incentives only in the following order, beginning with the base zoning: 1. Base Zoning: The property may elect to use the underlying zoning regulations or the Infill Development Regulations. In either case, Connectivity and Concurrence of Infrastructure with the construction and occupancy of the development would be mandated. 2. Site Planning: Infill developments would have site planning flexibility by allowing density to be distributed on an area -wide rather than lot by lot basis. It would encourage a mix of lots and C Copyright 2007 Etniromnental Simulation Center Ltd i ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION 1 n 1 1 CENTER LTD 17 We expect there to be some needed ministerial flexibility in evaluating an Infill Development based on demonstrated site constraints (e.g., Flood Plains). Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development Because each infill site will be different in configuration and built and natural context posing different challenges, a zoning system that self -adapts to a multiplicity of site conditions is recommended. The Infill Development Performance Evaluation or a variation that utilizes a Form -Based Development Code as "building blocks" (See Zoning Framework A. Strategies that Apply to Both North and South Kona) that can be assembled in different patterns and be evaluated by the Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development is recommended. Either way a discretionary site plan review process would be replaced by a ministerial review with the applicant demonstrating compliance. Not all of the Performance Evaluation Development Code measures and indicators would be applicable to Infill Developments in South Kona. They would be, where appropriate, modified to reflect the rural character of South Kona. The exception would be Captain Cook, whose character and development pattern is similar to villages and hamlets in the North Kona Urban Expansion Area. (Examples of the performance measures and indicators and how they would work can be found in the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages section of Strategies for the North Kona Urban Expansion Area). Incentives The incentive system begins with the existing underlying zoning district's use, density, lot coverage, yard and building height regulations as the base. An analysis of the current zoning districts in South Kona reveals that the predominant district is low-density agricultural. This is good, since it provides the low-density base for the incentives without significant down -zoning, which is often required to make the incentives work without dramatic changes in the scale, building type, and character of development. The incentive system for South Kona Infill Development would be tiered as is proposed for the North Kona Infill Development and the North Kona Urban Villages, with each tier fine tuned to its development program and location. Assuming the Infill Development satisfied the Punchlist thresholds it would avail itself of the incentives only in the following order, beginning with the base zoning: 1. Base Zoning: The property may elect to use the underlying zoning regulations or the Infill Development Regulations. In either case, Connectivity and Concurrence of Infrastructure with the construction and occupancy of the development would be mandated. 2. Site Planning: Infill developments would have site planning flexibility by allowing density to be distributed on an area -wide rather than lot by lot basis. It would encourage a mix of lots and C Copyright 2007 Etniromnental Simulation Center Ltd UA 18 q_9 building types, on a development parcel. For example, higher density may result in one portion of the parcel and lower density on another which in total would equal the maximum base density under current ENVIRONMENTAL zoning. (This is illustrated by the ESC's block density analysis done to visualize density bonuses for Affordable Housing in the Transit - SIMULATION Oriented Urban Villages). Other areas of flexibility would include lot sizes and configurations, reductions in yards and uniform CENTER, LTD setbacks to adjust to site conditions and connectivity requirements. A maximum height limit of 35 ft. would govern. 3. TDR: There would be two ways to increase density in South Kona: TDRs from designated Open Space (see Open Space Plan in Green Infrastructure Report) or the "sender." The maximum density would be 20% on top of the base zoning districts maximum allowable density. 4. Affordable Housing: Could be located on or off-site within a limited area. The preference would be on-site so as not to concentrate affordable housing in a few locations but rather disperse and integrate it within existing and/or emerging neighborhoods creating a diversity of housing choices and mixed -income communities. The amount of the bonus would be done on a sliding scale beginning at 15% for all affordable housing off-site to 25% (this would need to be tested) for affordable housing located on-site. Affordable housing would have a height limit of 35 ft. and reduced parking requirements if within 1/4 mile or a 5 minute walk to public transportation. Off-site affordable housing would need to be located within 5 miles of the Infill Development and also located within an Infill Development Area or an existing Village or Hamlet. Greenfields locations would be prohibited. Layering the Affordable Housing Bonus on top of the TDRs would be permitted. The effect of a density increase by 35%-45% and its effect on scale and character would need to be studied during the implementation of the CDP in zoning regulations. Planned Unit Developments (P. U.D) The existing P.U.D regulations [Article 6: Division 1. Planned Unit Develop-(P.U.D)] would be applicable in South Kona. An alternative which the developer could elect would be The South Kona Punchlist and Performance Evaluation Development Code, a variation of the general Code, but modified in recognition of South Kona's rural character and scale. 3. Urban Design Guidelines (See separate document) 4. TDRs and other mechanisms to conserve agricultural land 0 Copyright 2007 Environmental Simulation Center Ltd 1 fl 1 e 11 I n SIMULATION 5. Provide Affordable and Agriculture Worker Housing CENTER LTD (See Affordable Housing Report, David Rosen and Associates) 6. Support Public Access to Private Land (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report, Conservation Fund, February 2007 Forum on Public Recreation in Upper Mauka Kona, Appendix #I Recreation Working Group 7. Funding Mechanisms (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report, Conservation Fund, February 2007, Appendix #3 Mauka Land Group). K+ Copyright 2007 Enitromnental Simulation Center, Ltd 19 (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report Nature Conservancy, February 2007. Particularly Agricultural Lands and Natural Lands, Appendix # 1, Agricultural Working Group, Land -Use and Planning Working Group, and Appendix #6 ENVIRONMENTAL Transferable Development Rights Programs: An Economic Framework for Success SIMULATION 5. Provide Affordable and Agriculture Worker Housing CENTER LTD (See Affordable Housing Report, David Rosen and Associates) 6. Support Public Access to Private Land (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report, Conservation Fund, February 2007 Forum on Public Recreation in Upper Mauka Kona, Appendix #I Recreation Working Group 7. Funding Mechanisms (See Green Infrastructure Technical Report, Conservation Fund, February 2007, Appendix #3 Mauka Land Group). K+ Copyright 2007 Enitromnental Simulation Center, Ltd e5lbgg A C. Strategies for North Kona Urban Expansion Area 1. Infill Development ENVIRONMENTAL The concept of infill is to connect two or more pre-existing developments, and infill in existing villages or hamlets, and should not be confused with extending SIMULATION an existing development, village or hamlet into a "greenfields," or beyond the village and hamlet boundaries. By definition infill is associated with small scale CENTER, LTD developments of approximately 10 acres or less that have been leapfrogged by the surrounding or adjacent developments and occur in areas that are already urbanized and are within the North Kona Urban Expansion Area. An infill development policy can be a powerful tool accommodating a portion of anticipated growth by directing it toward preferred locations within the Urban Expansion Area including the Urban Villages (GOAs). Specifically it would: • Increase connectivity by providing connections to existing roads, pedestrian walkways and bicycle paths (see section 1: KCDP Transportation Opportunities and Challenges); • Implement zoning incentives to encourage infill development, and 261 N EST 351H STREET to the degree possible affordable housing, in and around existing SUITE 1408 NEW YORK NY 10001 villages and hamlets to discourage "greenfields" development, particularly on prime agricultural lands (Strategy T -I 4c); T 212 279 1851 F 212 279 5350 • Locate infill development where there is existing infrastructure that www sunoenter org can be tapped into; • Provide opportunities for affordable housing; MICHAEL KWAR1 LER, FA[A • Be a catalyst to integrate series of subdivisions into a walkable, P,esu,ent pedestrian oriented neighborhood; GEORGE JANES, A1CP • Be a catalyst to build -out existing villages and hamlets making Fre,„ ove wYei«'r them more complete places; and • Become, in specific locations, mixed use neighborhood centers. A series of incentives are proposed to encourage infill rather than "greenfields" development (Note: the disincentive to "greenfields" development in the Urban Expansion Area is that it is subject to the base zoning as a matter of CDP policy which generally has lower densities than advocated in the county's Land -Use Plan/Urban Expansion Area). In addition, zoning district changes, variances and incentives would not be available outside of preferred growth areas. (See A. Strategies that Apply to Both North and South Kona) The infill development incentive program would be voluntary. It would be a two- tier system; a variation on the one proposed in the Zoning Framework section described in A. Strategies that Apply to Both North and South Kona. The first tier would be a qualification threshold punchlist to determine whether the proposed infill development qualifies as infill and the infill incentives. The second tier would be a subset of the Performance Evaluation Development Code for Infill Developments. LU Strategies July 2007 doe 0 Copyright 2007 Environmental Simulation Center, Ltd t [�I J 11, CENTER, LTD 21 The Infill Development Evaluation Punchlist would have two purposes. The first would be to ensure that the proposed infill development qualifies as an Infill Development that allowing it to go through an expedited ministerial review process by permitting the development to use The Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development. The complying infill development would then qualify for density bonuses and affordable housing bonuses, change of use (e.g., residential to mixed-use), waivers of fees, site planning flexibility and reduction of lot sizes that would not be available to as -of -right developments. Site planning (e.g., road, block, and lot layouts, lot sizes and configurations, yards, setbacks, etc.) and use flexibility are of considerable value when trying to fit a new development into an existing context, to: provide for road, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity; create publicly accessible and dedicated open space such as connecting two portions of the Open Space Network; and the development of a neighborhood -scale mixed-use center. Infill Development Evaluation Punchlist To qualify the infill development must have a positive response to each element of the punchlist: ;In if Develu)(Jvaatian1', 1., fiO4, .ao mental« w �' A. Within the Urban Expansion Area: Yes No B. Does Not Exceed 10 Acres: Yes No C. Does Not Develop In: ENVIRONMENTAL Yes SIMULATION t [�I J 11, CENTER, LTD 21 The Infill Development Evaluation Punchlist would have two purposes. The first would be to ensure that the proposed infill development qualifies as an Infill Development that allowing it to go through an expedited ministerial review process by permitting the development to use The Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development. The complying infill development would then qualify for density bonuses and affordable housing bonuses, change of use (e.g., residential to mixed-use), waivers of fees, site planning flexibility and reduction of lot sizes that would not be available to as -of -right developments. Site planning (e.g., road, block, and lot layouts, lot sizes and configurations, yards, setbacks, etc.) and use flexibility are of considerable value when trying to fit a new development into an existing context, to: provide for road, pedestrian and bicycle connectivity; create publicly accessible and dedicated open space such as connecting two portions of the Open Space Network; and the development of a neighborhood -scale mixed-use center. Infill Development Evaluation Punchlist To qualify the infill development must have a positive response to each element of the punchlist: ;In if Develu)(Jvaatian1', 1., fiO4, .ao mental« w �' A. Within the Urban Expansion Area: Yes No B. Does Not Exceed 10 Acres: Yes No C. Does Not Develop In: Cl. Flood Plains Yes No C2. Agricultural Land Yes No C3. Designated Open Space Network Yes No C4. Protected Natural Areas and Habitats Yes No C5. Coastline Protection Area Yes No D. The Site Plan complies with the minimum Connectivity Index (See Performance Evaluation Framework in Index): Yes No E. Demonstrated need for Local Retail and Services and Community Facilities: Yes No - * Connectivity and the provision of Infrastructure concurrent with the development would be mandatory. We expect there to be some needed ministerial flexibility in evaluating an Infill Development based on demonstrated site constraints (e.g., Flood Plains). Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development Because each infill site will be different in configuration and built and natural context posing different challenges, a zoning system that self -adapts to a multiplicity of site conditions is recommended. The Infill Development Performance Evaluation or a variation that utilizes a Form -Based Development K, Copyright 2007 Enetronmental Simulation Center Ltd SIMULATION Not all of the Performance Evaluation Development Code measures and CENTER, LTD indicators would be applicable to Infill Developments. For example, height limits would be different as would those for a neighborhood center versus a Village Center. The examples of the performance measures and indicators and how they would work can be found in the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages section of Strategies for the North Kona Urban Expansion Area. Incentives The incentive system begins with the existing underlying zoning district's use, density, lot coverage, yard and building height regulations as the base. An analysis overlaying the General Land Use Plan's Urban Expansion Area over current zoning districts reveals that most zoned areas within the Urban Expansion Area have lower densities than those proposed for the Urban Expansion Area. Therefore, in most cases the exception being the nodes of Low, Medium, and High Density—most of the area within the Urban Expansion Area is underzoned. This is good, since it provides the basis for the incentives without significant down -zoning, which is often required to make the incentives work without dramatic changes in the scale, building type, and character of development. The incentive system for North Kona Infill Development would be tiered as is proposed for the South Kona Infill Development and the North Kona Urban Villages, with each fine tuned to its development program and location. Assuming the Infill Development satisfied the Punchlist thresholds it would avail itself of the incentives only in the following order, beginning with the base zoning: 5. Base Zoning: The property may elect to use the underlying zoning regulations or the Infill Development Regulations. In either case, Connectivity and Concurrence of Infrastructure with the construction and occupancy of the development would be mandated. 6. Site Planning: Infill developments would have site planning flexibility by allowing density to be distributed on an area -wide rather than lot by lot basis. It would encourage a mix of lots, building types, and mix of uses (e.g., a neighborhood center) on a block. For example, higher density may result in one block and lower density on another which in total would equal the maximum base density under current zoning. (This is illustrated by the ESC's block density analysis done to visualize density bonuses for Affordable Housing). Other areas of flexibility would include lot sizes and configurations, reductions in yards and uniform setbacks to adjust to site conditions and connectivity requirements. A maximum height limit of 35 ft. would govern. C Copyright 2007 Envtrotnnental Simulation Center, Ltd 22 Code as "building blocks" (See Zoning Framework A. Strategies that Apply to Both North and South Kona) that can be assembled in different patterns and be evaluated by the Performance Evaluation Development Code: Infill Development ENVIRONMENTAL is recommended. Either way a discretionary site plan review process would be replaced by a ministerial review with the applicant demonstrating compliance. SIMULATION Not all of the Performance Evaluation Development Code measures and CENTER, LTD indicators would be applicable to Infill Developments. For example, height limits would be different as would those for a neighborhood center versus a Village Center. The examples of the performance measures and indicators and how they would work can be found in the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages section of Strategies for the North Kona Urban Expansion Area. Incentives The incentive system begins with the existing underlying zoning district's use, density, lot coverage, yard and building height regulations as the base. An analysis overlaying the General Land Use Plan's Urban Expansion Area over current zoning districts reveals that most zoned areas within the Urban Expansion Area have lower densities than those proposed for the Urban Expansion Area. Therefore, in most cases the exception being the nodes of Low, Medium, and High Density—most of the area within the Urban Expansion Area is underzoned. This is good, since it provides the basis for the incentives without significant down -zoning, which is often required to make the incentives work without dramatic changes in the scale, building type, and character of development. The incentive system for North Kona Infill Development would be tiered as is proposed for the South Kona Infill Development and the North Kona Urban Villages, with each fine tuned to its development program and location. Assuming the Infill Development satisfied the Punchlist thresholds it would avail itself of the incentives only in the following order, beginning with the base zoning: 5. Base Zoning: The property may elect to use the underlying zoning regulations or the Infill Development Regulations. In either case, Connectivity and Concurrence of Infrastructure with the construction and occupancy of the development would be mandated. 6. Site Planning: Infill developments would have site planning flexibility by allowing density to be distributed on an area -wide rather than lot by lot basis. It would encourage a mix of lots, building types, and mix of uses (e.g., a neighborhood center) on a block. For example, higher density may result in one block and lower density on another which in total would equal the maximum base density under current zoning. (This is illustrated by the ESC's block density analysis done to visualize density bonuses for Affordable Housing). Other areas of flexibility would include lot sizes and configurations, reductions in yards and uniform setbacks to adjust to site conditions and connectivity requirements. A maximum height limit of 35 ft. would govern. C Copyright 2007 Envtrotnnental Simulation Center, Ltd i 1 TDR would not be available in Infill Developments which is reserved for the North Kona Urban Villages. 2. Create Transit -Oriented Urban Villages (Growth Opportunity Areas or GOAs) ' Concept The concept of The Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) emerged from the Mapping the Future workshop (see Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results, Draft Report, ACP -Visioning and Planning and the Environmental Simulation Center, Ltd. for a discussion of the public process that identified the initial location of the Growth Opportunity Areas or GOAs). Of the developable land that resulted from the Environmental Simulation Center's development suitability analysis, almost 4,000 acres were identified as being within the GOAs, the areas identified by the workshop participants as the preferred locations for future growth within the Urban Expansion Area. Of the 4,000 acres approximately 80% are buildable and 20% are constrained by factors such as flood zones, land already developed and steep slopes. This amount of land at the proposed average density of between 5 to 8 DU's per acre provided more than enough land to accommodate forecast growth. This excess is critical to the concept of the GOAs that were projected to be developed over a period of 15 years during which time land might become available at different times. They are uniquely suited to the land assemblage and development process and Kona's C. Copyright 2007 Emirownental Simulation Center Ltd 23 big 7. Density Bonus: For either adjacency to the Mid and High Level Collector Road and public transportation (in which case the parking requirement would be reduced) or the provision of dedicated open ENVIRONMENTAL space. It would be based on a formula relating the number of DU's to an open space requirement. The bonus would be pro -rated by the SIMULATION amount of open space provided up to the preferred amount with a cap of 10%. CENTER LTD 8. Affordable Housing: Could be located on or off-site within a limited area. The preference would be on-site so as not to concentrate affordable housing in a few locations but rather disperse and integrate it within existing and/or emerging neighborhoods creating a diversity of housing choices and mixed -income communities. The amount of the bonus would be done on a sliding scale beginning at 15% for all affordable housing off-site to 25% (this would need to be tested) for affordable housing located on-site. Affordable housing would have a height limit of 35 ft. and reduced parking requirements if within '/e mile or a 5 minute walk to public transportation. Off-site affordable housing would need to be located within 2 miles of the Infill Development and also located within an Infill Development Area or an existing Village or Hamlet. Greenfields locations would be prohibited. TDR would not be available in Infill Developments which is reserved for the North Kona Urban Villages. 2. Create Transit -Oriented Urban Villages (Growth Opportunity Areas or GOAs) ' Concept The concept of The Growth Opportunity Areas (GOAs) emerged from the Mapping the Future workshop (see Public Involvement Summary: Process and Results, Draft Report, ACP -Visioning and Planning and the Environmental Simulation Center, Ltd. for a discussion of the public process that identified the initial location of the Growth Opportunity Areas or GOAs). Of the developable land that resulted from the Environmental Simulation Center's development suitability analysis, almost 4,000 acres were identified as being within the GOAs, the areas identified by the workshop participants as the preferred locations for future growth within the Urban Expansion Area. Of the 4,000 acres approximately 80% are buildable and 20% are constrained by factors such as flood zones, land already developed and steep slopes. This amount of land at the proposed average density of between 5 to 8 DU's per acre provided more than enough land to accommodate forecast growth. This excess is critical to the concept of the GOAs that were projected to be developed over a period of 15 years during which time land might become available at different times. They are uniquely suited to the land assemblage and development process and Kona's C. Copyright 2007 Emirownental Simulation Center Ltd During subsequent public workshops and charettes, the GOAs were in some cases expanded or combined and open space and mauka-makai connections identified that went either through or around them. Seven GOAs were mutually delineated and subsequently reduced to five Transit -Oriented Urban Villages by the steering committee and the county working with WOA. The catalyst for the development of the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages is the provision of publicly funded infrastructure improvements, the most important of which are the projected mid- level road and a commitment to public transit along the new road. It is envisioned that the Village Centers would function as Public Transit Hubs to maximize the use of public transit and be pedestrian and cyclist -oriented and be implemented by Transit -Oriented Development Special Area Plans. The Urban Village that would evolve around the village center would be a walkable community (e.g. approximately a %4 mile walk to the village center) with a mix of housing types and uses that is fully integrated with the Green Infrastructure and topography. The projected transit stops would be located in the mixed use village center, Main Street. The Main Street and the Mid -Level Road should not be coincident because the Mid -Level Road is designed as a collector road and would not be conducive to pedestrians and would be out of scale with the Village Center Main Street (see images of the Village Center and Main Street taken from the 3D Model of a prototypical Urban Village). Instead, the Village Center would be connected to the Mid -Level Road by a spur or local road which, circumstances permitting, would also connect to adjoining Village Centers creating a secondary road network (see Diagram of Mid -Level Road Urban Villages and Village Centers). The Village Center Main Street should run parallel or near parallel with the topographic contours to make it walkable for people of all ages, while the residential neighborhood streets could be steeper with slopes generally in the range of 5% to 8%. The integration of the Urban Villages with the Green Infrastructure and landscape of Kona is a distinctive feature of the Villages. For example, a mauka-makai connection using a flood zone is visually simulated in the 3D model of a prototypical Village Center. It runs through the center of the Village, adjoins the mixed-use Village Center, and functions as both a flood zone and linear park integrating the Village with Open Space Network (see Green Infrastructure Technical Report). 01 Copyright 2007 En%ironmental Simulation Center Ltd 24 regulatory environment, needing neither the county's assistance to assemble land nor requiring eminent to be realized. As concerned the GOAs are not a second layer of growth boundaries with delineated boundaries within the Urban ENVIRONMENTAL Expansion Area. Rather, they indicate general areas where market-based centers would be used to stimulate development. How they would be developed would be SIMULATION guided by either performance or form -based zoning regulations in ensure that increased density would result in villages, each with distinctive well-designed CENTER. LTD character consistent with the Ten Principles that emerged from the public involvement process. During subsequent public workshops and charettes, the GOAs were in some cases expanded or combined and open space and mauka-makai connections identified that went either through or around them. Seven GOAs were mutually delineated and subsequently reduced to five Transit -Oriented Urban Villages by the steering committee and the county working with WOA. The catalyst for the development of the Transit -Oriented Urban Villages is the provision of publicly funded infrastructure improvements, the most important of which are the projected mid- level road and a commitment to public transit along the new road. It is envisioned that the Village Centers would function as Public Transit Hubs to maximize the use of public transit and be pedestrian and cyclist -oriented and be implemented by Transit -Oriented Development Special Area Plans. The Urban Village that would evolve around the village center would be a walkable community (e.g. approximately a %4 mile walk to the village center) with a mix of housing types and uses that is fully integrated with the Green Infrastructure and topography. The projected transit stops would be located in the mixed use village center, Main Street. The Main Street and the Mid -Level Road should not be coincident because the Mid -Level Road is designed as a collector road and would not be conducive to pedestrians and would be out of scale with the Village Center Main Street (see images of the Village Center and Main Street taken from the 3D Model of a prototypical Urban Village). Instead, the Village Center would be connected to the Mid -Level Road by a spur or local road which, circumstances permitting, would also connect to adjoining Village Centers creating a secondary road network (see Diagram of Mid -Level Road Urban Villages and Village Centers). The Village Center Main Street should run parallel or near parallel with the topographic contours to make it walkable for people of all ages, while the residential neighborhood streets could be steeper with slopes generally in the range of 5% to 8%. The integration of the Urban Villages with the Green Infrastructure and landscape of Kona is a distinctive feature of the Villages. For example, a mauka-makai connection using a flood zone is visually simulated in the 3D model of a prototypical Village Center. It runs through the center of the Village, adjoins the mixed-use Village Center, and functions as both a flood zone and linear park integrating the Village with Open Space Network (see Green Infrastructure Technical Report). 01 Copyright 2007 En%ironmental Simulation Center Ltd ' 25 The average density of the Villages would be between 5 and 8 DUs per acre. Densities may range from approximately 3 to 4 DUs per acre to 40 DUs per acre with highest densities located closest to the Village Center and Transit Hub and ENVIRONMENTAL the lowest densities farther away from the Village Center (see ESC: Illustrated Densities Example, Figure 1-6 as examples of density range). In addition, each SIMULATION neighborhood would have as its focus, a park around which community uses such as churches and day care centers could be located. CENTER LTD Implementing the Urban Villages The Development Evaluation Punchlist and Development Codes would be adopted and be specific to the North Kona Subdistrict and Urban Village Subarea. A series of incentives are proposed to encourage development in the Urban ' Villages. The disincentive to "greenfields" developments in other locations or out of the Urban Expansion Area, with the exception of qualifying Infill Development, is that it would be subject to the existing base zoning which is ' considerably less than what would be allowed in Urban Villages. Further, zoning district changes, variances and incentives would not, as a matter of CDP policy, be available outside of the Urban Villages and qualifying Infill Development. The Urban Village incentive program would be voluntary. It would be a two-tier system, similar to the one proposed in the Zoning Framework and Infill Development sections. The first tier is the Development Evaluation Punchlist and the second tier is a Performance Evaluation and/or Form -Based Development Code or a combination of the two. So that this section can be read fluidly (and be a stand-alone document), aspects of the Zoning Framework section are repeated as they apply to the Urban Villages. The Urban Villages would be self -defining and not require an overlay district (a fuzzy boundary as reference would suffice), because once the Village Center and Transit Hub are mapped (Transit -Oriented Development and Special Area Plans) the Development Evaluation Punchlist will determine whether the parcel qualifies as an Urban Village parcel. The character of the qualifying development would then be subject to the Performance Evaluation and/or Form -Based Development Code. The Development Evaluation Punchlist The Development Evaluation Punchlist would have two purposes. The first would be to ensure that the proposed development passes a basic threshold allowing it to go through a ministerial rather than a lengthy discretionary review by permitting the developer to use the Performance Evaluation and/or Form -Based ' Development Code discussed below. A complying development would also pass an initial threshold qualifying it for density bonuses, TDR's, waivers of fees, and other incentives that would not be available to developments that are as -of -right or are going through a discretionary review outside of the Urban Villages and in the Urban Expansion Area. 'it Simulation Center Copyright 2007 En�tronmentat Ltd ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER LTD The Development Evaluation Punchlist is a scoring system where the higher the score the greater the eligibility to utilize the incentives listed above. It is designed to evaluate the degree to which a development leverages public investment in transportation, other infrastructures, investments and implements the CDP. The punchlist below is not meant to be exhaustive but representative of the kind of thresholds, benchmarks and indicators that would be used to evaluate a development's compliance and performance with a threshold. In the example below, we have also applied importance factors giving greater value to some factors and less weight to others. A simpler version could have all the indicators be equal. We do not recommend this. Ranking the indicators would give clarity to what is considered really important an reward a development accordingly based on its performance. A. Within the Five Transit Villages (fuzzy boundary) Measure: Yes= 1.0, No= 0.0 Importance Factor: 5.0 B. Proximity to Transportation B.1. Proximity to Mid -Level Road Measure: '/z Mile = 1.0, > '/s Mile = 0.5 Importance Factor: 4.0 B.2. Proximity to Village Center Transit Hub Measure: '/4 Mile = 1.0, '/2 Mile = 0.5 Importance Factor: 4.5 C. Proximity to Village Center Measure: 5 Minute Walk ('/4 Mile) = 1.0, > 5 Minute Walk = 0.5 Importance Factor: 4.0 D. Proximity to Parks and Open Space Network Measure: 1 Mile = 1.0, > Mile = 0.5 Importance Factor: 2.0 E. Provision of Public Open Space On -Site Measure: Preferred Ratio of DU's to Open Space = 1.0 < than Preferred Ration of DU's to Open Space Importance Factor: 3.5 F. Protection and Preservation of Environmental Features and Cultural Resources F.1. Protection of Flood Plains Measure: Yes = 1.0, Partial = 0.5, No = 0.0 Importance Factor: 3.0 F.2. Preservation of Cultural Features Measure: Yes = 1.0, Partial = 0.5, No = 0.0 Importance Factor = 3.0 G. Proximity to other Employment Centers (excluding Village Center) Measure: 5 Miles = 1.0, 7.5 Miles = 0.5, > 7.5 Miles = 0.0 Importance Factor = 3.0 H. Provision of Affordable Housing On -Site Measure: 20% of Total DU's 1_0, 15.0% 0.75 < 15% = 0.25 none = 0.0 Importance Factor 4.5 0 Copyright 2007 Environmental Simulation Center Ltd L 1 i r. L t�- *Connectivity and the Provision of Infrastructure Concurrency with the Development is mandatory. 27 We expect there to be some need for flexibility evaluating a development based ENVIRONMENTAL on demonstrated site constraints e.g., Flood Plains. The Development Evaluation Punchlist would provide both transparency and accountability in compliance with SIMULATION the Kona CDP. CENTER, LTD performance Evaluation and Form -Based Development Codes In a performance system, it is assumed that full compliance is not always achievable, that there are trade-offs between performance goals leaving room for choice by the developer and architect, and partial compliance with a goal is acceptable. Further, performance assumes that there are multiple "right answers," because performance sets out the problem to be solved, rather than solving the problem. The passing score is the sum of the performance evaluation. Performance-based zoning clearly states the goal to be achieved, how it is to be evaluated or a program, a formula for measuring, and an importance factor that recognizes that some goals are more important than others and that some aspects of the site design process are easier to accomplish than others. The following is an example taken from 3. Urban Design Guidelines. Goal. To Create a more diverse place, building setbacks should not be uniform. Program: Front yard building setbacks should not align with eachother and be no greater than 10 ft. and no less than 5 ft. from adjoining building setbacks. Compliance: The total number of lots that comply divided by the total number of lots in the development. Importance Factor. 1.25 As an alternative, form -based codes (a form of "pattern book") accomplish the same goals but in a more prescriptive way. Because they are prescriptive and pre - design the solution they are sometimes preferable but have certain inherent drawbacks. Performance-based development codes are self -adapting to a multiplicity of situations, locations, and development programs, because they do not prescribe a solution but rather describe the design problem to be solved. While form -based development codes typically are written for a specific situation and location. In the case of the Transit Oriented Urban Villages (GOAs) this would necessarily require a different form -based code for each Village if the desired end is to create a specific identity for each Village. The third way would be to combine both approaches using the Form -Based Development Code as "building blocks" which can be assembled in different patterns and evaluated by the Performance Evaluation Development Code. Either way, a discretionary process would be replaced by a ministerial review. V Copyright 2007 Ernvomnental Simulation Center Ltd Assuming the proposed Urban Village development could satisfy the Punchlist thresholds, it could avail itself of the Urban Village Subarea incentives. There are two types of incentives—those that are inherent to the Urban Villages and those that the development earns. The inherent incentives include: • The Mid -Level Road by the county; • County -initiated grey infrastructure investments, e.g., water and waste water; • A quality public transit system with designated transit hubs located in the Urban Village's mixed-use center; and • Waivers of development fees These are all costs, that with the exception of public transit, are typically borne by the developer. The earned incentives are zoning -related and include bonuses, review procedures and site planning flexibility. They include: • The transfer of development rights TDR to increase density and preserve open space; • The creation of publicly accessible open space on-site for the residents; • The construction of drainage ponds and other forms of natural waste and storm water management; • Provision of on-site affordable housing; and the • Preservation of cultural features The incentive bonus system would begin with the existing underlying zoning density as the base. The total amount of density would be calibrated with the score that the development achieved in the Performance Evaluation Code. We recommend two bonuses be mandatory for all developments in the Urban Village because they are fundamental to the CDP—the conservation of open space and the creation of mixed-use, mixed -income communities. V Copyright 2007 Euvtrontnental Simutatton Crnter Ltd 28 Incentives The incentive system begins with the existing underlying zoning district's density. An analysis overlaying the General Land Use Plan's Urban Expansion Area over ENVIRONMENTAL the current zoning districts reveals that most zoned areas within the Urban Expansion Area have lower densities than those proposed for the Urban SIMULATION Expansion Area (see Comparative GIS Maps of North Kona). Therefore, in most cases—the exception being the nodes of Low, Medium, and High Density—most CENTER, LTD of the area within the Urban Expansion Area, including the Urban Villages, is underzoned, providing the base for the application of incentives. Assuming the proposed Urban Village development could satisfy the Punchlist thresholds, it could avail itself of the Urban Village Subarea incentives. There are two types of incentives—those that are inherent to the Urban Villages and those that the development earns. The inherent incentives include: • The Mid -Level Road by the county; • County -initiated grey infrastructure investments, e.g., water and waste water; • A quality public transit system with designated transit hubs located in the Urban Village's mixed-use center; and • Waivers of development fees These are all costs, that with the exception of public transit, are typically borne by the developer. The earned incentives are zoning -related and include bonuses, review procedures and site planning flexibility. They include: • The transfer of development rights TDR to increase density and preserve open space; • The creation of publicly accessible open space on-site for the residents; • The construction of drainage ponds and other forms of natural waste and storm water management; • Provision of on-site affordable housing; and the • Preservation of cultural features The incentive bonus system would begin with the existing underlying zoning density as the base. The total amount of density would be calibrated with the score that the development achieved in the Performance Evaluation Code. We recommend two bonuses be mandatory for all developments in the Urban Village because they are fundamental to the CDP—the conservation of open space and the creation of mixed-use, mixed -income communities. V Copyright 2007 Euvtrontnental Simutatton Crnter Ltd 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER. LTD 29 Thev are - TDR: All developments would be required to purchase a threshold amount of TDRs from open space "sending" areas delineated by the Open Space Network. The "sending" locations should be generally categorized as to their strategic, ecological and/or cultural significance. Density rewards would be calibrated to the strategic importance of the "sending." (how much TBD) than TDRs from secondary or tertiary locations. Developments would be allowed to increase the purchase of TDRs beyond only if after the development has provided a threshold of affordable housing. Once it has met that threshold it may purchase additional TDRs up to a maximum to be determined. Affordable Housing: All developments would be required to provide affordable housing on-site with a threshold amount specified as a percentage of the total number of units and receive a density bonus. To meet the goal of a mixed - income community, the affordable housing units would be required to be dispersed throughout the developments (side by side on the same block would be acceptable). Bonuses beyond the threshold would be encouraged. On -Site Open They all require the dedication of on-site open space to Space, Natural achieve their purpose. All would be required e.g., a Waste and Storm minimum of neighborhood open space per dwelling units. Water Management In addition to permitting increased density on the and Preservation of development's remaining area, we recommend that Natural Features incremental bonuses be available commensurate with quality and size of the open space contributed beyond the threshold. fit: Copyright 3007 Eneu'onmental S,mulanon Center Ltd ENVIRONMENTAL SIMULATION CENTER LTD W Other incentives would include - Site -Planning This would be made possible by adopting the Flexibility: Performance Evaluation Development or in combination with the Form -Based "building blocks": A straight Form - Based Development Code, by definition is predictable because it is prescriptive. Moreover, we believe it is not as well suited to the way in which the Urban Villages are expected to develop. The performance-based approach allows for flexibility—"more than right answers" and is well suited to the contingent manner in which the Urban Villages will organically be realized over the next 15 ears. Ministerial Review: Both types of development should support a ministerial versus discretionary review. This is made possible by each of the two development codes, an objective scoring system in the case of the Performance Evaluation (see example of setbacks) or the highly prescriptive Form - Based Code Examples are fleshed out in the next section: "Urban Design Guidelines" (I Cop right 2007 Emtronmental Simulation Center Ltd 1 J 1 11 u 1 0 r n 46AUrban Design Guidelines (Performance Evaluation Development Code) ffq f3ga Application The Performance Evaluation Development Code ("The Code"), whether combined with Formed -Based Code "building blocks" or not only those, is ENVIRONMFN I -AL intended to be adopted by the county as the zoning regulations that would apply to developments that qualify (see Development Evaluation Punchlist) as: SIMULATION • South Kona; Infill Development; • Urban Expansion Area: Infill Development; CENTER, LTD• Transit -Oriented Urban Villages (Village Center and Neighborhood) ; and • P.U.D. in South Kona The Code would not be applicable to any development outside of the Urban Expansion Area and South Kona exclusive of Infill Development in Captain Cook, Kaelakekua, Honaunau, and Milolii. The Code would provide a number of incentives and density. Among the most important process -related ones discussed in prior sections, is expedited processing through an objective ministerial employing the Code rather than a discretionary review process that a may employ non -statutory guidelines. The ministerial review would focus on reviewing the compliance application, site plan, and other information that fully explains the 261 WEST 35TH STREET development prepared by the developer and consultants in the Code. Small SUITE 1403 NFW YORK NY 10001 developments of a few lots would be distinguished from larger scale developments and would be subject to far fewer Code performance measures as T 212 279 1851 f 212 279 5350 many would not pertain at that size of development. www simenter or, A primary function of the Design Center would be to advise developers and 11ICHAEL KWARTLER, P4[4 consultants in the use of the Code, how to get the most out of its flexibility and 11teiulent adaptability including site planning assistance, and assist in the preparation of The GEORGEJANES, AIC P Code compliance application. In addition the Design Center would publish best hrewnrelhrector practices briefs and examples from other places that have historically figured out interesting and efficient solutions to building on steep slopes (e.g. Switzerland). Performance Evaluation Development Code ("the Code") The Code is designed to evaluate how well a development performs against expectations which are typically referred to as performance measures, benchmarks, and thresholds. They have been formulated to address both a quantitative and qualitative aspects of a proposed development and are derived from the Ten Principles. A typical Code element would state the goal to be achieved, the program "or how it would be achieved, a way to evaluate its importance, and special conditions that might occur. As illustrated in the prior example of front setbacks partial compliance is allowed assuming a minimum threshold has been met, because a design problem is about balancing and making choices in the context of the end to be achieved, rather than the aggregate optimization of each part. In other words — "there are many right answers none of them are "perfect" although they may be of equivalent quality, and a passing score, rather than a perfect score is required. The Code has been organized to generally reflect the order of the design decision — making process, where first order decisions tend to exclude a whole host of LU Stategies Urban Design August 2007 doo C Copyngbt 2007 En�norunental Simulation Center Lt 2 possibilities — a winnowing process, if you will. An example of a Code's Table of Contents follows. It is not meant to be inclusive but representational. A. Respect the land 1. Work with the site's topography e.g. minimize the use of cut ENVIRONMENTAL and fill, "pads", and retaining walls 2. Retain existing flora SIMULATION 3. Work with natural systems 4. Protect cultural resources and sites CENTER, LTD B. Create Networks 1. Provide connectivity to the Public open Space Network 2. Provide habitat connectivity 3. Connect communities by vehicular, pedestrian, and cyclist circulation system C. Create Places at all Scales 1. Transit -Orient Urban Villages a) The Village Center 1) The Pedestrians and Cyclists Experience • Walkability and Accessibility • "Main Street should have minimum slope • Minimize driveway curb cuts • Provide easy connectivity and accessibility to and from neighborhoods • Buildings should front and be accessible on/from the sidewalk • Shade and seating • Walkable block lengths • Provide a "Public Commons" (e.g. multi -use space for farmers market) • Integrate/provide access to Open Space Network 2) Achieve an intensity of development to support a vibrant Village Center and public transit • Achieve a minimum residential density • Provide for a variety of housing types, tenures, and affordability 3) Quality of Place: Scale and Character • To create an organic sense of place and variety of experience, provide; - a range of lot sizes and frontages - maximum building lengths (e.g. the dominant building should be the Transit Hub) - range of front setbacks - shared parking at the rear V'Copyright 2007 Emtrontnental Simulation Center, Ltd 1 3 - varied building heights - mixed use b) The Neighborhood 1) The Pedestrians and Cyclists Experience: ENVIRONMENTAL Walkability and Accessibility • Provide sidewalks and bikepaths SIMULATION • Minimize impacts of slopes on ' pedestrian walkability and the use of CENTER LTD retaining walls • Minimize driveway curb cuts and e parking pads • Provide connections to the Open Space Network • Provide shade and landscaping • Provide walkable block lengths • Provide a "neighborhood commons" ' 2) Achieve an intensity of development to create a vibrant Urban Village and to support public transit • Achieve a minimum average residential ' density (e.g. through TDR and Affordable Housing bonus) • Achieve an average density gradient ' • Provide for a variety of housing types, tenures and affordability • Provide small neighborhood centers with ' convenience shopping 3) Quality of Place: Scale and Character • To create an organic sense of place and ' variety of experience provide: - a range of lot sizes and frontages on a block - a variety of front setbacks - varied heights - alternative off-street parking solutions (e.g. alleys with housing above garage, shared driveways, garage on side, in, back) D. Infill Development: North and South Kona Note: Infill Development is a subset because it: a) must fit successfully into an existing context — often mediating between two different developments, or b) it occurs in existing villages and hamlets each with a different character, scale, topography and landscape While many of the performance measures described for the Transit -Oriented Urban Village may be applicable to a). above, most may not be applicable to b). Instead, the performance measures will be derived from the existing context with k; Copvnght 2007 Eo�uonutcntal Simulation Center Ltd 4 the intent that the Infill Development enhance the village or hamlet by completing it — rather than by changing it dramatically. eTnfim A Deriving the performance measures from the existing context is an Urban -Design analysis using GIS and other available data. For example, the following would be ENVIRONMENTAL derived from the existing context (and combine Neighborhood's The Pedestrian Experience, Walkability and Accessibility and Quality of Place: Scale and SIMULATION Character). 1) Goal: Support and enhance the character of the CENTER LTD village/hamlet la) Front setbacks Program: Work within the range of front setbacks in the immediate context of the Infill Development Performance Measure: A. Preferred Front setback (Based on existing) : total of existing setbacks weighted by lot frontage B. Proposed Front Setback : total of proposed setbacks weighted by lot frontage Compliance = B/A x Importance Factor 1 b) Lot sizes and Frontages Program: Work within the range of lot sizes and frontages in the immediate context of the Infill Development Performance Measures A. Preferred Range of lot frontages and frequency B. Proposed Range of lot frontages and frequency Compliance = B/A x Importance Factor lc) Building Height (Similar) ld) Building Types (Similar) le) Building Uses (Similar) Other examples of performance measures, benchmarks, and capacities that would be based on the context would include, for example, sidewalks — if there are none and none are planned, none should be required of an Infill Development, and so on. In the case of Infill Development, consideration should be given to selecting those performance measures that apply and that will enhance the character of the place. It is also assumed that the character of places evolves over time, so that Infill Development may be of higher density, and by adding itself to the village or hamlet context becomes part of the new Infill Development context, thereby accommodating both change and growth. While performance-based zoning systems may take more time, care and resources to create they will also have a much longer shelf -life because they are based on responding to a desired end without pre -designing it in advance. Further, any prescriptive system is always a Procrustean bed fitting reality into a series of over -determined pre-cooked "solutions". Finally, performance is optimistic — it leaves open the possibility of the "good one couldn't think of". u F n 0 J 11 �J 0 Copyright 2007 Emtromnental Snaulation Center Ltd I 1 1 ' GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL REPORT The Conservation Fund February 28, 2007 r. GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE TECHNICAL REPORT KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN Prepared for: 5, County of Hawaii Department of Planning Prepared by: Will Allen, Conservation Fund February 28, 2007 1 1 ]Kona Community Development Plan Green Infrastructure Technical Report February 2007 Prepared by Will Allen, The Conservation Fund Purpose: The Green Infrastructure Technical Report is intended to supplement the strategic conservation information incorporated into the Kona Community Development Plan (CDP). The Technical Report and the CDP utilize the concepts outlined in the book Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communities to provide a strategic framework for guiding future land development and land conservation decisions within the North Kona and South Kona planning districts. Report Outline �S What is Green Infrastructure? Definitions The Green Infrastructure Network 13 Map —Land Cover (15 -Class — Hawai'i GAP Analysis Program) Tailoring Green Infrastructure Concepts to ]Kona Ahupua'a Mauka Lands e 13 Map — Elevation Guidance for Protecting Kona's Green Infrastructure CDP Principles, Objectives, and Preliminary Actions 9 Leadership Forums Green Infrastructure Network Design for Kona Managed Lands Inventory 13 Map — Managed Lands Green Infrastructure Opportunities 13 Map — Green Infrastructure Opportunities Agricultural Lands and Native Vegetation 11 Map — LUPAG & Native Vegetation Appendices 1 — Kona CDP Principles, Objectives and Preliminary Actions 2 — Green Infrastructure Keys to Success and Principles 3 — Convening Leadership Forums: Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) 4 — Olaa-Kilauea and Three Mountain Partnership 5 — Mauka Land Group: Kona Mauka Land Vision, Guidelines, and Principles 6 — Transferable Development Rights Programs: An Economic Framework for Success 7 — Special Use Permit Guidelines — Green Infrastructure Resource Protection in LUPAG Agricultural Classifications 9 8 — Acknowledgements and Author Information Green Infrastructure Technical Report— Kona CDP February 2007 WHAT IS GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE? Definitions Green infrastructure is our natural life-support system — an interconnected network of natural areas and other open spaces that conserves natural ecosystem values and functions, sustains clean air and water, and provides a wide array of benefits to people and wildlife.' Green infrastructure also describes a process that promotes a systematic and strategic approach to land conservation, encouraging land use planning and practices that are beneficial to nature and people. Taking a green infrastructure approach provides benefits both as a concept and as a process. As a concept, the planning and management of a green infrastructure network can guide the creation of an open space system that supports multiple objectives. As a process, the approach provides a mechanism for diverse interests to come together to identify priority lands for protection. Green infrastructure provides a framework that can be used to guide future land development and land conservation decisions to accommodate population growth and protect and preserve community assets and natural resources. According to Webster's New World Dictionary, Infrastructure is defined as - "the substructure or underlying foundation, especially the basic installations and facilities on which the continuance and growth of a community or state depends". When we think of infrastructure we think of built infrastructure such as roads, electric power lines and water systems as well as social infrastructure such as schools, hospitals and libraries. However, the concept of Green Infrastructure elevates air, land, and water to an equal footing with built infrastructure and transforms open space from "nice to have" to "must have." Protecting and restoring our natural life-support system is a necessity, not an amenity. What gives the term Green Infrastructure its staying power is its ability to invoke images of planned networks of green spaces that benefit wildlife and people, link urban settings to rural ones and, like other infrastructure, forms an integral part of government budgets and programs. The Green Infrastructure Network Green infrastructure encompasses natural and restored native ecosystems, including conserved natural areas and wildlife habitat; public and private conservation lands such as national and state parks, nature preserves, and wildlife corridors; working lands of conservation value such as farms, forests and ranches; and other protected open space such as parks, scenic resources, and greenways. While protection of natural systems and biodiversity is an important goal of green infrastructure, green infrastructure networks can include a wide diversity of elements that may not be related to this goal. Greenways and trails that provide recreational and health values'; historical, cultural, and archaeological sites that are valued as community resources; and farms, orchards, ranches, and forests that provide people with important economic yields also are elements of green infrastructure? t Benedict, Mark A. and Edward T. McMahon. Green l fractrmaure: linking Landscapes and Cammunstier, 2006, Island Press. (ht_ tp //www.islandgress.orQ) 2 McMahon and Benedict. 2004. How Cities Use Parks for Green Infrastructure. American Planning Association 0 •//wwwplarin z."r /rnf/udf/greeninfrastmcturendfl 3 For more mformation on green infrastructure, please see htW://wunv$reetunfrastructure.net Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 TAILORING GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CONCEPTS TO KONA Given the physical and cultural context of the Hawaii Islands, the concept of a green infrastructure network has been tailored to the unique geography of Kona. The Technical Report utilizes two watershed -based concepts for its planning framework. hu ua'a Hawn'i has the tradition of the Ahupua'a, the ancient Hawaiian land division "from the mountain to the sea" that supported a self-contained community working with the spirit of cooperation of caring and revering the land to meet the needs of all. Traditionally, Hawaiians managed these areas as whole units. The Ahupua'a management system recognizes that what happens at the headwaters affects ecosystems throughout the watershed and coastal waters. Given the linkages between land uses, fresh and coastal water quality, and the physical characteristics of Hawaii's watersheds, the Department of Health and the State Office of Planning have established non -point source pollution programs based on the management principles of cooperation, coordination, communication, and holistic approaches — concepts that form the basis of Ahupua'a management systems. Ahupua'a boundaries are depicted on all maps and can serve as a framework to guide future land use planning and management strategies within the CDP. In addition, the Technical Report has identified lands that have the potential to retain the Ahupua'a mountain -to -sea connections that link the shoreline with higher elevation lands. Mauka Lands Kona's Mauka Lands, literally meaning "up the mountain", refer to Watershed lands at higher elevations. The importance of these lands was highlighted in the Kona / Kohala Natural Resources Roundtable in 1995. The most important areas to recharge Kona's high-level and basal water resources come from the high rainfall / fog drip belt in mauka Kona. In addition to groundwater recharge, these lands are also home to native plant habitat, important ranch lands, and public lands with open space and recreational benefits. Over the years, many private landowners in mauka Kona have been interested in innovative techniques for the management and stewardship of these lands while also obtaining an economic return on their land investments. In an effort to address Watershed issues in the CDP, the County of Hawaii's Department of Planning convened the Mauka Land Group in an effort to establish a vision, guidelines, and principles for Mauka Kona. While the Mauka Land Group was not designated an official CDP working group, the participation of landowners with significant upper mauka land holdings in these meetings made them important stakeholders to provide insight on Watershed issues. The Technical Report has identified upper Mauka lands suitable for future ecosystem services pilot projects where payments and incentives could be provided for land management practices that protect water quality, provide recreational opportunities, mitigate flood hazards, preserve cultural resources, and other public benefits. 4 huP•//www.kl2.hi.us/^-ahupuaa/, http://�^ sea ou s =/MMNPAGES/aboutdhuoaa htm Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 I I I 1 I 1 n n 1 GUIDANCE FOR PROTECTING KONA'S GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE CDP Principles, ObJectives and Preliminary Actions The Kona CDP planning process has provided an initial framework for implementing strategies that protect and enhance Kona's green infrastructure.5 The CDP planning principles most relevant to green infrastructure include: o The coast line, watershed areas, flood phdhs, important agricultural lang open space, and areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway should be protected inside and outside of the urban expansion area. o Future growth should provide more parks. o Density in South Kona should be kept low and the character should be kept rural. Based these principles, CDP Objectives and Preliminary Actions, and concepts outlined in Green Infrastructure: Linking Landscapes and Communidd, the following principles for protecting Kona's green infrastructure have been developed: Use development as a tool for protecting green infrastructure: Development should provide an opportunity to create more parks and protected open space in desired locations (e.g. utilizing floodplains for parks and trails). Incentive programs can be developed that: (1) provide density bonuses for site designs with higher open space ratios, (2) allow fast-track application review when meeting desired open space ratios, and/or (3) reduce permit fees when applicants provide payments that match all or part of the 2% real property tax allocated for open space purposes. Finance green infrastructure as a primary public investment just like gray infrastructure: The design and development of a parks and open space network should be funded just like transportation, water, sewer, electricity, telecommunications and other essential community support systems. In addition to the 2% of real property tax allocated i for open space purposes, other potential sources might include: Bond issues for parks and open space purchases and maintenance, real estate transfer taxes, and inclusion of parks and open space purchases into the Capital Improvements Program (CIP). Evaluate and monitor progress towards achieving green infrastructure planning objectives: It is important to determine if development and other land use change is moving Kona towards or away from the goals outlined in the CDP. The Kona CDP Performance Evaluation Framework is intended to assist with this assessment through the creation of indicators at the project and context level. Integrate green infrastructure into the planning processes of other Federal, State, local, and community efforts: While most of the actions recommended in the CDP focus on what the County of Hawaii and the community of Kona can do, significant time and energy should be invested in establishing collaborative land use partnerships at a variety of 5 See Appendix 1 - CDP Planning Principles, Oblecttves, and Preliminary Actions — for a complete list 6 See .Appendix 2 - Green Infrastructure Keys to Success and Principles for more information. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP_ February 2007 1 1 1 11 One of the keys to successful green infrastructure efforts outlined Green Infrastructure. Linking Landscapes and Communities is to develop a leadership group to guide the implementation of planning objectives. The purpose of the leadership group is to convene stakeholders in a ' See Appendix #3 - Mauka Land Group — for more mformation. 8 See Appendix #4 — Olaa-Kilauea and Thiee Mountain Pattneiship Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 scales to support green infrastructure planning efforts. Initiatives such as the Three Mountain Partnership and the Mauka Land Group should be incorporated into the land use decision making process that will result from the CDP process. Leadership Forums The CDP public workshops recommended protection of areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway (i.e. Kona's Watershed lands). These lands are located on the slopes of Hualalai and Mauna Loa, generally mauka of the area that has been subdivided into smaller agricultural lots. Depending on the area, these smaller lots (except in the Kaloko Mauka subdivision) end at about 1800' to 2200' in elevation. Above that area, the land is owned by a handful of private owners, and by the State or Federal governments. Kona's Watershed lands provide an array of benefits and services to the economy and to residents in Kona. As a result, a Mauka Land Group was convened by the County to examine the unique circumstances of land ownership and use in Kona's Watershed areas. The Mauka Land Group convened meetings in July 2006 and September 2006 and collaborated on the development of a document entitled Kona Mauka Land Vision, Guideknes and Prindples.' The document initially built upon the statements of agreement outlined in the Konal Kohala Natural Resources Roundtable in 1995 and was refined through a review of the CDP planning process as well as rights of landowners, issues of concerns and economic realities. VISION STATEMENT FOR MAUKA KONA (September 2006) A well managed landscape of publicy and privately owned lands collectively committed to maximv�ing the region's ecosystem service value while generating sufficient income for its owners to ensure sustainable resource management and stable tenure over the long term. The hope also is that the Mauka, Land Group, or a similar partnership, can continue to serve as a collaborative land use planning entity that critiques and helps implement incentives and regulations that promote green infrastructure in land use planning and decision making. In addition to the Mauka Land Group, the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership provides a mechanism for addressing conservation issues in Kona's mauka lands! Partners in this effort have pooled their staff expertise and funding to significantly reduce the threats of feral ungulates jneed and noxious weeds on Federal, State, and private lands. They now recognize the compelling to and management efforts across the slopes of Mauna expand watershed protection Loa, Kilauea, and Hualalai as part of a "Three Mountain Partnership." A Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted to govern the Partnership, and it will initially focus on three of the most significant management challenges or threats to the integrity of the forested landscape: invasive weeds, feral cattle, and wildlife prevention and response. 1 11 One of the keys to successful green infrastructure efforts outlined Green Infrastructure. Linking Landscapes and Communities is to develop a leadership group to guide the implementation of planning objectives. The purpose of the leadership group is to convene stakeholders in a ' See Appendix #3 - Mauka Land Group — for more mformation. 8 See Appendix #4 — Olaa-Kilauea and Thiee Mountain Pattneiship Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 non -confrontational environment, develop a clear vision and mission based on consensus, and identify appropriate mechanisms for achieving the vision and mission. A series of leadership forums should be considered to formally convene on particular issues of concern following the conclusion of the official CDP planning process. These forums should be convened based on principles adapted from an ongoing effort called the Southeast Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) 9 Iona Watershed Forum: The Kona CDP Environment Working Group has recommended the expansion of watershed management and protection efforts through establishment of a Kona Watershed Advisory Group and a Kona Watershed Roundtable. Multiple CDP working groups have recommended that floodplains be utilized as parks and open space and that ahupua'a be utilized as an organizing principle for watersheds. The Mauka Land Group acknowledges the role that Kona's Watershed plays in transporting water to the basal aquifer and that there are a variety of land management practices in mauka and makai lands that can exacerbate flooding and sedimentation problems. In addition, the partners in the Olaa-Kilauea Partnership recognize the need for watershed protection and management efforts across a regional scale. A unified vision and mission for watershed management and protection needs to be articulated for Kona and the land encompassed by the Three Mountain Partnership that drain into North and South Kona. While this forum could be coordinated by the County initially, representatives from the CDP Working Group, Mauka Land Group, and Three Mountain Partnership would guide the process for formulation of a vision and mission statement. ]Forum on Public Recreation in Upper Mauka ]Kona: The CDP Recreation Working Group expressed an interest in better hiking and trail access in mountain and wilderness areas. The Mauka Land Group acknowledges that both public and private lands in upper mauka Kona are virtually inaccessible to the general public for hiking, ecotourism, and related recreation, in part because of perceived concerns about landowner liability. And while public access to public lands should be increased, public access to private lands should only occur where deemed compatible by the landowner. In addition to development of unified vision and mission for public recreation in upper mauka Kona, the first order of business should be to addtess landowner concerns about landownerliability of the Hawaii Recteation Use Statute. The forum also could identify priorities for mauka- makai trail connections and an equitable fee-based system for public recreation on privately owned upper mauka lands to support trail maintenance and enhancement. Upper Mauka Land Issues: Some combination of the Mauka Land Group and the Three Mountain Patinership are the appropriate forums for continuing to deal with land management and economic issues primarily relevant to upper mauka Kona. These issues are outlined in the Kona Mauka Land Vision, Guidelines and Principles and focus on day-to-day land management issues (such as invasive species management) and identifying innovative strategies for continued economic viability of Kona's upper mauka lands. These innovative strategies might include ecosystem service payments for carbon sequestration, koa forestry, or biodiversity. In addition, these forums could work with the County to advocate for changes in State regulations that limit flexibility on land management practices 9 See Appendix #5 — Convening Leadership Forums - for more information. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 1 and ability to develop ecotourism infrastructure and to facilitate the leverage of State and Federal landowner assistance programs and initiatives. L, �j ff + �J 1 10 For more information on transfer of development rights programs, please see Appendix #6. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 Forum on Parks, Open Space, and Recreation for the Rona District: The CDP Environment Working Group suggests adoption of a Kona Open Space Plan while also suggesting development and enhancement of planning tools that promote protection of critical areas and scenic/heritage corridors. The CDP Recreation Working Group suggests an updated recreation plan while also recommending development of planning tools that strategically acquire parkland and utilize floodplains as open space. A variety of park and open space financing options also are suggested. A forum is needed to develop a detailed parks, open space, and recreation plan focused on areas inside the preferred growth areas and, in particular, the growth opportunity areas This plan should be coordinated with the efforts to develop performance indicators for protected lands, parks and trails per resident, open space ratios based on development density, and open space connectivity. It should consider the findings of the Hawaii County Public Access, Open Space, and Natural Resources Preservation Commission report from April 2006 and also could refine the transfer of development rights (TDR) sending areas10 and establish reasonable density bonuses for protection of important open space resources. L, �j ff + �J 1 10 For more information on transfer of development rights programs, please see Appendix #6. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 GREEN INFRASTRUCTURE NETWORK DESIGN FOR KONA Managed Lands Inventory Lands managed primarily for conservation, wildlife habitat, recreational and open space purposes serve as an initial building block for a green infrastructure network. While these lands vary in their level of legal protection, their ownership status and/or current management plans make them suitable to be classified as hubs and sites within a green infrastructure network. Managed lands encompass between approximately 170,000 and 175,000 acres (33-34%) of the 513,280 acres within the North Kona and South Kona planning jurisdictions." TYPE NAME National Parks Hawaii Volcanoes National Park Puu Honau O Honaunau National Historical Park National Wildlife Refuge Hakalau Forest National Wildlife Refuge State Bird Sanctuaries Keauhou h (Hualalai) Cooperative Nene Sanctuary Kipuka Ainahou Nene Sanctuary Puu Waawaa Forest Bird Sanctuary State Forest Reserves Honuaula Forest Reserve Kapapala Forest Reserve Kau Forest Reserve Mauna Kea Forest Reserve Mauna Loa Forest Reserve South Kona Forest Reserve Waiaha Springs Forest Reserve State Game Management Areas Kaohe Game Management Area Kapapala Cooperative Game Management Area Mauna Kea Game Management Area Pohakuloa Training Area Game Management Area Puu Anahulu Game Management Area Puu Waawaa Cooperative Game Management Area State Natural Area Reserves Kipahoehoe Natural Area Reserve Manuka Natural Area Reserve Mauna Kea Ice Age Natural Area Reserve State Parks Kealakekua Bay State Historical Park Kekaha Kai State Park Keolonahihi State Historical Park-Keakealaniwahine State Recreation Areas Manuka State Wayside Mauna Kea State Recreation Area Old Kona Airport State Recreation Area Other State Owned Natural Lands Makaula-Goma Mauka Tract Honuaula Tracts Honomalino Tract Private Nature Preserve Kona Hema Preserve (The Nature Conservancy) 11 A range is provided here since the managed lands encompass an array of institutional arrangements, including unencumbered state lands, private lands registered with the State vgthout an easement, etc. Green Infrastmcture Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 Green Infrastructure Opportunities In addition to managed lands, there are a series of other lands that have been classified as opportunities to enhance Kona's green infrastructure network. These include: (1) public lands not classified as managed but with the potential to serve as part of the green infrastructure network with sound land management practices, (2) private lands that serve important ecosystem management functions and support growth areas through provision of ecosystem services, and (3) private lands that provide opportunities for "mountain to sea" linkages between the shoreline and mauka lands. Institutional: These are additional lands owned by Federal and State agencies that are not included in the managed lands inventory but can provide the functions and services of a green infrastructure network through management for conservation and open space purposes. These lands, when combined with public and private managed lands, have been classified as Institutional. 12 Institutional lands encompass approximately 190,380 acres. Green infrastructure protection strategies for these lands primarily focus on stewardship and land management techniques (e.g. invasive species management) employed by Federal and State agencies in accordance with adopted management plans. Ecosystem Services: These are lands that encompass the large private ownerships mauka of Mamalahoa Highway that appear to be suitable locations for pilot projects where payments and incentives could be provided for land management practices that maintain and enhance ecosystem services. The Mauka Land Group has identified an array of potential ecosystem service opportunities, including water supply for domestic, agricultural, and industrial uses; flood control, recreation, carbon sequestration, biodiversity preservation, and cultural resource protection.13 Ecosystem Service Area lands encompass approximately 239,100 acres. Green infrastructure protection strategies for these lands range from landowner assistance programs (e.g. USDA Farm Bill), conservation easements, transfer of development rights, sustainable forestry certification, and carbon credit programs. Potential Ahupua'a Connections: These are lands that provide opportunities for "mountain to sea" linkages between the shoreline and lands mauka of Mamalahoa Highway. Often, these properties are extensions of ownerships in the Ecosystem Service Area and simply fall makai of Mamalahoa Highway in South Kona. Outside of these areas and the Institutional lands along the shoreline, there are not many opportunities to retain Ahupua'a connections due to fragmentation of open lands, subdivision of large ownerships, and designated preferred growth areas. These lands encompass an approximately 5,700 acres. Green infrastructure protection strategies for these lands are the similar to those in the Ecosystem Services Area but also may include environmentally sensitive site design techniques that preserve important resource features and retain a recreational trail connection to mauka lands if these properties are proposed for development in the future. 12 Institutional and Managed Lands are not mutually exclusive. Some lands are included in both categories, such as the State Bird Sanctuary land that is owned by Kung Kamehameha Schools and The Nature Conservancy's Kona Hema Preserve. 13 For cartographic purposes, the Ecosystem Services Area is drawn on top of private Institutional lands since they would be eligible for ecosystem service payments and incentives. Please see Appendix #3 - Mauka Land Group — for more information on ecosystem services. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 I I I I I I I I 1 1 I I I I Agricultural Lands and Native Vegetation Lands designated for agricultural activities are an integral part of the green infrastructure network, and many of these working landscapes are within the Ecosystem Services Area. In addition, a Coffee Belt designation has been created to delineate areas most suitable for coffee production.14 Outside of the Coffee Belt, there are lands classified as agricultural outside the Coffee Belt that contain a significant amount of native forest not suitable for conversion to intensive agricultural or development purposes. As a result, a set of development principles and guidelines for special use permits need to be crafted to ensure maintaining and enhancing Kona's green infrastructure. The objective of this set of guidelines is to encourage suitable land use activities within lands classified as Extensive Agriculture and Important Agricultural Land in the State's 2005 Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG).15 While agricultural activities are encouraged within these areas, much of this area contains important native vegetation and other natural features. These resources need to be protected while also accommodating suitable agricultural activities, limited residential development, and other environmentally sensitive economic development activities. The long-range goal for lands classified as Extensive Agriculture and Important Agricultural Land is to maintain and encourage predominantly agricultural and rural economic uses with limited residential to support economic activities and protection of significant native vegetation and other important natural resource features.16 The objectives of development guidelines in these areas are essentially: Make it easy to develop land uses that are fundamental to the rural economy and support rural character through resource protection. Make it more difficult to establish uses that have the potential to negatively affect the rural economy and character. Prohibit uses that are detrimental to the rural economy and character. Basic agricultural uses and agricultural support uses should be allowed by right subject to performance standards necessary to mitigate adverse impacts and protect important natural features. Recreational uses that support nature -based tourism also should be allowed by right subject to performance standards. Any residential development must be primarily to support nearby economic activities and be consistent with conservation subdivision principles, i.e. clustered lots the rural landscape and include significant amounts of open space and maintenance of natural features on the site, supported by infrastructure that is consistent with the rural landscape. Non -tourism related residential development should be designed primarily to provide agricultural workforce housing on the permit site or adjacent agricultural lands. 14 httjz/ /w ,w haw--iu county com/general plan rev/remion/Land3VXUse%20-%20A2nculture pd 15 hh6-//�M, a hawau-county com/la/gp 005/MQsLUPAG pdf 16 For more information, see Appendix #7 - Special Use Permit Guidelines — Green Infrastructure Resource Protection in LUPAG Agricultural Classifications. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 I I 1 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 1 [1 1 1 1 1 1 r, 0 Iona CIDP Objectives and Preliminary Actions (Draft from 9/22/06 with suggested edits from consultant team) Agriculture Working_Group o Implement programs, policies, and land use regulations that protect agricultural lands and preserve farming as a way of life. o Implement policies to protect the watershed to ensure that adequate water resources are available for agriculture. o Establish a Kona agriculture enterprise zone. o Establish buffers for Kona's agricultural lands. o Protect Kona Coffee Belt as Important Agricultural Lands, as designated in the General Plan. o Support small family farms and community gardens through regulations and financial incentives. o Adopt an ordinance that provides for cluster developments on agricultural lands. Environment Working Grp o Expand and enhance watershed management and protection efforts. o Create Kona Watershed Advisory Group (s). o Create a Kona Water Roundtable. o Ensure the protection of Kona's shoreline, reef, and ocean waters. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 APPENDICES Appendix #1 CDP Planning Principles, Objectives and Preliminary Actions Iona CIDP Planning Principles 1. The majonty ofgroavth should be directed north of Kailua Kona. 2. Some the of thegrowth should be directed to the Keauhou area 3. Most future growth in South Kona should occur around existing villages, such as Honaunau, Captain Cook, and Kealakekua. 4. Density in South Kona should be kept loan and the character should be kept rural. 5. Future growth should occur in the form of compact villages which offer increased density and a mix of homes, shops, and places to work. 6. Future growth should occur where and when infrastructure (roads and utilities) is already in place. 7. Future growth should connect with other communities and offer alternatives on how to move around 8. Future growth should offer a broad range of housing choices that are affordable and available close to places of work. 9. The coastline, watershed areas, flood plains, important agazculturaI land open space, and areas mauka of Mamalahoa Highway should be protected inside and outside of the urban expansion area. 10. Future growth should provide more parks. Iona CIDP Objectives and Preliminary Actions (Draft from 9/22/06 with suggested edits from consultant team) Agriculture Working_Group o Implement programs, policies, and land use regulations that protect agricultural lands and preserve farming as a way of life. o Implement policies to protect the watershed to ensure that adequate water resources are available for agriculture. o Establish a Kona agriculture enterprise zone. o Establish buffers for Kona's agricultural lands. o Protect Kona Coffee Belt as Important Agricultural Lands, as designated in the General Plan. o Support small family farms and community gardens through regulations and financial incentives. o Adopt an ordinance that provides for cluster developments on agricultural lands. Environment Working Grp o Expand and enhance watershed management and protection efforts. o Create Kona Watershed Advisory Group (s). o Create a Kona Water Roundtable. o Ensure the protection of Kona's shoreline, reef, and ocean waters. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 o Update the Critical Areas Ordinance to ensure that habitats and ecological systems are adequately protected. Undertake measures to preserve open space. o Adopt a Kona Open Space Plan. Identify areas of special natural beauty and protect these areas through incentives and land use regulations. o Adopt and utilize a scenic overlay zoning program. o Develop and utilize TDRs and PDRs. Establish and protect scenic and heritage corridors. Flooding and Natural Hazards Working Grout o Pursue growth management strategies and development protocols that preserve the region's watersheds and restrict development in environmentally sensitive areas. o With community input, develop recommended ratios of open space to developed land. Housing Working G_ rout o Undertake programs and policies to help ensure that housing is truly affordable for all segments of the population, including low-income workers, first-time homebuyers, and farm workers. o Permit and encourage the development of farm worker housing on Kona farms. Land Use and Planning Working G_ roux (Inside the Urban Expansion Area) o Set aside parkland and open space, and encourage clustering and planned unit development (PUDs) in order to preserve natural beauty within urban areas. o Preserve floodplains within the urban core and consider them for park development. o Use "2% open space to fund acquisition and maintenance of urban open space. o Establish and enforce a formula for parks in PUDs based on density. o Allow increased density and reduced height limitations in exchange for more open space. o Create a policy to encourage the development of small, urban "pocket parks". Identify and protect significant viewplanes o Create a Scenic Corridor program for Kona - L and Use and Planning Working Group (Outside the Urban Expansion Area) o Implement rural zoning and land use policies that maintain the character of South Kona. o Adopt incentives, taxes, and credits that support rural uses (e.g. ecosystem services incentives, transfer of development rights programs) o Create incentives to protect larger areas of forest reserves. o Designate buffer zones between agricultural and rural areas. o Create a program to place ahupua'a boundary signs along the highways. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 'J 1 Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 o Define "Rural" in County codes and create a policy for rural zoning, including density. o Create a County Conservation Zone and Greenbelt Zone land use designation. o Adopt a policy for clustered development in rural areas. o Review and update rural and agricultural lands policies. o Conserve open space, protect natural resources, and promote ecological sustainability while ensuring public access to the natural environment. o Promote the ahupua'a model as a key conservation approach. o Promote public access to natural areas, including customary gathering rights. o Protect forests and shoreline through policies, programs, and incentives. o Identify and map existing trails. o Implement land use policies that protect agricultural lands from development pressures. Recreation Working Grouiy, o Increase parkland in Kona, with attention to larger parks that preserve open space and wilderness areas o Use the "2% fund" to increase parks in Kona. o Develop flood corridors and floodplains to be used as public parklands. o Increase parkland in Kona, with attention to community parks and playgrounds that meet the active and passive recreational needs of all residents. o Establish minimum standards for the provision of community parks and playground. o Require new developments to include adequate park facilities and discontinue "fees in lieu" options. o Establish a Kona District Park Fund to support park development and maintenance. o Develop an updated Recreation Plan for Kona Districts. o Create a Kona Districts Recreation Advisory Committee. o Establish a County program for the strategic acquisition of parklands. o Provide for better hiking and trail access in the mountains and wilderness areas. o Establish hiking trails along floodplains / flood corridors, and ensure that trails are integrated into future development plans. o Work with public land managers and private landowners to explore appropriate hiking and trail access in mauka-makai lands. 'J 1 Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 1 Appendix #2 Green Infrastructure Keys to Success and Principles Source: Benedict and McMahon, Green Infrastructure. Linking Landscapes and Communities Green Infrastructure Keys to Success Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 I o o Create a leadership group to guide the green infrastructure initiative. Design a green infrastructure network to link green space components across scales and political boundaries. o Develop an implementation plan to make the network design a reality. o Prepare a management and stewardship plan that meets the restoration and maintenance needs of all green infrastructure components. o Inform and seek public input from the public on the green infrastructure network design and plan. o Integrate green infrastructure into the planning processes of local, state, and federal o agencies and other community and regional planning efforts. Sell the public on the benefits of green infrastructure and the need for a green infrastructure network design. o Build partnerships with the people and organizations that can help support and sustain the green infrastructure initiative. Principles of Green Infrastructure o Connectivity is key. o Context matters. o Green infrastructure should be grounded in sound science and land -use planning theory and practice. o Green infrastructure can and should function as a framework for conservation and development. o Green infrastructure should be planned and protected before development. o Green infrastructure is a critical public investment that should be funded up front. o Green infrastructure affords benefits to nature and people. o Green infrastructure respects the needs and desires of landowners and other stakeholders. o Green infrastructure requires making connections to activities within and beyond the community. a Green infrastructure requires long-term commitment. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 I Appendix #3 Mauka Land Group Kona Mauka Land Vision, Guidelines and Principles (Draft 9/14/06) Vision: A well managed landscape of publicly and privately owned lands collectively committed to maximizing the region's ecosystem service value while generating sufficient income for its owners to ensure sustainable resource management and stable tenure over the long term. Guidelines and Principles 1. Payments for Ecosystem Services: Mauka lands provide a variety of "ecosystem services" that are critical to the economy and quality of life on Hawaii Island. Mauka landowners should be compensated for land management practices that provide these services through direct payments and incentives. 2. Other Funding Sources: The high cost of land management projects which promote forest conservation prevents landowners from adopting these practices. Access to alternative funding sources is needed. This may include State and Federal landowner assistance programs, conservation easements, transfer of development rights, forest banking and related initiatives. 3. Economic Return: Effective resource management and long term, low cost basis tenure are to be encouraged but are costly to maintain. All economic opportunities consistent with sound ecosystem service management practices should be encouraged, including conservation real estate and hrnited residential projects. 4. Development: Existing zoning densities on mauka lands should be acknowledged and respected. Reconfiguration to densities more consistent with land conservation objectives should be encouraged, through density transfers within commonly owned parcels and through the transfer of development rights to non-contiguous receiving areas. 5. Regulatory climate: Some policies and regulations may stifle innovation and creativity among mauka landowners wishing to implement management practices that would enhance conservation and sustainable use of mauka lands. Regulations should be modified to address this problem. G. Water Catchment: Mauka lands capture and transport water to the basal aquifer, where it is accessible for domestic, agricultural and industrial use. Land management practices that facilitate this process should be encouraged. 7. Carbon: Growing vegetation sequesters atmospheric carbon, thereby mitigating the adverse effects of carbon dioxide on global warming. Policies, regulations and funding strategies that maintain and restore forest cover should be encouraged. Collaborative approaches to sell carbon credits should be encouraged as well. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 1 i 1 i 11 r— L n 8. Biological D versT More than 10,000 species of plants and animals are unique to Hawaii. Yet, these islands are the endangered species capital of the US. Of more than 100 varieties of birds endemic to Hawaii, more than 2/3 are extinct and 80% of those which remain are in danger of extinction. Many plant species have been lost as well. Aggressive action, supported by major new incentives, is needed on both public and private lands to protect remaining high quality habitat and to restore native forest on key sites in the Kona landscape In addition, investment in certain ecosystem services — like high-quality pasture with abundant trees; carbon sequestration and storage; flood control, and groundwater recharge — may enhance biodiversity as a co -benefit, and should be recognized and especially rewarded for doing so. 9. Invasive Species: A growing list of invasive weeds, insects and other animals has adversely impacted the integrity of native ecosystems and the economic development of Hawaii island, including mauka Kona. Collaborative action is needed to stem this tide. 10. Cultural Resource Protection: Many culturally significant sites are found on both private and public lands in this region. Steps should be taken to ensure that cultural sites are protected from disturbance. Where these sites occur on public land, or on private lands accessible to the public, the cultural significance of these sites should be effectively interpreted. In addition, the historic and cultural patterns of land use and the "living" cultural significance of mauka lands should be recognized and fully considered in regional planning. 11. Recreation: Both public and private lands in mauka Kona are virtually inaccessible to the general public for hiking, ecotourism and related recreation, in part because of concerns about landowner liability. Action is needed to amend the Hawaii Recreational Use Statute to address the liability issue. In addition, public access should be increased onto public lands. Public access onto private lands should only occur where deemed compatible by the landowner. 12. Property Rights: More than 70% of the mauka Kona lands between Ocean View and Hualalai are in private ownership. Any proposals affecting the management of these lands should involve the private landowner and should respect the landowner's property rights. 13. Working Landscapes: With the majority of mauka Kona lands in private ownership, conservation objectives can best be accomplished by encouraging economic investment and financial return sufficient to stabilize ownership, fund proactive resource management and sustain critical ecosystem services. 14. Indus : Mauka Kona landowners considering diversification or a transition from a ranching -based land management strategy must be able to pursue alternative sources of income. This may include the compatible and sustainable use of forest products. 15. Floodwater Management: Flooding and sedimentation problems in makai Kona communities are often attributed to land management practices in mauka Kona, even when the severity of the problems is exacerbated by poor planning and limited capacity of low elevation floodways. Collaboration and access to additional funding are needed to address this problem. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Icon CDP February 2007 16. Integrated. Landscape -Level Planning: Many of the factors that affect the condition and integrity of mauka Kona lands can be effectively managed only at a landscape scale, with close collaboration between public and private landowners. Examples include management of invasive species and wildfire. Similarly, numerous and diverse policies — from zoning and taxation to the federal Farm Bill and emerging institutional support for new ecosystem service payments — come into play in land -use decisions. Finally, ecosystem services are highly interdependent, such that investment in one may greatly enhance (or potentially diminish) the supply of others. For these reasons, it is important that a clear, coherent vision for mauka lands be supported by integrated policy approaches, and by analyses showing where the greatest net payoff would result from given investments. 17. Mauka Land Group Forum: A key to effective implementation of the vision, guidelines, and principles outlined above is the formal establishment of a permanent forum that allows ongoing collaboration on mauka issues. This will provide an essential framework for helping to identify the appropriate mix of appropriate institutions, agencies, and landowners to implement effective strategies. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 I 1 ' Appendix #4 Olaa-Kilauea and Three Mountain Partnerships Source: The Nature Conservancy 1 The Olaa-Kilauea (OK) Partnership has been highly successful in addressing conservation challenges within a 30,000 acre area, centered around the Olaa Tract of Hawaii Volcanoes 1 National Park Partners include the State of Hawaii (Division of Forestry and Wildlife, Department of Public Safety), National Park Service, Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Geological Survey, Kamehameha Schools, U.S.DA Forest Service and The Nature 1 Conservancy. For more than a decade, these partners have pooled their staff expertise and their funding to significantly reduce the threats of feral ungulates and noxious weeds on Federal, State and private lands. The Partnership expanded in 2001 to include Keauhou Ranch (owned by Kamehameha Schools) and the rest of Hawaii Volcanoes National Park 1 and again in 2003 to include Kamehameha Schools lands in Kau and Kona. The current partnership acreage is now approximately 420,000 acres. I 1 1 1 1 1 1 OK partners now recognize the compelling need to expand watershed protection and management efforts across the slopes of Mauna Loa, Kilauea and Hualaw as part of a 1 "°Three Mountain Partnership." Coordinated management of these watershed lands is critical to sustain adequate quality and quantity of water. In addition, these lands provide important habitat for a wide diversity of native plants and animals, including endangered species. Even in the absence of a formal partnership, private and public landowners in this region have 1 recognized the value in collaboration to address shared management challenges. Examples include invasive weed control, raze plant propagation, sheep management, commercial 1 1 Goren Infcasuucture Technical Report— Kona CDP February 2007 forestry, habitat restoration, biological research, cultural resource protection and public use management. A Memorandum of Understanding has been drafted to govern the operation of the Three Mountain Partnership. The seven OK partners will be signatories to the initial MOU. In addition, other public agencies with a management interest in the,larger landscape will be invited to join the Partnership. They include Hawaii County Department of Water Supply, US Army (Pohakuloa Training Area), Natural Resources Conservation Service and the State Department of Hawaiian Home Lands. Also, nearly a dozen private ranchers with significant land ownership in this landscape will be invited to join the Partnership or, if they choose, to participate only in collaborative efforts addressing specific management challenges. Partners have elected to focus their collaborative efforts on three of the most significant management challenges or threats to the integrity of the forested landscape: invasive weeds (with emphasis on the forest/agricultural land interface in Kau), feral cattle and wildfire prevention and response. Partners and outside cooperators with an interest in these management challenges will develop project plans that will guide collaborative efforts. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 1 1 1L, f Appendix #5 Convening Leadership Forums Southeast Regional Partnership for Planning and Sustainability (SERPPAS) SERPPAS17 is a partnership formed between the Office of the Secretary of Defense (OSD), the military services (Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines), and environmental and natural resource agency officials of the southeastern United States (North Carolina, South Carolina, Georgia, Alabama, and Florida). Collectively, SERPPAS has agreed to focus on developing tools for more effective regional planning that are critical to sustaining environmental, natural, military test and training, and economic resources in the southeast region for now and in the future. The SERPPAS mission is to seize opportunities and solve problems in value -adding ways that provide mutual and multiple benefits to the Partners, and that sustain the mission and secure the future for all the Partners, the region, and the nation. The SERPPAS and its mission exist to meet a common vision of a group of state, federal, and military Partners tapping the power of an effective working relationship, partnership, innovation, leadership, teamwork, and networks to achieve the mission of the partnership. The Conservation Fund believes that the SERPPAS vision, mission, and values can be adapted as a foundation for Kona's green infrastructure leadership forums. Below are some suggested adaptations from the SERPPAS charter for convening leadership forums in Kona. Vision: A group of landowners, government officials, and interested citizens tap the power of an effective working relationship, partnership, innovation, leadership, teamwork, and networks to achieve the mission of the leadership forum. Mission: To seize opportunities and solve problems in value -adding ways that provide mutual and multiple benefits to the partners, and that sustain the mission and secure the future for all partners and the region. Values: 1. Develop and sustainable an effective working relationship among the partners that enables the partnership to: (1) identify and seize opportunities for mutual gain, (2) deal well with 1 differences, and (3) solve problems. 2. Be unconditionally constructive; that is each partner: ® does only those things that are both good for the relationship and good for that partner, whether or not the other partners reciprocate s does everything it reasonably can to: o balance reason and emotion o understand each other's interests o communicate openly and effectively o consult before deciding o use persuasion rather than coercion o accept each other as someone worth dealing with " For more information, see http://www.se=as.or�. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 Ji 1 Appendix #6 Transferable Development Rights Programs: An Economic Framework for Success Kent D. Messer, Ph.D. Department of Applied Economics & Management Cornell University ABSTRACT The inviting promise of Transferable Development Rights programs redirecting money from developers to conservation projects has largely been unfulfilled. This paper summarizes the basic foundations of these programs and outlines an economic framework from which clear suggestions for improvement arise. This framework suggests that for a transferable development rights program to be successful, sufficient demand for development rights needs to be stimulated, opportunities for developers to circumvent the market by seeking variances and zoning changes need to be limited, and an efficient and transparent market structure needs to be established. iINTRODUCTION Despite the optimism of 1980s and 1990s in the land conservation community about "making money out of thin air" by using Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) programs, their limited success suggests that these programs generally failed to live up to their initial promise. As of 2000, only 30% of the 50 total TDR programs had preserved more than 100 acres (Table 1). In fact, half of these programs had either been revoked or managed to protect no acres (American Farmland Trust, 2001). Yet, in aggregate, TDR programs have preserved approximately 120,000 acres in the United States, worth an estimated $240 million. In fact, a handful of TDR programs have been quite successful. This research finds that abandonment of this approach is not warranted. Instead it seeks to outline an economic framework from which to consider the successes and failures of TDR programs and offers clear suggestions on how the design of TDR programs can be improved to yield future conservation benefits. The key conservation advantage to a TDR program is its financial engine. TDR programs provide a legal framework that can create beneficial situations where the economic pressures for development are directly tapped to provide monetary support to efforts to protect areas of conservation value. These programs work through the transference of potential I development rights from one piece of property in the "sending" area to another piece of property in the "receiving" area. Once the development rights are transferred, the sending area loses its rights to develop and the land is permanently preserved. The receiving areas (the areas targeted for development) are often designated by the government to have special tax incentives to encourage development or are within designated growth boundaries. Interest in TDR programs is not a recent development. New York City is credited with the first TDR legislated in 1916, which allowed the transfer of unused air rights to other lots aohnston and Madison). Despite this early use, it was not until the 1970s that TDR Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 programs became widely adopted. Nine programs were established in the 1970s,15 were established in the 1980s, and 28 more programs were established in the 1990s. TDR programs have been used for a variety of goals, including protection of farmland, conservation of environmentally sensitive areas, sprawl prevention, preservation of historic landmarks, development of compact urban areas, and the promotion of downtown commercial growth. Ideally, the government just sets up the TDR program and the money for conservation comes from the developers (and ultimately the future homeowners or consumers of the good produced at these projects). In addition, TDR programs can offset concerns about the environmental impact of development as the money for conservation can be viewed as a reasonable environmental re -payment for the large public investment into expensive infrastructure that often accompanies for-profit development. Furthermore, TDR programs allow landowners in the sending areas to retain land ownership while also protecting their land from development. This private ownership can be politically advantageous when dealing with working landscapes such as agricultural and forested lands. This paper is structured to examine several main economic issues related to TDR programs. First, this paper highlights the similarities between TDR programs and tradable permit systems that have become increasingly popular market-based approaches to environmental issues. Then it outlines the economic framework necessary for a successful TDR program: (i) a ready supply of development rights, (ii) a significant demand for the development rights, and (iii) a transparent and low transaction -cost market structure. Finally, the paper discusses the ecological and development impact of TDR programs and offers concluding suggestions on how to improve the conditions necessary to make TDR programs successful tools for conservation. TIER PROGAMS AS A MARKETABLE PERMIT SYSTEM At its most basic level, TDR programs are the conservation community's attempt to adapt market-based Tradable Permit Systems to the context of land conservation. Most of the environmental examples of tradable permit systems arise from air pollution reduction, where governments have successfully used them to reduce levels of air pollution in a manner that has dramatically reduced the costs relative to traditional "command -and -control" pollution reduction policies. The most famous example is the federal sulfur dioxide (SO2) pollution program which was an enacted in 1990 as an amendment to the Clean Air Act. As of 2000, the SO2program had reduced sulfur dioxide by 50% and the EPA estimated the value of the benefits at $110 billion. Best yet, the program's annual cost of $1 billion per year has been dramatically lower than the original $10 billion per year estimate — approximately half of the lowest cost estimates prior to the start of the program. Additionally, a variety of other tradable permit systems have been developed, such as the tradable permit system in Telluride, Colorado, which seeks to reduce air pollution by issuing tradable permits for fireplaces. Tradable permit systems work by first establishing an overall goal for reducing the undesirable activity (i.e. air pollution or rural development). Next, the government assigns a limited number of permits or `rights' to entities (i.e. polluting firms or landowners) currently involved in the undesirable activity so to achieve the established goal. Finally, a market is established and firms are allowed to trade these permits. In the context of land Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 n 1 1 0 1 r] MARKET STRUCTURE, TRANSPARENCY, AND TRANSACTION COSTS In their theoretical paper on TDR programs, Field and Conrad (1975) argue that the benefits of a TDR program will occur only if there is a "well organized auction" where the transaction costs between the buyers and sellers are as low as possible. High transaction costs lower the incentives for both buyers and sellers to participate and thus increases the cost of preservation. Furthermore, trades need to happen in a timely manner. Unfortunately, TDR programs have not often involved ideal methods for connecting potential sellers and buyers. For example, some programs have required direct communication and negotiation between land owners and developers, which can lead to lengthy discussions and high search/information costs. Other programs have put government staff members directly in the coordination role. These types of market structures can lead to reduced market activity due both to high transaction costs and a lack of information on previous prices (McConnell, Kopits, Wall, 2003). As an example, the TDR program in Calvert County, Maryland, initially had a few transactions but later became more successful once information for buyers and sellers became more ample. Ideally, the government's role should be limited to the planning efforts and in designating the sending and receiving zones. The market -system should take over once the market and its rules are established. A market structure that achieves the objective of a `well organized auction' is to use a double -auction mechanism that is an information rich environment that can easily accessed by buyers and sellers with minimal government involvement (for more information about double -auctions see Davis and Holt, 1993; Smith and Williams, 1983). This process can be readily adapted to a web based "eBay -like" format that could ensure low transaction costs and to speedy transactions. DISCUSSION Several concerns have been raised about TDR programs. For example, questions have been raised that TDR programs can result in more development than under a standard zoning policy. This could result from an adverse selection problem, where some of the property owners of the sending areas may not have intended or been willing to sell their land (at least within some time period), but are nevertheless granted TDR programs, which are then traded and used for development that would have otherwise not occurred (Levinson, 1997). If identified, this problem can be alleviated with a local government purchasing program to take TDR programs off the market. The New Jersey Pinelands project achieved this solution. However, given the low levels of historical success of these programs, conservation planners should not be overly concerned about this issue, especially since the primary problem with this program is not access supply, but instead a lack of demand. Additionally, a recent study of the TDR programs in Calvert, Howard, and Montgomery counties in Maryland suggests that voluntary TDR programs have generally done a worse job at protecting the areas with the highest agricultural value than do Purchase of Development Rights (PDR) programs which can be more targeted (Lynch & Musser, 2001). A primary reason is that in these counties, the number of acres has been used as the sole metric determinant defining a development right. Without considering quality (as opposed to quantity) of acres, it turns out that, not surprisingly. the least valuable agricultural land actually gets preserved in TDR programs as the sending owners most likely sell development Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 rights with lowest development value — and thus would be most enticed by the financial incentives associated with TDR programs. Of course, if the goal is simply to maximize acres protected, then using farm size as the sole metric is fine. Note that to respond to this problem, Montgomery County set up a PDR program, in addition to its TDR program, to specifically acquire the higher valued agricultural land (12,801 acres) that was not protected by its TDR program. Finally, concerns about establishing a robust market led the Town of Berthoud, Colorado, to avoid a TDR program and opt instead for a density transfer fee, where the proceeds from the fee are used to purchase existing development rights from areas that were desired for protection (Pelletier, 2001). This type of alternative mechanism may be particularly attractive in situations where a PDR program already exists, the number of likely market participants is low, and the complexity of issues (whether legal or inter -jurisdictional) are high. CONCLUSION The logic of transferring development rights from an area in need of protection to one desiring more development remains strong. Yet real world examples show that problems typically plague the programs and limit their success. These problems, however, are not insurmountable and this document outlines an economic framework from which several recommendations are evident. First, an ample supply of development rights can be achieved from either a voluntary or mandatory program, assuming a robust level of demand and an efficient market structure. Voluntary programs have the desirable characteristic of avoiding concerns related to takings, while mandatory programs are better at ensuring that the most critical lands are actually protected. To ensure sufficient demand, TDR programs must be developed to coordinate closely with existing government planning efforts, which are relatively rigid and do not allow for easy re -zoning or variances. Additionally, a program involving mandatory purchase of a minimum number of development rights by large developers is likely needed to encourage sufficient demand, at least in the initial stages. Finally, the TDR market structure needs to ensure low transaction costs and the transactions must be conducted in a transparent, expedient, and information rich setting. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS The author wishes to thank Will Allen for his encouragement and support for this research and the research assistance of Brian Porrell, Holly Payne and Eliot York. Green Infrastructure Techrucal Report — Kona CDP February 2007 t 1 P, Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 LITERATURE CITED American Farmland Trust. Fact Sheet. Transfer of Development Rights (Northampton, MA 2001). www.farn-Aandinfo.org/documents/27746/FS_TDR�1-01 pdf Blacklocke, S. 1999. Addressing Urban Sprawl in South Carolina: The Market Alternatives. A Summary of Approaches Associated with Smart Growth Strategies. Clemson, South Carolina. www.strom.clemson.edu/publications/smartgrowth.pdf Bredin, J. 2000. Transfer of development rights: Cases, Statutes, Examples and a Model. Planning Conference. APA National www.asu edu/caed/proceedings00/BREDIN/bredm.htm Davis, D.D. and Charles A. Holt. 1993. Experimental Economics. Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Field, B C. and Jon M. Conrad. 1975 Economics Issues in Programs of Transferable Development Rights. Land Economics (4)331-340. Johnston, R A. and Mary E. Madison 1997. From Landmarks to Landscapes: A Review of Current Practices in the Transfer of Development Rights. Journal of the American Planning Association Vol. 63. Lawrence, T.J. 1998. Transfer of Development Rights. Land Use Series CDFS 1264-98. ' Columbus: Ohio State University Extension. http://ohioline.osu edu/cd-fact/1264.html Levinson, A. 1997. Why Oppose TDR programs?: Transferable Development Rights Can Increase Overall Development. Regional Science and Urban Economics 27(3): 286-296. Lynch, L. and W.N. Musser. 2001. A Relative Efficiency Analysis of Farmland Preservation Programs. Land Economics 77(4): 577-594. McConnell, V., E.Kopits, and M.Walls. 2003. How Well Can Markets for Developments Rights Work? Evaluating a Farmland Preservation Program. Resources for the Future dp-03-08. New Jersey Pinelands Commission. The New Jersey Pinelands Development Credit (PDC) Program. New Liston, NJ 2005. www.state.nj.us/pinelands/infor/fact/PDCfacts pdf Pelletier, M. 2001. Density Transfer Fee: A Fee in Lieu of a Transfer of Development Rights (TDR) Program. 2001 APA National Planning Conference. www.asu.edu/caed/proceedings0l /PELL/pell htm Smith, V.L., and A.W. Williams. 1983. An Experimental Comparison of Alternative Rules for Competitive Market Exchange in R. Englebrech-Wiggans et al, (eds.) Auctions, Bidding, and Contracting: Uses and Theory. University Press. New York. Pp. 307-334. P, Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 TABLE 1 Examples of TDR Programs, Starting Year, and Acres Preserved. Location Year Mandatory Acres (State, County, Township/City) Initiated Participation Protected California Marin County 1981 No 670 San Mateo County 1986 No 40 San Luis Obispo County 1996 No NA Colorado Boulder County 1995 No 3,200 Connecticut Windsor 1993 No NA Florida Hillsborough County 1985 No NA Palm Beach County 1992 No 6,573 Idaho Fremont County 1991 No 200 Maine Cape Elizabeth 1982 No NA Maryland Calvert County 1978 No 14,808 Caroline County 1989 No NA Charles County 1992 No 1,183 Harford County 1992 No NA Howard County 1992 No 1,350 Montgomery County 1980 Yes 40,583 Queen Anne's County 1987 No 2,417 St. Mary's County 1990 No 6 Talbot County 1989 No 580 Massachusetts Groton 1980 No 22 Hadley 2000 No NA Sunderland 1974 No NA Townsend 1989 No NA Minnesota Blue Earth County 1977 No 3,000 Montana Gallatin County 1992 No 200 Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 Nese Jersey Burlington County Chesterfield Township Lumberton Township Somerset County Hillsborough Township New Jersey Pinelands Nese York Eden Perinton Central Pine Barrens Long Island Southhampton Pennsylvania Bucks County Buckingham Township Warrington Township Berks County Washington Township Chester County Birmingham Township East Nantmeal Township London Grove Township Lancaster County Manheim Township Revoked York County Chanceford Township Codorus Township Revoked East Hopewell Township Hopewell Township Lower Chanceford Twp Shrewsbury Township Springfield Township Utah Tooele Vermont Jericho South Burlington Williston 1998 No NA 1996 No 563 1975 No NA 1981 Yes 44,000 1977 No NA 1993 No NA 1995 Yes NA 1972 No NA 1975 No NA 1985 No NA 1994 No NA 1978 No NA 1994 No NA 1995 No NA 1991 No 1979 No NA 1990 No 1984 No NA 1988 No NA 1990 No NA 1991 No NA 1996 No NA 1995 No NA 1992 Yes NA 1992 No NA 1990 No NA Virginia Blacksburg 1996 No NA Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 1 t f', 1 1 1 i 1 ilashington Island County 1984 Thurston County Primary Source: American Farmland Trust 2001 No Revoked 1995 Yes NA Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 n. 1 Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 Appendix #7 Special Use Permit Guidelines ' Green Infrastructure Resource Protection in LUPAG Agricultural Classifications Primary Source: Clarion Associates Agncultural and Recreational Uses Basic agricultural uses (e.g. crops, livestock, and nurseries) and agricultural support uses should be allowed by right subject to performance standards (e.g. access/traffic, setbacks, height, noise, and lighting) necessary to mitigate adverse impacts and protect important natural features. Agricultural support uses are support businesses (repair, service, retail, and ' related uses) related to the basic agricultural uses and activities. The support businesses are further divided into those that are directly associated with an on-going basic agricultural activity, and located on the same property, versus a support business that is off-site. Off-site support businesses should be small-scale in nature, and may include such uses as farm ' product sales, farm machinery repair and leasing. Demonstration farms, heritage and rural tourism destinations, and small residential facilities (e.g. bed and breakfasts) that support agricultural tourism also should be considered off-site support businesses. Recreational uses also should be allowed by right, including rustic overnight lodges, shelters and restroom facilities, parking or staging areas for hikers. As the CDP is implemented, a comprehensive list of permitted uses should be developed for compatible, rural agricultural and recreational uses. Residential Uses / Conservation Subdivision Conservation subdivisions permit residential development with reductions in lot area and setback standards, in return for the landowner setting aside a large portion of the site in open space. Generally, a conservation subdivision has three primary characteristics: smaller building lots; more open space; and protection of natural features. The rules for site development emphasize setting aside and conserving the most sensitive areas of a site, with the development of building lots on the remaining less sensitive areas. In most cases, by locating development on smaller lots and maintaining open space, a landowner can achieve similar densities as with a conventional subdivision. The actual process of designing a ' conservation subdivision in Kona would involve the following four basic steps: 1. Resource Survey: A site survey by the applicant documents the significant natural and cultural resources on the site, including native vegetation, wetlands, floodplains, steep slopes, wildlife habitat, and other important features. The applicant also produces a map showing resources and open space on neighboring parcels. 2. Site Visit and County Review: County staff and the applicant visit the development site to see first hand where resources exist and to understand the lay of the land and what areas might be suitable for development sites. The relationship to surrounding parcels is also examined. Prior to the visit, the County overlays the GAP Analysis land cover GIS layer and other useful layers onto the parcel boundary and surrounding areas to target field survey work. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 3. Delineation of Conservation and Development Areas: The applicant produces a map that depicts conservation areas and open space as well as areas suitable for development. The applicant also may identify locations where restoration or enhancement of native vegetation and other resource features may be appropriate. 4. Submission of Conservation Design Plat: The applicant submits a conservation subdivision plat showing conservation areas, open space, and restoration areas on the site, along with the development sites where the cluster lots would be located. Areas suitable for development are specifically delineated as well as other areas that will be disturbed for accessory structures and uses, septic fields, roads, trails, and utilities. Where applicable, lot lines would be shown on the conservation subdivision plat. The full development density permitted by the zoning district for the entire site would be allowed within the development delineation area. Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 C u 1 11 C 1 1 ' Appendix #8 ' Acknowledgements e ACP Planning and Visioning: Gianni Longo, Suzanne Nienaber, Jamie Greene o Clarion Associates: Leigh Anne McDonald o Cornell University: Dr. Kent Messer a Department of Defense: Bruce Beard, Jan Larkin ' o Environmental Simulation Center: Michael Kwartler, Paul Patnode, Brian Heagney a Harrison Rue a Hawaii Biodiversity and Mapping Program: Dwight Matsuwaki, Adam Mehlhorn a Kona CDP Staff and Volunteers: Ken Melrose, Nancy Pisicchio, Roy Takemoto, Chris Yuen a Mauka Land Group: Jimmy Greenwell, Rob Shallenberger, Peter Simmons, Keith ' Unger a North Carolina Department of Environment and Natural Resources: Bill Ross, Chris Russo a Stanford University: Dr. Gretchen Daily ' a The Conservation Fund: Dr. Mark Benedict, Erik Meyers, Tom Macy, Ted Weber, Amanda Medori, Paul Hurt, Renee Williams ' a Urban Land Institute: Edward T. McMahon a Wilson Okamoto Corporation: Tracy Fukuda, Earl Matsukawa ' Author Contact Information William L. Allen, III, Director of Strategic Conservation ' The Conservation Fund — NC Office 101 Market Street, Suite C Chapel Hill, NC 27516 919-967-2223 x24 1 wallen(@conservadonfund.org William L. Allen, III is the Director of Strategic Conservation at The Conservation Fund in ' Chapel Hill, North Carolina. With the Fund since 1994, Will is responsible for managing and delivering the Fund's projects involving green infrastructure planning, rapid open space assessments, compatible land use planning, and other strategic conservation planning efforts. ' Will is the co-editor of the Journal of Conservation Planning, a member of the American Planning Association and a founding member of the Society for Conservation GIS. Will received his Bachelor of Arts in Urban Studies from Stanford University in 1993 and his '— Master of Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill in 1995. Selected Publications ' e Allen, William L. and Jamie Christensen, Re-enacting the Civil Tamar with GIS: Identifying Planning Priorities, 2003 ESRI User Conference, San Diego, CA. ' Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 © Allen, William L. A Regional Approach to Conservation Planning and Hazard Mitigation, Conservation Geography, SSRI Press, 2001, pp. 74-75. o Allen William L., Frank J. Conkling, and Cheryl Crupi, Empowering the Public in Forest Planning. Midewin Prairie Explorer, GIS 2000 Conference, Toronto, ONT. o Benedict, Mark A., William L. Allen, III, and E. T. McMahon. 2004. Advancing Strategic Conservation in the Commonwealth of Virginia• Using a Green Infrastructure Approach to Conserving and Managing the Commonwealth's NaturalAreas, Working Landscapes, Open Space, and Other Critical Resources. o Conservation Fund, The. 2006. Kent County RapidAssessment of Green Infrastructure o Conservation Fund, The. 2006. Spartanburg County Rapid Parks Assessment o Conservation Fund, The. 2005. Houston Parks Rapid Assessment for New Parkland Acquuition o Conservation Fund, The. 1996. Chattooga Watershed Conservation Plan o Conservation Fund, The. 1995. Albemarle-Pamlico Bioregional Greenway Plan o McDonald, Leigh Anne, W. L. Allen III, M. A. Benedict, and K O'Connor. 2005. Green Infrastructure Plan Evaluation Frameworks. Journal of Conservation Planning, Vol. 1 No. 1. (http://www.journalconsplanning.org) Green Infrastructure Technical Report — Kona CDP February 2007 1 u ' KONA AFFORDABLE HOUSING ' ECONOMIC ANALYSIS ' David Paul Rosen & Associates October 23, 2006 t 0 11 1 1 0 ImDAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES KONA AFFORDABLE HOUSING ECONOMIC ANALYSIS KONA COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT PLAN COUNTY OF HAWAII Prepared for: County of Hawaii Prepared by: David Paul Rosen & Associates 1330 Broadway, Suite 937 3941 Hendrix Street Oakland, CA 94612-2509 Irvine, CA 92614-6637 510.451.2552 949.559.5650 Admin@DRAConsultants.com Nora@DRAConsultants.com www.DRAConsultants.com October 23, 2006 1 ! ®® DAVID PAUL ROSEN &ASSOCIATES ! Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page i Table of Contents 1 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis PAGE 1 Summary of Findings and Recommendations.......................................................... ES -1 ! A. B. Methodology and Data Sources...........................................................................1 Development Costs of Housing Prototypes..........................................................2 1. Housing Prototypes...................................................................................2 ' 1 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Land Costs................................................................................................2 Hard Construction Costs.. Development Impact and Processing Fees................................................5 Soft (Indirect) Costs...................................................................................5 Financing Costs Total Development Costs.........................................................................6 .5 .6 C . Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Requirements...................................................12 D . Estimated Costs of Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Requirements ......................15 1. Financing Scenario.................................................................................15 2. 3. 4. 5. Occupancy Standards.. .15 Definition of Affordable Housing Expense...............................................16 Utility Allowances.............................................17 Prototype Affordability Gaps Under Chapter 11 .19 ..................................... 6. In Lieu Fees............................................................................................29 ' E. Economic Impact of Chapter 11 Requirements..................................................32 1. Land Residual Analysis Methodology......................................................32 1 2. 3. Assumptions ................ .. ..............................................................33 Findings: Indicated Residual Land Values..............................................34 F. Estimated Value of Potential Economic Incentives.............................................39 1. 2. 3. Density Bonus...................................39 Reduction in Parking Requirements ........................................................40 Reduction in Residential Street Widths....................................................40 4. 5. 6. Development Fee Deferrals.......................40 Affordable Unit Comparability Standards................................................ Summary of Cost Savings and Economic Impact of Incentives 41 .................41 1 G. Policy 1. 2. Issues for Affordable Housing Requirements............................................68 Enforcement of Affordability Restrictions.................................................68 Alternative Compliance Options.............................................................69 ' 3. 4. In Lieu Fees .... pliance.................................................................................71 Off -Site Compliance . ., 72 ! Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page i DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Table of Contents Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis (Continued) Appendices Appendix A: List of Developer Contacts Appendix C: Per Unit Development Cost Estimates by Bedroom Count Appendix B: Chapter 11 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 ' David Paul Rosen & Associates Page ii J LI 1 u J DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES List of Tables Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis TABLE TITLE PAG 1 Per Unit Affordability Gaps, Housing Prototype Projects, Kona Affordable Housing Analysis, 2006................................................................................. ES -3 2 Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area, Owner Housing Prototype Projects, Kona Affordable Housing Analysis .................................................... ES -4 3 Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area, Owner Housing Prototype Projects, Kona Affordable Housing Analysis .................................................... ES -5 4 Owner Housing Prototype Projects......................................................................3 5 Renter Housing Prototype Projects.......................................................................4 6 Development and Financing Cost Assumptions, Owner Housing Prototypes..........................................................................................................8 7 Development and Financing Cost Assumptions, Rental Housing Prototypes ......... 9 8 Estimated Prototype Development Costs, Renter Housing Prototypes.................10 9 Estimated Prototype Development Costs, Owner Housing Prototypes ................11 10 Income Limits, County of Hawaii, 2006.............................................................13 11 Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Credit System, Construction of Completed Dwelling Units, Renter and Owner Housing.....................................................14 12 Renter Affordable Monthly Housing Expense, 2006 ...........................................16 13 Owner Affordable Monthly Housing Expense, 2006 ..........................................17 14 Current HUD -Approved Monthly Utility Allowances, County of Hawaii, 2006........................................................................................................18 15 Chapter 11 Affordable Sales Price Guidelines, Owner Housing Prototypes 2006........................................................................................................20 16 Per Unit Affordability "Gap to Cost", Owner Housing Prototypes ......................21 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page iii Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page iv List of Tables Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis TABLE TITLE PAGE 17 Affordability "Gap to Cost" Under Chapter 11 by Income Level, Owner HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................22 , 18 Per Unit Affordability "Gap to Price", Owner Housing Prototypes .....................23 "Gap by Income Level , 19 Affordability to Price" Under Chapter 11 ........................24 20 Rent, Utility Allowance and Affordable Rent Assumptions.................................26 21 Affordability Gap Per Unit, Rental Housing Prototypes......................................27 22 Affordability "Gap to Cost" Under Chapter 11 by Income Level, Renter HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................28 23 In Lieu Fee Calculation Per Chapter 11, Owner Housing Prototypes..................30 24 In Lieu Fee Calculation Per Chapter 11, Renter Housing Prototypes...................31 25 Estimated Market Rents for Rental Prototypes.....................................................33 26 Estimated Market Home Sales Prices, Owner Housing Prototypes ......................34 27 Land Residual Analysis, 100% Market -Rate Housing, Owner Prototypes ...........35 28 Land Residual Analysis, 100% Market -Rate Housing, Renter Prototypes ............36 29 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements, Owner Prototypes ........37 30 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements, Renter Prototypes ......... 38 31 Owner Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus........................................39 32 Rental Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus.........................................40 33 Development Cost and Financing Cost Assumptions, Owner Housing ' Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus..................................................................41 34 Development Cost and Financing Cost Assumptions, Renter Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus..................................................................42 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page iv 1 1 1 a 11 1 DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES List of Tables Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis TABLEI,I TLE PAGE 35 Estimated Prototype Development Costs with 10% Density Bonus, Owner HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................43 36 Estimated Prototype Development Costs with 10% Density Bonus, Renter HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................44 37 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements and 10% Density Bonus, Owner Housing Prototypes....................................................................45 38 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements and 10% Density Bonus, Renter Housing Prototypes.....................................................................46 39 Estimated Cost Savings from Reduced Parking Requirements, Owner HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................47 40 Estimated Cost Savings from Reduced Parking Requirements, Rental HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................48 41 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Reduced Street Width, Owner HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................49 42 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Development Fee Deferrals, Owner HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................50 43 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Development Fee Deferrals, Renter HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................51 44 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Sizes, Owner Housing Prototypes........................................................................................................52 45 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Sizes, Renter Housing Prototypes........................................................................................................53 46 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Bathroom Count, Owner HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................54 47 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Bathroom Count, Renter HousingPrototypes...........................................................................................55 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page v DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES List of Tables Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis TABLE TITLE PAGE 48 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Interior Finish Quality, Owner Housing Prototypes................................................................................56 49 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Interior Finish Quality, Renter Housing Prototypes................................................................................57 50 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Alternative Product Type, Provision of Duplex or Bungalows for Single -Family Detached Units on 10,000 SquareFoot Lots................................................................................................58 51 Total Economic Value of Incentives, Owner Housing Prototypes .......................59 52 Total Economic Value of Incentives, Owner Housing Prototypes .......................60 53 Land Residual Analysis, Owner Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus, Fee Deferral and Affordable Unit Design Modifications ..........................61 54 Land Residual Analysis, Renter Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus, Fee Deferral and Affordable Unit Design Modifications ..........................62 55 Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area, Owner Housing Prototypes ...... 63 56 Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area, Renter Housing Prototypes ....... 64 57 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Alternative Compliance Measures........................................................................................................70 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Page vi 1 I DAVID PAUL ROSEN &ASSOCIATES 1 n Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis Kona Community Development Plan County of Hawaii Summary of Findings and Recommendations Background In response to the pressing affordable housing needs facing the North-South Kona Community Development Plan (CDP) and the County of Hawai'i, David Paul Rosen & Associates (DRA) was retained to provide an economic analysis of the cost of making housing affordable in Kona and the County of Hawai'i and the requirements of Chapter 11 of the Hawai'i County Code. DRA also estimated the potential value of economic incentives that may be offered to offset the costs of complying with Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements. DRA is part of the Wilson Okamoto team retained by the County to develop the CDP. Every housing development has its unique economic circumstances. Nevertheless, residential development is governed by clear market forces, economic, financial and underwriting norms. It is these norms that DRA has modeled, based on its substantial development experience and interviews with local developers active in the County of Hawai'i. So while individual economic assumptions may vary somewhat deal by deal, the analysis contained in the report is representative of the economic and financial conditions surrounding owner and renter housing development in the County of Hawaii in 2006. Chapter 11 of the Hawaii County Code applies affordable housing requirements to all new rezonings that may create residential uses. The affordable housing requirements also apply to all new rezonings to resort uses2, and to industrial districts3. The requirements apply to residential developments of five or more units or lots, includingtime-share units. They also apply to resort and hotel uses generating more than 100 full-time equivalent employees. DRA's analysis focuses on the economic impact of applying the requirements to residential uses. I Including rezonings to RS, RD, RM, RCS, RA and FA districts, and APD zonings where lot sizes are less than five acres, and CG, CV, CN and PD districts when residential uses are established in those districts. 2 Including hotels established in V, CV, CG, CDH or PD districts. 3 ML, MG and MCX districts. 1 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -1 DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES DRA's analysis will assist the County in evaluating the implications of the Chapter 11 requirements, and in assessing measures to revise and/or expand these requirements to all residential developments. The County is particularly interested in assessing the effectiveness of current Chapter 11 provisions, considering additional regulatory and incentive tools to boost production of affordable units in the urban core area, and additional recommendations to ensure a diversity of housing choices. Key Findings 1. The results of DRA's economic analysis indicate that the least costly option for developers of owner housing to comply with the affordability requirements of Chapter 11 is to build 10 percent of units at 80 percent of area median income. For developers of rental housing, the least costly option to comply with the requirements of Chapter 11 is to build 10 percent of units at 60 percent of area median income. 2. New construction of 100 percent market -rate rental housing is currently not economically feasible at the development costs and rental rates modeled in our analysis. This is consistent with the fact that market -rate rental housing is not currently developed in the County. 3. Construction of new owner housing complying with the affordability requirements of Chapter 11 is economically feasible at the development costs and sales prices modeled in our analysis. The analysis demonstrates that a higher percentage of units affordable at 80 percent of area median income could be supported for owner housing. 4. The in -lieu fee formula in Chapter 11 provides for an in lieu fee that is more costly than providing affordable units on site. This provides an incentive to build on-site. 5. Incentives that can be offered to developers of owner housing, including the 10 percent density bonus provided under Chapter 11 and design modifications to the affordable units, come close to offsetting the reduction in land value created by the Chapter 11 affordability requirements. Recommendations 1. The County should select income levels it wants to target with Chapter 11 based on existing housing needs in the County and limit the compliance options under Chapter 11 to those housing targets. 2. DRA recommends keeping the existing in lieu fee structure to maintain the incentive for developers to build affordable units on site rather than pay the in lieu fee. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of findings and Recommendations Page ES -2 1 1 1 1 1 1 i] i 1 u �I DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES 3. Increased density is the single most valuable incentive that can be provided to housing developers to offset the costs of providing affordable housing. In DRA's national experience, a 10 percent density bonus is a modest incentive. We recommend considering and evaluating a density bonus of at least 25 percent, particularly for projects within the urbanizing area of the County. 4. Alternative compliance options to providing on-site affordable units that are identical to the market -rate units help housing developers to offset the costs of providing affordable housing. These incentives can also be used when the density bonus cannot be accommodated in a housing development. We recommend amending Chapter 11 to provide incentives such as allowing developers to provide alternative product types for the affordable units. This may include allowing developers of detached single-family homes to provide affordable for -sale townhome units or affordable rental units. 5. We view the land dedication provisions of Chapter 11 as problematic. The per unit affordability gap on rental and owner housing is greater than the per unit land costs. This means that when the County receives land instead of affordable units, the County will still need financial subsidies to develop the affordable housing units. If the County continues to allow land dedication as an option, it should develop standards for land to be dedicated. These standards should address the availability of infrastructure and roads, residentialp densitities, proximity to schools and services, and environmental, archeological and biological conditions. 6. The County should prepare a commercial development impact fee nexus study documenting the link between the development of commercial and industrial uses and the need for affordable housing in the County. 7. The County should consider creation of a Housing Trust Fund as an ongoing, renewable source of revenue for affordable housing, capitalized with sources such as the commercial development linkage fees and in lieu fees. 8. Chapter 11 should continue to provide for the transfer of affordable housing credits. We view this as an efficient mechanism for experienced affordable housing developers to generate funds for the development of affordable units and for market -rate developers who do not desire to develop affordable housing directly to meet their affordable housing requirements. 9. Chapter 11 should address the term of affordability for rental and owner units. We recommend permanent or very long-term affordability (not less than 55 years) for the rental units and affordable resale restrictions and term of at least 30 years for owner units. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -3 I DAVID PAUL P OSEN & ASSOCIATES 10. The Countyshould retain professional assistance to assist in development of underwritinstandards, alternative compliance options, developer negotiations and financing for affordable housing, as well as crafting documents to record the County's long-term rent and resale restrictions. 11. The County should develop professional asset management practices to ensure long-term compliance for the affordable units. 12. The County should work collaboratively with State agencies to develop affordable housing on key sites, such as the state-owned site near Palani Road. 13. In conjunction with the other recommended changes to Chapter 11, the County should analyze the affects of larger density bonuses and larger set -asides for owner housing. Approach and Results of the Economic Analysis t Table 1 summarizes the estimated per unit affordability gap for seven housing prototypes developed and analyzed in collaboration with County officials and residential developers currently active on the County of Hawaii. A "gap" analysis approach is used to measure the difference between what households of different income levels can afford to pay for renter and ownership housing and what it costs to develop (and, in the case of renter housing, operate) such housing on the County of Hawaii. This gap represents the "affordability cost" to the private developer of meeting the requirements of Chapter 11. The per unit gaps shown in Table 1 are averaged across all units for the prototype, not just the affordable units. Assumptions for the development cost estimates were developed through consultation with developers active in the County of Hawaii and DRA's own extensive experience with residential development. Total development costs include land, infrastructure, hard costs, development impact fees, soft costs and a "threshold" level of developer overhead and profit estimated at 16 percent of other development costs, based on interviews with local developers and DRA's own extensive development experience.) Variations in per unit costs and the affordability gap result from differences in density, construction type and assumed unit sizes. The affordability gap will also vary based on the income level targeted. The 2006 HUD Area Median Income (AMI) for a family of four in the County is $55,300. Based on Chapter 11 income targeting requirements, DRA modeled renter affordability gaps for households at 60 percent ($35,940), 80 percent ($47,900) and 100 percent of AMI; and owner affordability gaps at 80 percent ($47,900), 100 percent ($55,300), 120 percent ($66,360), and 140 percent ($77,420) of AMI. All figures are for households of four persons. Income limits and affordable housing expense are adjusted by household size, using HUD family size adjustment factors. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -4 DAVID PAUL ROSEN &ASSOCIATES 4 Represents average per unit "gap to cost" across all units in the prototype, not just the affordable units. Assumes the developer provides units affordable at 60 percent of area median income for renters and at 70 percent of area median income for owners. This is the least costly way for the developer to provide the affordable credits required under Chapter 11 according to DRA's analysis. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -5 $35,200 $30,100 $46,700 The results of the analysis indicate that the affordability gaps are high, due to the high cost 1 of developing housing in the County. The affordability gaps alone, however, do not indicate the economic impact o the Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements on housing development. They must be viewed in relation to the market and development economics in the County. $27,400 $28,500 $31,500 $28,800 Table 1 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Per Unit Affordability Gaps4 DRA used a land residual analysis methodology to evaluate the potential economic effect Under Chapter 11 Requirements ' Housing Prototype Projects the County of Hawaii. Land residual analysis calculates the value attributed to land from Kona Affordable Housing Analysis proposed development on that site. It is commonly used by real estate developers, lenders and investors to evaluate development financial feasibility and select among alternative 2006 uses for a piece of property. Owner #1 Owner #2 Owner #3 Vertical Single -Family Single -Family ' Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached 4 Represents average per unit "gap to cost" across all units in the prototype, not just the affordable units. Assumes the developer provides units affordable at 60 percent of area median income for renters and at 70 percent of area median income for owners. This is the least costly way for the developer to provide the affordable credits required under Chapter 11 according to DRA's analysis. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -5 $35,200 $30,100 $46,700 Renter #1 Renter #2 Renter #3 Renter #4 1 Rental Rental Mixed -Use with Vertical Eightplex Flats Townhomes Ground Floor Retail Duplex $27,400 $28,500 $31,500 $28,800 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. DRA used a land residual analysis methodology to evaluate the potential economic effect of Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements on residential development in Kona and the County of Hawaii. Land residual analysis calculates the value attributed to land from proposed development on that site. It is commonly used by real estate developers, lenders and investors to evaluate development financial feasibility and select among alternative uses for a piece of property. 4 Represents average per unit "gap to cost" across all units in the prototype, not just the affordable units. Assumes the developer provides units affordable at 60 percent of area median income for renters and at 70 percent of area median income for owners. This is the least costly way for the developer to provide the affordable credits required under Chapter 11 according to DRA's analysis. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -5 DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES The land residual methodology calculates the value of a development based on its income potential and subtracts the costs of development and developer profit to yield the underlying value of the land. When evaluating alternative land uses, the alternative that generates the highest value to a site is considered its highest and best use. An alternative that generates a negative value to the land is not financially feasible. Similarly, an alternative that generates a value to the land substantially below comparable market prices for similar parcels is likely not feasible, as landowners will likely be unwilling to sell their land at the prices developers can afford to pay. Tables 2 and 3 summarize the estimated residual land values for the three owner housing prototype projects and four renter projects, respectively, based on assumptions regarding market rents and sales prices and incorporating the development cost estimates described above. The land residual value was calculated with and without Chapter 11 affordability requirements, and with a 10 percent density bonus and affordable unit design modifications. Affordable rents and sales prices for the Chapter 11 requirements were estimated based on 2006 income limits and definitions of affordable housing expense used by the County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development. The residual land values for the various alternatives are compared against the estimated marketprices for the land for each prototype. If an alternative generates a value that is comparable to or higher than the market land acquisition price, it indicates that the alternative is financially feasible: If an alternative generates a land value that is substantially lower than the market price, it indicates that the alternative is not financially feasible. An important factor to bear in mind is that land values always fluctuate in response to a wide range of market factors, such as interest rates, construction costs, development impact fees, competitive supply of housing, cap rates, the rate of household formation, employment, wages, and other factors. In any given year, land values may fluctuate 10 percent or more absent any local government action. Therefore, if the net effect of a jurisdiction's zoning action, such as affordable housing requirements, falls within this range, or price elasticity, it may be received as non -disruptive to housing development cycles. Moreover, a jurisdiction can moderate, and in some cases eliminate, any negative effect on land value with development incentives and alternative compliance measures. The results of the land residual analysis indicate that the owner prototypesgenerate positive land values that are comparable to our higher than the estimated market land cost. This suggests that the owner prototypes are feasible, even with the Chapter 11 affordability requirements. For the renter prototypes, only the stacked flats (Prototype 91) generate a land residual that is comparable to estimated market land prices, and only with 100 percent market rate units. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -6 ® A DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Table 2 Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordable Housing Analysis 2006 1 Owner #1 Owner #2 Owner #3 t 5 Incentive package includes 10 percent density bonus, deferral of fair share assessments and modification of affordable unit design standards (reduced unit sizes and reduction in interior finish quality). Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -7 u Single -Family Scenario Vertical Detached Single -Family Duplex Bungalows Detached 100% Market Rate $54 $31 $15 Units With Chapter 11 $42 $22 $10 1 Requirement With Chapter 11 $47 $21 $7 Requirement and 10% Density Bonus With Chapter 11 $52 $27 $14 Requirement and Incentive Packages Estimated Market $20 $20 $7.50 Land Price Per Square Foot t 5 Incentive package includes 10 percent density bonus, deferral of fair share assessments and modification of affordable unit design standards (reduced unit sizes and reduction in interior finish quality). Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -7 u DAVID PAUL ROSEN & ASSOCIATES Table 3 Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area Renter Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordable Housing Analysis 2006 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 6 Incentive package includes 10 percent density bonus, deferral of fair share assessments and modification of affordable unit design standards (reduced unit sizes and reduction in interior finish quality). Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -8 Renter #1 Renter #2 Renter #3 Renter #4 Mixed -Use with Rental Rental Ground Floor Vertical Eightplex Flats Townhomes Retail Duplex 100% Market $5.68 ($10.05) ($72.67) ($13.92) Rate Units With Chapter 11 ($10.98) ($50.25) ($166.09) ($41.65) Requirement With Chapter 11 ($11.03) ($53.09) ($175.83) ($44.84) Requirement and 10% Density Bonus With Chapter 11 ($10.19) ($48.09) ($167.54) ($41.06) Requirement and Incentive Package6 Estimated Market $7.50 $12.40 $40.00 $8.00 Land Price Per Square Foot Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 6 Incentive package includes 10 percent density bonus, deferral of fair share assessments and modification of affordable unit design standards (reduced unit sizes and reduction in interior finish quality). Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Summary of Findings and Recommendations Page ES -8 1 A. Methodology and Data Sources 1 DRA bases its affordable housing and land residual economic analysis on how market housing is developed in the County today, and in the near future as contemplated by the CDP, and what the cost of developing, financing and operating that housing is in 2006. ' This market-based economic analysis assures policy makers and stakeholders alike that affordable housing policies, financing and development recommendations are grounded in real world economics. ' The methodology for the affordable housing economic analysis uses seven housing prototypes, four rental and three ownership, to estimate the costs to private developers of providing affordable units of various housing types as part of their market -rate housing developments. Chapter 11 provides a range of options for meeting the affordable housing requirements, representing alternative percentages of housing affordable to alternative income levels. rA "gap" analysis approach is used to measure the difference between what households of different income levels can afford to pay for renter and ownership housing and what it costs to produce such housing in the County of Hawai'i. This gap represents the "affordability cost" to the private developer of meeting the requirements of Chapter 11. With rental developments, the economic cost to developers of providing an affordable unit on-site is the affordability "gap to cost." The affordability "gap to cost" is the difference between the total development cost of the unit and the amount of mortgage that the net cash flow from an affordable unit can support.. Net cash flow is equal to rent revenues ' less operating expenses and any set -asides for operating and replacement reserves. This is the affordability "gap to cost." With ownership units, the true opportunity cost to the developer of providing an affordable unit on-site is the difference between the market price of the units and the amount of mortgage and downpayment that a targeted household can afford. This is the affordability "gap to price." For owners, we have calculated both the "gap to cost" and the "gap to price." We first estimated baseline development costs for the seven housing prototypes. These ' "baseline" costs assume the prototypes are built to County code. Second, we used these baseline development costs to determine the costs to the developer of complying with Chapter 11 under the various on-site development options provided by the statute. Development and land costs for the housing prototypes were estimated with the assistance of local developers and County and State housing and planning officials. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 1 B. Development Costs of Housing Prototypes DRA estimated the total development costs for the housing prototypes, including land; hard construction costs; "fair share" assessments for roads, parks, fire police and solid waste facilities; soft or indirect costs; water and sewer connection fees; sales/marketing costs; developer profit and overhead; and financing costs as described below. 1. Housing Prototypes Seven prototypical housing projects have been selected for the development cost analysis in consultation with County staff, developers and the consulting team for the Kona Community Development Plan. The prototypes include four rental projects and three ownership projects. The prototypes are intended to represent a range of typical market - rate housing products that are currently built in the County of Hawai'i or are being contemplated under proposals for the Kona CDP. DRA consulted with residential developers active in the County of Hawai'i to refine the prototypes for consistency with projects currently being developed or proposed in the County. The bedroom mix and unit size assumptions are intended to illustrate potential market -rate products. The prototypes are consistent with existing zoning. Renter Prototype #3 represents the housing portion only of a higher -density mixed-use development with ground floor retail. Based on a mixed-use concept for the urban core prepared by consulting team for the Kona CDP, parking for this prototype is provided off- site as part of a public parking structure, with spaces reserved for the residential uses in the evenings. DRA has not evaluated the market feasibility of this concept. The three owner housing prototypes are described in Table 4 with respect to number of housing units, product and construction characteristics, density, bedroom mix and unit size, and parking. Table 5 similarly describes the four renter housing prototypes. 2. Land Costs Based on interviews with local developers, we estimate land costs for entitled, but unimproved, vacant residential land at $30,000 per unit for multifamily rental housing and $75,000 for ownership housing. Infrastructure and utility costs are subsumed in the hard construction cost figures. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 2 1-1 1 1 1 1 l 1 0 0 1 C� Table 4 Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona CDP Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units Zoning RD RD RS FAR 3,750 SF/Lot 3,750 SF/Lot 10,000 SF/Lot Product Type Hillside Duplex Single -Family Det. Single -Family Det. 2 Stories 1 Story 1 Story Density (DU's/Acre) 11.6 11.6 4.4 Slope Steep Slope 0-5% 0-15% Net Site Area (Acres) 8.621 Acres 8.621 Acres 22.727 Acres Units by BR Count Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom 50 50 50 Four Bedroom 0 0 50 Unit Size (Net SF) Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1,200 900 0 Three Bedroom 1,500 1,200 1,450 Four Bedroom 0 0 1,750 Average 1,350 1,050 1,600 Building Square Feet Net Living Area 135,000 105,000 160,000 Type of Parking Carport Detached Garage Attached Garage 45,000 45,000 60,000 300 SF/Space 300 SF/Space 300 SF/Space No. of Parking Spaces Residential Units 150 150 200 Guest Parking 0 0 0 Total Spaces 150 150 200 ISource: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table 5 Rental Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex Total Unit Count 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units Zoning RM -4 RM -.75 RD FAR 4000 SF Lot 2420 SF Lot 750 SF Lot 3750 SF Lot Product Type 2 Story Apt. Flats 2 Story Apt. 3 Story Apt. Over 2 Story Duplex Eightplex Bldgs. Townhomes Ground Floor Retail on Hillside Density (DU's/Acre) 10.9 18.0 58.1 11.6 Slope 0-5% 0-5% 0_5% Steep Slope Land Area (Acres) 11.009 Acres 5.556 Acres 0.620 Acres 8.621 Acres Units by BR Count One Bedroom 54 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 54 80 36 50 Three Bedroom 12 20 0 50 Manager's (2 BR/2 BA) 0 0 0 0 Unit Size (Net SF) One Bedroom 625 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 835 1,150 875 1,200 Three Bedroom 945 1,250 0 1,500 Average 752 1,170 875 1,350 Building Square Feet Net Living Area 90,180 117,000 31,500 135,000 No. of Parking Spaces 210 175 45 200 Type of Parking Carport/Open Garage/Open Offsite/Open (1) Carport/Open (1) Assumes parking for this prototype is provided off-site in a shared parking garage with spaces reserved for residents at night. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates 1 1 1 1 1 n 3. Hard Construction Costs Hard construction costs were estimated for the seven housing prototypes based on interviews with developers active in the County. A list of developers contacted during the ' course of this study is contained in Appendix A. Infrastructure and site improvement costs are combined and shown as both a cost per unit and a cost per net square foot of building area, which is how they are commonly expressed by local developers. Unit construction costs include residential and parking area hard costs expressed per net square foot of residential building area, which is the most common way these costs were expressed by the developers interviewed. 4. Development Impact and Processing Fees Since the early 1990s, the County of Hawai'i has imposed "fair share assessments" on applicants for new residential (including agricultural zoning allowing lots one acre or less in size) and hotel zoning. The fees, which are imposed as a condition of zoning approval, are collected prior to securing final subdivision approval for new residential lots or prior to obtaining final plan approval for multi -family or hotel development. The fees, which are adjusted annually for inflation, currently total $9,761 per single-family unit for roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste facilities. ' Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 5 The County is currently considering replacing its fair share assessments with a true development impact fee system that follows the requirements for the State of Hawai'i's impact fee enabling act. Unlike the current assessments, impact fees would be assessed on all new development, including nonresidential development and residential development in areas with existing zoning. Other development impact fees, including sewer and water connection fees, are included in the infrastructure/site improvements budget line item. ' 5. Soft (indirect) Development Costs Soft or indirect costs were estimated based on DRA's experience with residential development nationwide and interviews with developers active in the County of Hawai'i. 1 Estimated soft costs include: • Architectural, engineering and design fees; • Legal and closing costs; ' • Taxes and insurance (during the construction period); • Interest during construction (land and construction loans); • Financing fees; • Marketing and leasing (for the rental prototypes); • Marketing and sales costs (for the owner prototypes) ' Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 5 Construction interest calculations assume loan to value ratios of 75 percent for the rental prototypes and 85 percent for the owner prototypes, based on DRA's experience and developer interviews. Actual loan to value ratios vary depending upon the developer, the project and the lender. 6. financing Costs Financing costs vary according to the amount of equity invested, the term of the loan, the annual interest, and, in the case of ownership projects, mortgage insurance rates. For purposes of this gap analysis, the amount of the first mortgage for the rental prototypes is assumed to be the amortized debt that may be supported by tenant net affordable rents. The balance of project financing is the affordability cost or gap. With all prototypes, we assume a conventional construction loan during construction. For the owner prototypes, the maximum supportable construction loan is calculated based on a loan -to -cost ratio of 85 percent and an average loan balance of 60 percent. Current construction loan interest rates are typically prime plus 25 basis points, or 8.5 percent today, with a 1.0 percent construction loan fee. The construction and sales period is assumed at 12 months for the owner prototypes. The construction loan for the rental prototypes is calculated based on a loan -to -cost ratio of 75 percent and an average loan balance of 60 percent. DRA has assumed an 8.5 percent construction interest and a 1.0 percent construction loan fee. The construction and lease -up period is assumed at 15 months for the renter prototypes. 7. Total Development Costs Total development costs, as defined for the purposes of this report, equal the sum of the above categories of development costs plus developer overhead and profit. Minimum developer profit is estimated at 12 percent of development costs, based on input from developers and DRA's experience nationwide. This level is considered a baseline profit or "hurdle rate," representing the minimum necessary for the deal to proceed. Developer overhead is estimated at 4 percent of total development costs. Developer overhead cost line items typically represent a larger percentage of costs on small projects than larger projects. A more accurate estimate of actual overhead costs would specify line items charged to "overhead" but not included in "developer fee." DRA considers a total of 16 percent for developer profit and overhead as conservative as a threshold minimum. In DRA's experience, developers have proceeded with half this amount of profit and overhead. DRA's approach to the affordable housing analysis is to model accurate market conditions, erring on the side of conservatism. Therefore, we have chosen to use a 16 percent developer profit and overhead assumption for the purposes of this analysis, which is consistent with the targets provided by the local developers we interviewed. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 6 J ri 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 6 summarizes the development cost and financing assumptions for the owner housing prototypes. Table 7 summarizes the development cost and financing assumptions for the ownership housing prototypes. Table 8 presents the estimated total development costs for the owner housing prototypes. Table 9 presents the estimated total development costs for the ownership housing prototypes. ' The total development costs for each prototype are translated into per unit development costs by bedroom count. These calculations are contained in Appendix B. P -j � I t Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 7 Table 6 Development and Financing Cost Assumptions Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Land Cost Per Unit Per Square Foot Site Area Development Cost Assumptions Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. Costs Per Unit Per Net SF Building Area Unit Construction Costs per Net SF Hard Cost Contingency (% of Unit Hard Costs) Architectural/Engineering (% of Unit Hard Construction Costs) Property Taxes During Construction (% of Unit Hard Costs) Insurance M TDC) Selling/Closing Costs M TDC) Sales Commissions (%TDC) Developer overhead/Sales Costs (% TDC) Developer Profit (%TDC Exclud. Land) Fees Fair Share Assessments (Per Unit) Sewer Connection Fees (Per Unit) Water Connection Fees (Per Unit) Construction Loan Construction Loan % of TDC Constr. Loan Amt. Interest Rate Loan Fees Average Loan Balance --Construction Construction Loan Term Construction Loan Interest Construction Loan Points Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached $75,000 $75,000 $75,000 $20.00 $20.00 $7.50 $80,000 $77,000 $117,000 $59.26 $73.33 $73.13 $130.00 $145.00 $145.00 5% 5% 5% 7% 3% 3% 4.05% 4.05% 4.05% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% $35,985,764 $31,656,048 $47,183,252 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months $1,835,274 $1,614,458 $2,406,346 $359,858 $316,560 $471,833 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 i Table 7 Development and Financing Cost Assumptions Rental Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Rental Rental Mixed -Use Vertical Eightplex Flats Townhomes GF/Retail Duplex Land Acquisition Cost Per Unit $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Land Cost Per 5F $7.51 $12.40 $39.99 $7.99 Development Cost Assumptions Infrastructure/Site Improve. Costs Per Unit $60,000 $75,000 $70,000 $75,000 Per Net SF Building Area $79.84 $64.10 $80.00 $55.56 Hard Construction Costs (Incl. GC Fee) Unit Construction Costs per Net SF $130.00 $130.00 $160.00 $130.00 Hard Cost Contingency (% Site Improvement and Unit Hard Costs) 5.000/0 5.00% 5.000/0 5.00% Architectural/Engineering (% Unit Hard Constriction Costs) 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% 7.00% Property Taxes During Construction (% Unit Hard Costs Per Year) 4.05% 405% 4.05% 4.05% Insurance During Construction (% TDC) 200% 2.00% 2.00% 200% Marketing/Leasing/Start-Up (Per Unit) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Developer Overhead (% TDC) 4.00% 4.00% 400% 4.00% Developer Profit (%TDC) 12.00% 1200% 12.00% 1200% Fees Fair Share Assessments (Per Unit) $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 Sewer Connection Fees (Per Unit) $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Water Connection Fees (Per Unit) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Construction Loan Construction Loan As a % of TDC 75.00% 75.00% 75.00% 7500% Construction Loan Amount $22,661,242 $26,629,806 $9,016,768 $29,316,455 Interest Rate 8.50% 850% 8.50% 8.50% Loan Fees 1.00% $226,612 $266,298 $90,168 $293,165 Average Loan Balance (Constr/Lease-Up) 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 6000% Construction Period 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months Lease -Up Period 3 Months 3 Months 3 Months 3 Months Total Construction Loan Term 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months Construction Loan Interest $1,444,654 $1,697,650 $574,819 $1,868,924 Permanent Loan Debt Coverage Ratio 1 25 1.25 1.25 1 25 Mortgage Term 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years Interest Rate 8.000/0 8.00% 8.00% 8.00% Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 8 Estimated Prototype Development Costs Owner Housing Prototypen Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Site Area (Acres) 8.621 8.621 22.727 No. of Units 100 100 100 Net Square Feet Living Area 135,000 105,000 160,000 INFRASTRUCTURE/SITE IMPROVE. $8,000,000 $7,700,000 $11,700,000 UNIT CONSTR. HARD COSTS/G.C. FEE $17,550,000 $15,225,000 $23,200,000 HARD COST CONTINGENCY $877,500 $761,250 $1,160,000 ARCH./ENGJCONSTR. SUPERVISION $1,228,500 $456,750 $696,000 FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENTS (1) $976,100 $976,100 $976,100 SEWER CONNECTION FEES $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 WATER CONNECTION FEES $500,000 $500,000 $500,000 CONSTRUCTION LOAN FEES $359,858 $316,560 $471,833 CONSTRUCTION INTEREST $1,835,274 $1,614,458 $2,406,346 ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 1 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 SOILS TESTING $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 PROPERTY TAXES $710,775 $616,613 $939,600 INSURANCE $846,724 $744,848 $1,110,194 SALES COMMISSIONS $423,362 $372,424 $555,097 SELLING/CLOSING COSTS $2,116,810 $1,862,120 $2,775,485 DEVELOPER OVERHEAD $1,693,448 $1,489,696 $2,220,388 DEVELOPER PROFIT $5,080,343 $4,469,089 $6,661,165 TOTAL DEVELOP. COST W/O LAND $42,336,193 $37,242,410 $55,509,708 PER UNIT $423,362 $372,424 $555,097 PER SF $313.60 $354.69 $346.94 LAND ACQUISITION COSTS 1 1 1 1 1 1 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 ' TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/ LAND $49,836,193 $44,742,410 $63,009,708 Cost Per Unit $498,362 $447,424 $630,097 (1) Includes fees for roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste facilities. Imposed as a condition of new residential zoning approval. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates J 1 1 rI L 1 1 Table 9 Estimated Prototype Development Costs Rental Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis LAND ACQUISITION $3,600,000 $3,000,000 $1,080,000 $3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/ LAND $33,814,990 $38,506,408 $13,102,357 $42,088,606 Cost Per Unit $281,792 $385,064 $363,954 $420,886 ' (1) Includes fees for roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste facilities. Imposed as a condition of new residential zoning approval. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates L� Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Rental Rental Mixed -Use Vertical EiRhtplex Flats Townhomes GF/Retail Duplex Acres 11.009 5.556 0.620 8.621 Number of Units 120 100 36 100 Net Square Feet Living Area 90,180 117,000 31,500 135,000 BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE $7,200,000 $7,500,000 $2,520,000 $7,500,000 UNIT HARD CONSTR. COSTS/GC FEES $11,723,400 $15,210,000 $5,040,000 $17,550,000 HARD COST CONTINGENCY $586,170 $760,500 $252,000 $877,500 ARCH /ENGJCONSTR. SUPERVISION $820,638 $1,064,700 $352,800 $1,228,500 FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENTS (1) $1,171,320 $976,100 $351,396 $976,100 SEWER CONNECTION FEES $600,000 $500,000 $180,000 $500,000 WATER CONNECTION FEES $120,000 $100,000 $36,000 $100,000 ALTA SURVEY $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 1 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 SOILS TESTING $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 CONSTRUCTION LOAN FEES $226,612 $266,298 $90,168 $293,165 CONSTRUCTION/LEASE-UP INTEREST $1,444,654 $1,697,650 $574,819 $1,868,924 PROPERTY INSURANCE $604,300 $710,128 $240,447 $781,772 PROPERTY TAXES DURING CONSTR. $593,497 $770,006 $255,150 $888,469 CONSTR. LOAN TITLE AND CLOSING $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 APPRAISAL FEES $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 LEGAL $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 MARKET STUDY/CONSULTING $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 MARKETING/LEASE-UP/START-UP $120,000 $100,000 $36,000 $100,000 DEVELOPER OVERHEAD $1,208,600 $1,420,256 $480,894 $1,563,544 DEVELOPER PROFIT $3,625,799 $4,260,769 $1,442,683 $4,690,633 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/O LAND $30,214,990 $35,506,408 $12,022,357 $39,088,606 TOTAL COST PER UNIT $251,792 $355,064 $333,954 $390,886 TOTAL COST PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT $33505 $303.47 $381 66 $289.55 LAND ACQUISITION $3,600,000 $3,000,000 $1,080,000 $3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/ LAND $33,814,990 $38,506,408 $13,102,357 $42,088,606 Cost Per Unit $281,792 $385,064 $363,954 $420,886 ' (1) Includes fees for roads, parks, fire, police and solid waste facilities. Imposed as a condition of new residential zoning approval. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates L� C. Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Requirements Under Chapter 11 requirements for residential units, the applicant must earn affordable housing credits equal to 20 percent of the number of units or lots (rounded to the nearest 0.5 unit). Developers may earn these credits by doing any of the following: • Constructing affordable for -sale units on-site or off-site within a 15 -mile radius of the project site; • Constructing affordable rental units on-site or off-site within a 15 -mile radius of the project site; • Constructing affordable finished lots on-site, if the project consists of finished lots; • Paying in -lieu fees to the Agency; • Providing infrastructure directly related to the future provision of affordable housing or developable land (with the value determined by an appraisal) within a 15 -mile radius of the project site to be credited against the in -lieu fee. • Obtaining excess credits from another developer. Developers may obtain credits by providing varying percentages of affordable units at alternative income levels. For renter units, credits may be obtained for units affordable to households earning up to 100% of area median income. For owner units, credits may be obtained for units affordable to households earning up to 140% of area median income. HUD reports a median family income of $55,300 for the County of Hawai'i for 2006. In establishing its income limits, HUD begins by calculating very low income limits as 50 percent of area median income. However, in high housing cost areas, the very low income limit is increased based on a formula incorporating Section 8 fair market rents for a two-bedroom unit. This adjusts income limits upward for areas where rental housing costs are unusually high in relation to the median income. This is what occurred in the County of Hawai'i in 2006. HUD's 2006 very low income limit in the County of Hawai'i for a family of four is $29,950. Table 10 shows the income limits for households earning between 60% and 140% of area median income for the County of Hawai'i in 2006, adjusted for household size using HUD family size adjustment factors. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 12 L7 11 1 C 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 10 Income Limits County of Hawaii 2006 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 13 Income Category (% of Median Income) Household Size 60% 80% 100% 120% 140% 1 Person $25,140 $33,550 $38,710 $46,450 $54,190 2 Persons $28,740 $38,300 $44,240 $53,090 $61,940 3 Persons $32,340 $43,100 $49,770 $59,720 $69,680 4 Persons $35,940 $47,900 $55,300 $66,360 $77,420 5 Persons $38,820 $51,750 $59,720 $71,670 $83,610 6 Persons $41,700 $55,550 $64,150 $76,980 $89,810 7 Persons $44,580 $59,400 $68,570 $82,290 $96,000 8 Persons $47,460 $63,250 $73,000 $87,600 $102,190 Source: County of Hawai'i Office of Housing and Community Development; David Paul Rosen & Associates Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 13 Table 11 summarizes the number of credits developers receive for the provision of affordable renter and owner units. Table 11 Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Credit System Construction of Completed Dwelling Units Renter and Owner Housing Income Level (% Area Median Income) Rental Units Owner Units Credit Per Unit % of Units Required' Credit Per Unit % of Units Required' Less than 60% AMI 2.0 10.00% 2.0 10.00% 60% to 80% AMI 1.5 13.33% 2.0 10.00% 80% to 100% AMI 1.0 20.00% 1.5 13.33% 100% to 120% AMI N/A N/A 1.0 20.00% 120% to 140% AMI N/A N/A 0.5 40.00% Source: Hawaii County Code, Chapter 11, Section 11-5. The text of Chapter 11 is attached as Appendix C. I Percent of total units in the development required to be affordable at the specified income level in order to ' achieve credits equal to 20% of total units as required under Chapter 11 based on the credit per unit by income level. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 ' David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 14 L 1-1 ' D. Estimated Costs of Chapter 11 Affordable Housing Requirements DRA estimated the cost to developers of the Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements described above using the seven housing prototypes. A "gap" analysis approach was used to measure the difference between what households at different income levels can afford to pay for renter and ownership housing and the costs of producing such housing in the County of Hawaii. This gap represents the "affordability gap" to the private developer of ' providing affordable units in compliance with Chapter 11 requirements. The gap analysis contains three main steps: 1. define affordability standards for the affordable units; ' 2. estimate housing development costs; 3. determine the "gap" between the costs household incomes can support and ' the total cost of developing the housing. In the analysis, the number of units required to meet the affordability requirement is rounded down to the nearest whole number of units. Therefore, the affordability gap is ' slightly understated or overstated in instances where direct application of the set-aside would result in a 0.5 fractional unit requirement. ' 1. Financing Scenario Affordable housing development is often financed with assistance from public sources of funding that assist in leveraging the mortgages that are supportable from affordable rents or sales prices. DRA modeled the rental and owner housing prototypes under financing scenarios that do not incorporate leverage from alternative sources of public subsidy for affordable housing. Because of the limited availability of affordable housing subsidies, it is not possible to predict the ability of any particular affordable housing development to secure such subsidies. This analysis determines the net cost of any of compliance, without public subsidies, incentives and alternative compliance options the County may offer. ' 2. Occupancy Standards ' Because income definitions for affordable housing assistance programs vary by household size, calculation of affordable sales prices and rents requires the definition of occupancy standards (the number of persons per unit) for each unit size. For the purposes of this analysis, affordable housing expense is calculated based on the occupancy standards used 1 by OHCD. For renter households, the standard is 1.5 persons per bedroom, consistent with the IRS standard used for the Low Income Housing Tax Credit Program. For owner households, the occupancy standard used is one person per bedroom plus one. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 15 3. Definition of Affordable Housing Expense Chapter 11 requires OHCD to publish annually affordable rents and affordable sales price for various household sizes using the Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawai'i guidelines. DRA has incorporated the definitions of affordable housing expense for renter and owners used by the State and OHCD in the economic analysis. For renters, affordable housing expense is defined by OHCD at 30 percent ofgross income, including rent plus utilities. Most state and federal affordability standards for renters are established at 30 percent. Affordable housing expense for owners is defined by OHCD, for the purposes of determining affordable housing sales price guidelines, at 28 percent of gross income for mortgage principal and interest. There is a much wider variation in the definition of affordable housing expense for owners nationwide. Where such a standard is not already established, DRA generally recommends that affordable housing cost be defined at 35 percent of gross income, including mortgage principal and interest, loan insurance (PMI), property taxes, fire and casualty insurance, and homeowner association fees, with no allowance made for utilities. The County calculates affordable home price at the midpoint of the income range. Otherwise, the home is affordable only to a household at the top of the income range. Table 12 shows affordable monthly housing expense for renters for one-, two- and three- bedroom units. Table 13 shows affordable monthly housing expense for owners for two-, three- and four-bedroom units based on the definitions described above. Percent of Area Median Income 60% 80% 100% Table 12 Renter Affordable Monthly Housing Expense t Kona Affordable Housing Study 2006 One Bedroom $673 $898 $1,036 Two Bedroom $808 $1,078 $1,244 Three Bedroom $934 $1,245 $1,437 Source: County of Hawai'i Office of Housing and Community Development; David Paul Rosen & Associates. I Renter affordable housing expense defined at 30% of gross income for rent plus utilities; assumes occupancy of 1.5 persons per bedroom per OHCD guidelines. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 16 1 1 Table 13 Owner Affordable Monthly Housing Expense, Kona Affordable Housing Study 2006 Income Limit 2 M of Area Median) Two Bedroom Three Bedroom Four Bedroom 80% $880 $978 $1,057 100% $1,132 $1,258 $1,359 120% $1,277 $1,419 $1,533 140% $1,510 $1,677 $1,812 ' Source: County of Hawai'i Office of Housing and Community Development; David Paul Rosen & Associates. ' 4. Utility Allowances ' As noted above in the definition of affordable housing expense, allowable affordable net rents are calculated by subtracting allowances for the utilities paid directly by the tenants from the gross rent (or affordable housing expense). ' For purposes of the gap analysis, we incorporated January 2006 utility allowances provided by OHCD, summarized in Table 14 below. The rental gap analysis assumes that ' the resident pays utilities for gas cooking and water heating and for basic electricity, assuming the landlord pays for trash, water and sewer. Actual utility allowances depend upon a variety of factors, including the utilities that are ' paid by the residents (e.g. water, gas, electricity, sewer, trash), the type of appliances and t Based on 2006 median income of $55,300 for the County of Hawai'i. For income levels below 100% AMI, HUD adjusts income limits upwards based on a formula incorporating Section 8 fair market rents because the County of Hawai'i is a high housing cost area. 2 Affordable housing expense is calculated at 70%, 90%, 110% and 130% of area median income, respectively, adjusted for household size of 1 person per bedroom plus one. Assumes 28% of gross income for mortgage principal and interest. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 17 heating units incorporated in the units, and whether appliances and heating units require electricity or gas. Table 14 Current HUD -Approved Monthly Utility Allowances County of Hawaii January, 2006 Bedroom Size Utility Allowance' 1 Bedroom $51 2 Bedroom $91 3 Bedroom $143 Source: County of Hawai'i, Office of Housing and Community Development, effective January, 2006. I For renters, includes gas heating, cooking, water heating and basic electricity. Assumes landlord pays trash, water and sewer. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 18 C 1-7 L ' S. Prototype Affordability Gaps Under Chapter 11 a. Owner Housing Prototypes Table 15 presents the calculation of affordable sales price guidelines under Chapter 11 based on the definitions and assumptions described above. For owners, affordable sales ' prices are determined by adding the mortgage supportable from affordable housing expense at a 6% fixed interest rate, 30 -year mortgage plus a 5percent downpayment, based on the guidelines for 2006 used by OHCD. Affordable sales prices range from a ' low of $176,600 for a two-bedroom unit at 80% of area median income to a high of $342,500 for a four-bedroom unit at 140% of area median income. ' Table 19 shows the estimated affordability "gap to price" of complying with the affordable housing requirements under Chapter 11 for the owner housing prototypes. This analysis indicates that providing units at 80% of area median income is the least costly way for developers to comply with the Chapter 11 requirements on owner units based on the current credit system using the gap to price methodology as well. ' Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Fina! Report Page 19 Table 16 shows the estimated per unit affordability "gap to cost" for the owner prototypes ' at income levels ranging from 80% of area median income to 140% of area mean income. For owners, the gap to cost is calculated by subtracting the affordable sales price by unit bedroom count and income level from per unit total development costs. Table 17 shows the estimated affordability "gap to cost" of complying with the affordable housing requirements under Chapter 11 for the owner housing prototypes. We use the per unit gap to cost for each prototype, unit bedroom count and income level and apply the ' number of affordable units necessary to meet the 20% credit requirement under Chapter 11. We assume a pro -rata distribution of affordable units by bedroom count compared to the market -rate units. This analysis indicates that providing units at 80% of area median income is the least costly way for developers to comply with the Chapter 11 requirements on owner units based on the current credit system. Table 18 shows the estimated per unit "gap to price" for the owner prototypes, calculated ' by deducting the affordable sales price by unit bedroom count and income level from the total development cost of the unit. ' Table 19 shows the estimated affordability "gap to price" of complying with the affordable housing requirements under Chapter 11 for the owner housing prototypes. This analysis indicates that providing units at 80% of area median income is the least costly way for developers to comply with the Chapter 11 requirements on owner units based on the current credit system using the gap to price methodology as well. ' Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Fina! Report Page 19 Table IS Chapter 11 Affordable Sales Price Guidelines (1) Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis 2006 ASSUMPTIONS 2006 HUD Median Income, County of Hawaii $55,300 Affordable Housing Cost As a % of Income 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Affordable Housing Cost As a % of Income for Mortgage Payment 28% No. of Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Household Size, Health and Safety Code 2 Persons 3 Persons 4 Persons 5 Persons Household Size Income Adjust. Factor 800/0 90% 100% 108% Mortgage Interest Rate 6.000/6 26% Term (Years) 30 $978 AFFORDABLE HOUSING PAYMENT (PITO (2) (1) Affordable sales prices are rounded to match County guidelines for 2006. (2) Chapter 11 allows developers to provide housing affordable to households with incomes at 800/6, 100%, 120% and 1400/6 of area median household income. The County defines affordability at 70%, 900/6, 110% and 130% AMI. (3) Income limits at 80% of area median income and below are adjusted upwards by HUD from a straight percentage of area median income because Hawaii is considered a high-cost area. Source: County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development, David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom 70% AMI (3) Annual Gross income $33,540 $37,730 $41,930 $45,290 Affordable Monthly Mortgage Payment 26% $783 $880 $978 $1,057 Supportable Mortgage $130,598 $146,777 $163,122 $176,299 Afford. Sales Price w/ Downpmt ® 5.00% $137,400 $154,600 $171,800 $185,500 0°/9 0 AMI Annual Gross Income $43,120 $48,519 $53,910 $58,223 Affordable Monthly Mortgage Payment 28% $1,006 $1,132 $1,258 $1,359 Supportable Mortgage $167,792 $188,808 $209,824 $226,670 Afford. Sales Price w/ Downpmt, ® 5.00% $176,600 $198,700 $220,800 $236,500 110% AMI Annual Gross Income $48,664 $54,747 $60,830 $65,696 Affordable Monthly Mortgage Payment 28% $1,135 $1,277 $1,419 $1,533 Supportable Mortgage $189,308 $212,993 $236,677 $255,692 Afford. Sales Price w/ Downpmt ® 5000/9 $199,300 $224,300 $249,200 $269,100 1300/6 AMI Annual Gross Income $57,512 $64,701 $71,890 $77,641 Affordable Monthly Mortgage Payment 28% $1,342 $1,510 $1,677 $1,812 Supportable Mortgage $223,834 $251,855 $279,710 $302,226 Afford. Sates Price w/ Downpmt. ® 5.000/0 $235,600 $265,100 $294,500 $318,100 (1) Affordable sales prices are rounded to match County guidelines for 2006. (2) Chapter 11 allows developers to provide housing affordable to households with incomes at 800/6, 100%, 120% and 1400/6 of area median household income. The County defines affordability at 70%, 900/6, 110% and 130% AMI. (3) Income limits at 80% of area median income and below are adjusted upwards by HUD from a straight percentage of area median income because Hawaii is considered a high-cost area. Source: County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development, David Paul Rosen & Associates. rI Table 16 Affordability "Gap to Cost" Per Affordable Unit ' Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis J 1 J 1 1 Prototype Total Units Owner 1 Vertical Duplex 100 Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows 100 Owner 3 Single Family Detached 100 Per Unit Development Cost Two Bedroom $475,148 $421,531 N/A Three Bedroom $521,576 $473,317 $604,204 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $655,990 Per Unit Affordable Home Price 70% of Median Two Bedroom $137,400 $137,400 $137,400 Three Bedroom $154,600 $154,600 $154,600 Four Bedroom $171,800 $171,800 $171,800 90% of Median Two Bedroom $176,600 $176,600 $176,600 Three Bedroom $198,700 $198,700 $198,700 Four Bedroom $220,800 $220,800 $220,800 110% of Median Two Bedroom $199,300 $199,300 $199,300 Three Bedroom $224,300 $224,300 $224,300 Four Bedroom $249,200 $249,200 $249,200 130% of Median Two Bedroom $235,600 $235,600 $235,600 Three Bedroom $265,100 $265,100 $265,100 Four Bedroom $294,500 $294,500 $294,500 Affordability "Gap to Cost" Per Unit 70% of Median Two Bedroom $337,748 $284,131 N/A Three Bedroom $366,976 $318,717 $449,604 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $484,190 Weighted Average $352,362 $301,424 $466,897 90% of Median Two Bedroom $298,548 $244,931 N/A Three Bedroom $322,876 $274,617 $405,504 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $435,190 Weighted Average $310,712 $259,774 $420,347 110% of Median Two Bedroom $275,848 $222,231 N/A Three Bedroom $297,276 $249,017 $379,904 Four Bedroom WA N/A $406,790 Weighted Average $286,562 $235,624 $393,347 130% of Median Two Bedroom $239,548 $185,931 N/A Three Bedroom $256,476 $208,217 $339,104 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $361,490 Weighted Average $248,012 $197,074 $350,297 Source. David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table 17 Affordability "Gap to Cost" Under Chapter 11 By Income Level Owner Housing Prototypes (1) Chapter 11 requires affordable housing credits equal to 20% of the number of units or lots; the number of credits per affordable unit equals 2.0 for units at 80% AMI; 1 5 for units at 100% AMI; 1.0 for units at 120% AMI and 0.5 for units at 140% AMI for owner housing. (2) Represents the average gap per unit across all units In the prototype, not just the affordable units. Source. David Paul Rosen & Associates. C r: 1 L' i 1 u 0 n Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Prototype: Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Total Units: 100 100 100 Total Units by Bedroom Count Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom SO 50 50 Four Bedroom 0 0 So Affordable Units by BR Count & Income (1) % Affordable Units 70% of Median 10.0% 10 10 10 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 90% of Median 13.3% 14 14 14 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 7 7 0 Three Bedroom 7 7 7 Four Bedroom 0 0 7 110% of Median 20.0% 20 20 20 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 10 10 0 Three Bedroom 10 10 10 Four Bedroom 0 0 10 130% of Median 40.0% 40 40 40 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 20 20 0 Three Bedroom 20 - 20 20 Four Bedroom 0 0 20 Total Affordability Gap By Income Level 7096 of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $1,688,740 $1,420,655 N/A Three Bedroom $1,834,880 $1,593,585 $2,248,020 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $2,420,950 Total $3,523,620 $3,014,240 $4,668,970 90% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $2,089,836 $1,714,517 N/A Three Bedroom $2,260,132 $1,922,319 $2,838,528 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $3,046,330 Total $4,349,968 $3,636,836 $5,884,858 110% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $2,758,480 $2,222,310 N/A Three Bedroom $2,972,760 $2,490,170 $3,799,040 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $4,067,900 Total $5,731,240 $4,712,480 $7,866,940 130% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $4,790,960 $3,718,620 N/A Three Bedroom - $5,129,520 $4,164,340 $6,782,080 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $7,229,800 Total $9,920,480 $7,882,960 $14,011,880 Total Per Unit Affordability Gap (2) 70% of Median $35,236 $30,142 $46,690 90% of Median $43,500 $36,368 $58,849 110% of Median $57,312 $47,125 $78,669 130%ofMedian $99,205 $78,830 $140,119 (1) Chapter 11 requires affordable housing credits equal to 20% of the number of units or lots; the number of credits per affordable unit equals 2.0 for units at 80% AMI; 1 5 for units at 100% AMI; 1.0 for units at 120% AMI and 0.5 for units at 140% AMI for owner housing. (2) Represents the average gap per unit across all units In the prototype, not just the affordable units. Source. David Paul Rosen & Associates. C r: 1 L' i 1 u 0 n 1 1 r 0 1 1 J r: Table 18 Per Unit Affordability "Gap to Price" Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Prototype Total Units Owner 1 Vertical Duplex 100 Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows 100 Owner 3 Single Family Detached 100 Per Unit Market Price Two Bedroom $564,000 $423,000 N/A Three Bedroom $690,000 $552,000 $667,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $744,000 Per Unit Affordable Home Price 70% of Median Two Bedroom $137,400 $137,400 $137,400 Three Bedroom $154,600 $154,600 $154,600 Four Bedroom $171,800 $171,800 $171,800 906/6 of Median Two Bedroom $198,700 $198,700 $198,700 Three Bedroom $220,800 $220,800 $220,800 Four Bedroom $238,500 $238,500 $238,500 110% of Median Two Bedroom $224,300 $224,300 $224,300 Three Bedroom $249,200 $249,200 $249,200 Four Bedroom $269,100 $269,100 $269,100 130% of Median Two Bedroom $235,600 $235,600 $235,600 Three Bedroom $265,100 $265,100 $265,100 Four Bedroom $294,500 $294,500 $294,500 Affordability "Gap to Price" Per Unit 70% of Median Two Bedroom $426,600 $285,600 N/A Three Bedroom $535,400 $397,400 $512,400 Four Bedroom N/A WA $572,200 Weighted Average $481,000 $341,500 $542,300 906% of Median Two Bedroom $365,300 $224,300 N/A Three Bedroom $469,200 $331,200 $446,200 Four Bedroom WA WA $505,500 Weighted Average $417,250 $277,750 $475,850 110% of Median Two Bedroom $339,700 $198,700 N/A Three Bedroom $440,800 $302,800 $417,800 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $474,900 Weighted Average $390,250 $250,750 $446,350 1300/6 of Median Two Bedroom $328,400 $187,400 N/A Three Bedroom $424,900 $286,900 $401,900 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $449,500 Weighted Average $376,650 $237,150 $425,700 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table 19 Affordability "Gap to Price" Under Chapter 11 By income level Owner Housing Prototypes (1) Chapter 11 requires affordable housing credits equal to 20°% of the number of units or lots; the number of credits per affordable unit equals 2.0 for units at 80% AMI; 1.5 for units at 1001/6 AMI; 1.0 for units at 120% AMI and 0.5 for units at 140% AMI. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Prototype: Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Total Units: 100 100 100 Total Units by Bedroom Count Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom 50 50 50 Four Bedroom 0 0 50 Affordable Units by BR Count & Income (1) % Affordable Units 70% of Median 10.0% 10 10 10 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 90% of Median 13.3% 14 14 14 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 7 7 0 Three Bedroom 7 7 7 Four Bedroom 0 0 7 110% of Median 20.0% 20 20 20 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 10 10 0 Three Bedroom 10 10 10 Four Bedroom 0 0 10 130% of Median 40.0% 40 40 40 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 20 20 0 Three Bedroom 20 20 20 Four Bedroom 0 0 20 Total Affordability Gap By Income Level 70% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $2,133,000 $1,428,000 N/A Three Bedroom $2,677,000 $1,987,000 $2,562,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $2,861,000 Total $4,810,000 $3,415,000 $5,423,000 90% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $2,557,100 $1,570,100 N/A Three Bedroom $3,284,400 $2,318,400 $3,123,400 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $3,538,500 Total $5,841,500 $3,888,500 $6,661,900 110% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $3,397,000 $1,987,000 N/A Three Bedroom $4,408,000 $3,028,000 $4,178,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $4,749,000 Total $7,805,000 $5,015,000 $8,927,000 130°% of Median Two Bedroom/2 Bath $6,568,000 $3,748,000 N/A Three Bedroom $8,498,000 $5,738,000 $8,038,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $8,990,000 Total $15,066,000 $9,486,000 $17,028,000 Total Per Unit Affordability Gap 70% of Median $48,100 $34,150 $54,230 90% of Median $58,415 $38,885 $66,619 110"% of Median $78,050 $50,150 $89,270 130% of Median 1 $150,660 $94,860 1 $170,280 (1) Chapter 11 requires affordable housing credits equal to 20°% of the number of units or lots; the number of credits per affordable unit equals 2.0 for units at 80% AMI; 1.5 for units at 1001/6 AMI; 1.0 for units at 120% AMI and 0.5 for units at 140% AMI. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 0 n 11 s t 1 r b. Renter Housing Prototypes Table 20 summarizes the affordable net rent calculations for the renter housing prototypes using the assumptions described above. Utility allowances are deducted from affordable gross rents to yield affordable net rents. Affordable monthly net rents range from $546 for a one -bedroom unit affordable at 60% of area median income to $1,235 for a three- bedroom unit at 100% of area median income. Table 21 shows the estimated per unit affordability "gap to cost" for the renter prototypes by unit bedroom count and income level The gap is calculated by subtracting total development costs for the affordable units from the supportable mortgage for these units. Affordable rents are based on the income limits and affordable housing expense less current HUD utility allowances from OHCD, as described above. Net operating income from the affordable units is calculated assuming general annual operating costs of $3,600 per unit for the rental prototypes, excluding property taxes. These operating costs are consistent with the developer interviews. DRA calculated annual property taxes at the current 8.01 percent residential tax rate for the County of Hawai'i, with properties assessed at their market value, assumed to equal development costs for this analysis. A vacancy allowance of five percent is deducted from rental income to compensate for the landlord's potential loss of rental income when units become unoccupied, particularly when tenants move before a new tenant is found. The per unit affordable mortgage is calculated from net operating income based on a debt coverage ratio of 1.25, 30 -year term, and mortgage interest rate of 8.0 percent. Table 22 shows the estimated affordability "gap to cost" of complying with the affordable housing requirements under Chapter 11 for the renter housing prototypes. We use the per unit gap to cost for each prototype, unit bedroom count and income level and apply the number of affordable units necessary to meet the 20% credit requirement under Chapter 11. We assume a pro -rata distribution of affordable units by bedroom count compared to the market -rate units. This analysis indicates that providing units at 60% of area median income is the least costly way for developers to comply with the Chapter 11 requirements on rental units based on the current credit system. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 25 Table 20 Rent, Utility Allowance and Affordable Rent Assumptions Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Assumptions 2006 HUD Median Income, County of Hawaii, Family of Four $55,300 2006 HUD Income Limit, 50% AMI, Family of Four $29,950 Affordable Housing Cost As a % of Income 30% No. of Bedrooms 1 Bedroom 2 Bedroom 3 Bedroom 4 Bedroom Household Size 1.5 Persons 3 Persons 4.5 Persons 6 Persons Household Size Income Adjust. Factor 75% 90% 104% 116% Renter Utility Allowance (1) $127 $175 $202 $233 Affordable Rents by Income Level 60% of Median Annual Gross Income $26,955 $32,346 $37,378 $41,690 Affordable Monthly Housing Cost $673 $808 $934 $1,042 Less: Monthly Utility Allowance ($127) ($175) ($202) ($233) Affordable Monthly Rent $546 $633 $732 $809 80% of Median Annual Gross Income $35,940 $43,128 $49,837 $55,587 Affordable Monthly Housing Cost $898 $1,078 $1,245 $1,389 Less: Monthly Utility Allowance ($127) ($175) ($202) ($233) Affordable Monthly Rent $771 $903 $1,043 $1,156 100% of Median Annual Gross Income $41,475 $49,770 $57,512 $64,148 Affordable Monthly Housing Cost $1,036 $1,244 $1,437 $1,603 Less: Monthly Utility Allowance ($127) ($175) ($202) ($233) Affordable Monthly Rent $909 $1,069 $1,235 $1,370 (1) County of Hawaii utility allowances for gas cooking and water heating, and other electric. Source: Office of Housing and Community Development, County of Hawaii; David Paul Rosen & Associates r 1 0 1 1 Table 21 Affordability Gap Per Affordable Unit Rental Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Prototype Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Ttnvnhomes Renter 3 M'=Use GF/ReW.1 Renter 4 vertical Duplex Per Unit Development Cost One Bedroom 3262,214 WA WA N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $294,714 $381,969 $363,954 $397,672 Three Bedroom $311,736 $397,445 WA $444,100 Affordable Monthly Rent By Income 60% of Median One Bedroom $546 $546 $546 $546 Two Bedroom2 Bath $633 $633 $633 $631 Three Bedroom $732 $712 $732 $732 80% of Median One Bedroom $771 $771 $771 $771 two Bedroom2 Bath $90.1 $903 $903 $903 Three Bedroom $1,043 $1,043 $1,043 $1,043 100% of Median One Bedroom $909 $909 $909 $909 Two Bedroom/2 Bath $1,069 $1,069 $1,069 $1,069 Three Bedroom $1,235 31,235 $1,235 $1,235 Monthly Vacancy/Operating Costs/Unit (1) (2) One Bedroom $477 WA WA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $499 $558 $546 $568 Three Bedroom $510 $560 WA $600 Monthly Net Operating Income/Unit (3) WA of Median One Bedroom $42 WA WA N/A Two BedroonV2 Bath $102 $44 $56 $33 Three Bedroom SIBS $127 WA $96 80% of Median One Bedroom $255 WA WA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $359 $300 $312 $209 three Bedroom $480 $423 WA $422 100% of Median One Bedroom $367 N/A WA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $517 $458 $470 $447 Three Bedroom $663 $605 WA $573 Supportable Mortgage/Unit i 60% of Median One Bedroom $4,579 WA WA WA Two Oedroom2Balh $11,121 $4,797 $6,106 $3,598 Three Bedroom $20,170 $13,046 WA $10,467 80% of Median One Bedroom $27,802 WA WA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $39,141 $32,700 $34,016 $31,509 Three Bedroom $52,333 $46,118 WA $46,009 100°/6 of Median One Bedroom $42,193 WA WA WA Two BedroonV2 Bath $56,367 $49,934 $51,243 $48,735 Three Bedroom $72,285 $65,961 N/A $62,472 Affordability Gap/Unit 60% of Median One Bedroom $257,635 WA WA WA Two BedrooM2Bath $283,593 $377,172 $357,848 $394,074 Three Bedroom $291,568 $383,599 N/A $433,633 80% of Median One Bedroom $234,412 WA NIA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $255,573 $349,261 $329,938 $366,163 Three Bedroom $259,405 $351,327 WA $398,091 1W%of Median One Bedroom $220,021 N/A N/A WA Two BedrorxN2Bath $238,347 5332,035 $312,711 $348,937 Three Bedroom $239,453 1 $331,484 WA $335,200 (1) Monthly operatingcosts/unit 5300 (2) Monthly property laxerdunit 00675% of development Lost Based on 2006 annual tax rale of SO 10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to marker value, assumed to equal development ct (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by income category less vacancy at 5 00% less operating costs. Source, Hawaii County Code, hlawali County Real Property Tax Office, developer interviews, David Paul Rnsen 6 Associates Table 22 Affordability "Gap to Cost' Under Chapter 11 By Income Level Renter Housing Prototypes (1) Chapter 11 requires affordable housing credits equal to 200/6 of the number of units or lots; the number of credits per affordable unit equals 2,0 for units at 60% AMI; 1.5 for units at 80% AMI; 1.0 for units at 100% AMI and for renter housing. (2) Represents the average gap per unit across all units in the prototype, not just the affordable units. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 1 H 'I f 1 1 '1 Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Rental Rental Mixed -Use Vertical Prototype: Eightplex Flats Townhomes GF/Retail Duplex Total Units; 120 100 36 100 Total Units by Bedroom Count One Bedroom 54 0 0 0 Three Bedroom 54 80 36 50 Three Bedroom 12 20 0 50 Affordable Units by BR Count & Income (1) % Affordable Units 60% of Median 10.0% 12 10 4 10 One Bedroom 5 0 0 0 Three Bedroom 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 80% of Median 13.3% 16 14 5 14 One Bedroom 7 0 0 0 Three Bedroom 7 11 5 7 Three Bedroom 2 3 0 7 100% of Median 20.0% 24 20 7 20 One Bedroom 11 0 0 0 Three Bedroom 11 16 7 10 Three Bedroom 2 4 0 10 Total Affordability Gap By Income Level 60% of Median One Bedroom $1,288,174 $0 $0 $0 Three Bedroom $1,417,966 $2,268,746 $1,134,373 $1,417,966 Three Bedroom $583,136 $583,136 $0 $1,457,840 Total $3,289,277 $2,851,882 $1,134,373 $2,875,807 80°0 oiM ian One Bedroom $1,640,885 N/A N/A N/A Three Bedroom $1,789,014 $3,841,871 $1,649,688 $2,563,143 Three Bedroom $518,810 $1,053,980 N/A $2,786,635 Total $3,948,709 $4,895,851 $1,649,688 $5,349,778 100% of Median One Bedroom $2,420,231 N/A N/A N/A Three Bedroom $2,621,817 $5,312,560 $2,188,977 $3,489,370 Three Bedroom $478,906 $1,325,936 N/A $3,352,000 Total $5,520,954 $6,638,496 $2,188,977 $6,841,370 Total Per Unit Affordability Gap (2) 60% of Median $27,411 $28,519 $31,510 $28,758 80% of Median $32,906 $48,959 $45,825 $53,498 100% of Median $46,008 $66,385 $60,805 $68,414 (1) Chapter 11 requires affordable housing credits equal to 200/6 of the number of units or lots; the number of credits per affordable unit equals 2,0 for units at 60% AMI; 1.5 for units at 80% AMI; 1.0 for units at 100% AMI and for renter housing. (2) Represents the average gap per unit across all units in the prototype, not just the affordable units. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 1 H 'I f 1 1 '1 n 1 6. In Lieu Fees Chapter 11 also provides for the payment of in lieu fees. The in lieu fee for a completed for -sale unit is 25% of the actual sales price of the unit minus the affordableprice for households earning 120% of area median income. For rental units that are not offered for rent, the in lieu fee is 25% of the median sales price for a single-family home in the tax map zone containing the project in the previous calendar year, minus the affordable price for households earning 120% of the area median income. Table 23 calculates the per unit owner in lieu fee, based on estimated market sales prices for the owner prototype units. Table 24 calculates the per unit renter in lieu fee, based on the median sales prices for homes on the Island of Hawai'i in June, 2006 from Hawaii Information Service. Based on the formula in Chapter 11, measured across all units in the project, the in lieu fee per market rate unit exceeds the estimated affordability gap per unit to produce the required affordable rental or owner units. We support the County's policy, which provides an incentive for developers to provide the unit onsite rather than pay the fee. Otherwise, when developers opt to pay the fee, the County will find itself short of the capital necessary to assist in financing the production of affordable units through its selected affordable housing developer partners. J Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 29 Table 23 Chapter 11 In Lieu Fee Calculation (1) Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Cap Analysis Prototype - Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Total Units 100 100 100 Market Sales Price Two Bedroom $564,000 $423,000 NIA Three Bedroom $690,000 $552,000 $667,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $744,000 Affordable Sales Price ®120% of Median (2) Two Bedroom/2 Bath $217,500 $217,500 $217,500 Three Bedroom $244,700 $244,700 $244,700 Four Bedroom $271,900 $271,900 $271,900 Difference Between Median and Affordable Price Two Bedroom/2 Bath $346,500 $205,500 N/A Three Bedroom $445,300 $307,300 $422,300 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $472,100 In -Lieu Fee Per Unit ® 25% of Difference Two Bedroom/2 Bath $86,625 $51,375 N/A Three Bedroom $111,325 $76,825 $105,575 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $118,025 (1) Chapter 11 specifies that the in lieu fee for a completed for -sale housing unit equals 25% of the actual sales price for the unit minus the affordable price for households earning 120% of the median. (2) From County of Hawai'i Office of Housing and Community Development. Prices assume a 6% interest rate for 2006, per County guidelines. Based on a household size of 2 persons for a one -bedroom unit, 3 person for a two-bedroom unit; 4 person for three-bedroom unit and 5 persons for a four-bedroom unit. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates i 1 L� Table 24 In lieu Fee Calculation Per Chapter 11 (1) Rental Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Prototype Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex Total Units 120 100 36 100 Median Sales Price (2) $444,500 $444,500 $444,500 $444,500 Affordable Sales Price 0 120% of Median (3) One Bedroom $217,500 $217,500 $217,500 $217,500 Two Bedroom $244,700 $244,700 $244,700 $244,700 Three Bedroom $271,900 $271,900 $271,900 $271,900 Difference Between Median and Affordable Price One Bedroom $227,000 $227,000 $227,000 $227,000 Two Bedroom $199,800 $199,800 $199,800 $199,800 Three Bedroom $172,600 $172,600 $172,600 $172,600 In -Lieu Fee Per Unit 9 25% of Difference One Bedroom $56,750 $56,750 $56,750 $56,750 Two Bedroom $49,950 $49,950 $49,950 $49,950 Three Bedroom $43,150 $43,150 $43,150 $43,150 (1) Chapter 11 specifies that the in lieu fee for a rental unit equals 25% of the median sales price for a single-family home in the tax map zone containing the project in the previous calendar year, minus the affordable price for households earning 120% of the median. (2) Median sales prices for homes on the Island of Hawaii in June, 2006 from Hawaii Information Service. (3) From County of Hawaii Office of Housing and Community Development, Assumes 6% interest rate. Assumes family of 2 for a one -bedroom; family of 3 for a two-bedroom, family of 4 for three-bedroom and family of 5 for a four-bedroom ISource. David Paul Rosen & Associates 1 1 t E. Economic Impact of Chapter 11 Requirements The section assesses the potential economic impact of Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements on residential development in the County of Hawai'i. 1. Land Residual Analysis Methodology DRA used a land residual analysis methodology to model the potential economic impact of Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements on residential development in Kona and the County of Hawai'i. Land residual analysis calculates the value attributed to land from proposed development on that site. It is commonly used by real estate developers, lenders and investors to evaluate development financial feasibility and select among alternative uses for a piece of property. The land residual methodology calculates the value of a development based on its income potential and subtracts the costs of development and developer profit to yield the underlying value of the land. When evaluating alternative land uses, the alternative that generates the highest value to a site is considered its highest and best use. An alternative that generates a negative value to the land that is negative is not financially feasible. Similarly, an alternative that generates a value to the land substantially below comparable market prices for similar parcels is likely not feasible, as landowners will likely be unwilling to sell their land at the prices developers can afford to pay. For the rental prototypes, DRA calculated net operating income from each prototype based on estimated market and affordable rents. Net operating income is capitalized at an assumed capitalization rate of 5.0 percent) The capitalization rate is the ratio of net operating income to project fair market value, or sales price, exhibited in the market and reflects the rate of return required by investors in rental property. Total development costs are then subtracted from the capitalized value to yield the estimated residual land value. For the owner prototypes, DRA estimated gross sales revenues based on review of market sales data and development interviews and subtracted total development costs (which include selling costs, sales commissions, developer overhead and profit), to derive the residual value to the land. DRA applied a land residual analysis to each of the seven renter and owner prototypes using assumed market rents and sales prices for the units. The residual land value was calculated assuming all market -rate units to determine the basic financial feasibility of the prototypegiven the economic assumptions employed. The land residual analysis was then calculated again incorporating the Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements to evaluate the effect of these requirements on land values. 1 Based on estimated Hawai'i multifamily capitalization rate of 4.5% to 5.5% from Colliers Monroe Friedlander, "Investment Market Report," 2006. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 32 I] 1 11 1 1 �I 2. Assumptions a. Rents and Operating Costs Rent assumptions for the rental prototypes were developed from rental listings by bedroom/bathroom count for the Kailua-Kona area. We have assumed the market rents summarized in Table 25. Table 25 Estimated Market Rents for Rental Prototypes County of Hawaii 2006 Bedroom Size 1 Bedroom/1 Bath 2 Bedroom/2 Bath 3 Bedroom/2 Bath Rent $1,400 $1,600 to $1,700 $1,700 to $1,800 As in the gap analysis, we have assumed annual operating costs based on developer interviews of $3,600 per unit, property taxes at 8.01 %, and vacancy rates of 3 percent for the affordable units and 5 percent for the market -rate units. b. Market Home Sales Prices Market sales prices for the owner prototypes were estimated based review of sales data for homes and condominium units sold in the North Kona area in 2006 from Hawai'i Information Service. Sales price assumptions used in the economic analysis are shown in Table 26. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 33 Table 26 Estimated Market Home Sales Prices Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordable Housing Study 2006 Bedroom/Bath Count Owner #1 Vertical Duplex Owner #2 Single -Family Detached Bun alow Owner #3 Single -Family Detached 2 BR/2 BA $564,000 $423,000 N/A 3 BR $690,000 $552,000 $667,000 4 BR N/A N/A $744,000 Source: Review of sales data and prices per square foot; Hawaii Information System; David Paul Rosen & Associates. 3. Findings: Indicated Residual land Values DRA first calculated residual land values for the rental and owner housing prototypes assuming all market -rate units. The findings of the land residual analysis of 100% market - rate development are summarized in Table 27 for the owner prototypes and in Table 28 for the renter prototypes. DRA then re -calculated the residual land values assuming on-site compliance with Chapter 11 affordable housing requirements. We assumed the developers complied with Chapter 11 by providing owner units at 80% of area median income and renter units at 60% of area median income. The affordability gap analysis determined that this was the lowest -cost alternative for developers to meet the Chapter 11 requirements. The findings of the land residual analysis incorporating the Chapter 11 affordability requirements are summarized in Table 29 for the owner prototypes and in Table 30 for the renter prototypes. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 34 1 1 1 LE Table 27 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Land Residual Analysis Owner Housing Prototypes 100% Market Sales Prices Prototype: Total Units: Owner 1 Vertical Duplex 100 Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows 100 Owner 3 Single Family Detached 100 Site Area (Acres) 8.621 8.621 22.727 Units by Bedroom Count Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom 50 50 50 Four Bedroom 0 0 50 Unit Square Footages Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1200 900 0 Three Bedroom 1500 1200 1450 Four Bedroom 0 0 1750 Per SF Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $470 $470 N/A Three Bedroom $460 $460 $460 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $425 Per Unit Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $564,000 $423,000 N/A Three Bedroom $690,000 $552,000 $667,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $744,000 Total Market Sales Income One Bedroom N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $28,200,000 $21,150,000 N/A Three Bedroom $34,500,000 $27,600,000 $33,350,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $37,200,000 Total Gross Sales Income $62,700,000 $48,750,000 $70,550,000 Commissions/Sales Costs if $0 $0 $0 Net Sales Proceeds $62,700,000 $48,750,000 $70,550,000 Total Direct Cost (1) $42,336,193 $37,242,410 $55,509,708 Residual Land Value $20,363,807 $11,507,590 $15,040,292 Land Value Per Unit $203,638 $115,076 $150,403 Land Value Per Square Foot $54.23 $30.64 $15.19 ' (1) Includes sales commissions and selling/closing costs, excludes land. Source: Interviews with developers active in the County of Hawai'i; Hawaii Information Service; David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table 28 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Land Residual Analysis, 100% Market Rate Housing Rental Prototypes (1) Monthly operating costs/unit: $300 (2) Monthly property taxes/unit: 0.0675% of development cost. Based on 2006 annual property tax rate of $8.10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value, assumed to equal development cost. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by income category less 5.00% vacancy rates less operating costs. Source: Hawaii County Code; Hawai'i County Real Property Tax Office; developer interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates I 1 Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Vertical Prototype Ei ht lex flats Townhomes Mixed -Use Duplex Units by Bedroom Count Total 120 100 36 100 One Bedroom 54 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 54 80 36 50 Three Bedroom 12 20 0 50 Site Area (Acres) 11.009 5.556 0.620 8.621 Per Unit Monthly Market Rent Monthly Rent Per Square Foot One Bedroom $2.56 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $2.16 $1.74 $2.06 $1.67 Three Bedroom $2.01 $1.76 N/A $1.47 Monthly Rent Per Unit One Bedroom $1,600 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $1,800 $2,000 $1,800 $2,000 Three Bedroom $1,900 $2,200 N/A $2,200 Monthly Operating Costs/Unit (1) (2) One Bedroom $477 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $499 $558 $546 $568 Three Bedroom $510 $568 N/A $600 Monthly Net Operating Income/Unit (3) One Bedroom $1,043 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $1,211 $1,342 $1,164 $1,332 Three Bedroom $1,295 $1,522 N/A $1,490 Tota) Annual Net Operating Income One Bedroom $675,868 NIA N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $784,772 $1,288,484 $502,991 $798,943 Three Bedroom $186,419 $365,214 N/A $894,140 Total Annual Net Operating Income $1,647,059 $1,653,698 $502,991 $1,693,082 Capitalized Value 5.00% $32,941,175 $33,073,960 $10,059,820 $33,861,647 Total Direct Cost (Except Land) $30,214,990 $35,506,408 $12,022,357 $39,088,606 Indicated Land Value $2,726,185 ($2,432,448) ($1,962,537) ($5,226,960) Indicated Land Value Per Unit $22,718 ($24,324) ($54,515) ($52,270) Indicated Land Value Per Square Foot $5.68 ($10.05) ($72.67) ($13.92) (1) Monthly operating costs/unit: $300 (2) Monthly property taxes/unit: 0.0675% of development cost. Based on 2006 annual property tax rate of $8.10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value, assumed to equal development cost. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by income category less 5.00% vacancy rates less operating costs. Source: Hawaii County Code; Hawai'i County Real Property Tax Office; developer interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates I 1 Table 29 Kona Affordability Cap Analysis Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements Owner Housing Prototypes I 1 II I Prototype: Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Site Area (Acres) 8.621 8.621 22.727 Total Units Before Density Bonus 100 100 100 Total Unist With Density Bonus 110 110 110 Total Units by Bedroom Count Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom 50 50 50 Four Bedroom 0 0 50 Affordable Units By Bedroom Count 70% AMI 10.0% Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 Unit Square Footages One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1200 900 0 Three Bedroom 1500 1200 1450 Four Bedroom 0 0 1750 Per SF Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $470 $470 N/A Three Bedroom $460 $460 $460 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $425 Per Unit Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $564,000 $423,000 N/A Three Bedroom $690,000 $552,000 $667,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $744,000 Sales Income: Market Units Two Bedroom/2 Bath $25,380,000 $19,035,000 N/A Three Bedroom $31,050,000 $24,840,000 $30,015,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $33,480,000 Subtotal Sales Income: Market Units $56,430,000 $43,875,000 $63,495,000 Sales Income: Affordable Units Two Bedroom/2 Bath $773,000 $773,000 $0 Three Bedroom $859,000 $859,000 $859,000 Four Bedroom $0 $0 $927,500 Subtotal Sales Income: Afford. Units $1,632,000 $1,632,000 $1,786,500 Total Sales income $58,062,000 $45,507,000 $65,281,500 Total Direct Cost (1) $42,336,193 $37,242,410 $55,509,708 Residual Land Value $15,725,807 $8,264,590 $9,771,792 Land Value Per Unit $157,258 $82,646 $97,718 Land Value Per Square Foot $41.88 $22.01 $9.87 (1) Includes sales commissions and selling/closing costs, excludes land. Source: Interviews with developers active in the County of Hawa)'i; Hawaii Information Service; 1 David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table 30 Kona Affordability Cap Analysis Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements Rental Prototypes (1) Monthly operating costs/unit, $300 (2) Monthly property taxes/unIt. 0.0675% of development cost. Based on 2006 annual property tax rate of $8.10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by income category less 500% vacancy rates less operating costs. Source: Hawaii County Code, Hawaii County Real Property Tax Office, developer Interviews, David Paul Rosen & Associates I 1 Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Vertical Prototype Flats Townhomes Mixed -Use Ou lex Site Area (Acres) -Elyfitplex 11.009 5.556 0.620 8 621 Total Units by Bedroom Count 120 100 36 100 One Bedroom 54 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 54 80 36 50 Three Bedroom 12 20 0 So Affordable Units by Bedroom Count 60%ofMedian 10.0% 12 10 4 10 One Bedroom 5 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 Per Unit Monthly Market Rent Monthly Rent Per Unit One Bedroom $1,400 WA N/A WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $1,600 $1,700 $1,600 $1,700 Three Bedroom $1,700 $1,800 N/A $1,800 Monthly Operating Costs/Unit (1) (2) One Bedroom $477 WA WA WA Two Bedroom2 Bath $499 $558 $546 $568 Three Bedroom $510 $568 WA $600 Monthly Net Operating Income/Unit (3) One Bedroom $853 WA N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $1,021 $1,057 $974 $1,047 Three Bedroom $1,105 $1,142 N/A $1,110 Annual Net Operating Income Market Rate Units One Bedroom $501,567 N/A N/A WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $600,388 $913,396 $374,143 $565,149 Three Bedroom $132,S49 $246,613 N/A $599,526 Total NOI: Market -Rate Units $1,234,504 $t,160,008 $374,143 $1,164,674 Affordable Units One Bedroom $2,520 N/A WA N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $6,120 $4,224 $2,688 $1,980 Three Bedroom $4,440 $3,048 WA $5,760 Total NOt: Affordable Units 513,080 $7,272 $2,688 $7,740 Total Annual Net Operating Income $1,247,584 $1,167,280 $376,831 $1,172,414 Capitalized Value ® 5.00% $24,951,690 $23,345,604 $7,536,622 $23,448,282 Total Direct Cost (Except Land) $30,214,990 $35,506,408 $12,022,357 $39,088,606 Indicated land Value ($5,263,300) ($12,160,804) ($4,485,734) ($15,640,324) Indicated Land Value Per Unit ($43,861) ($121,608) ($124,604) ($156,403) Indicated Land Value Per Square Foot ($10.98) ($5025) ($166.09) ($41.65) (1) Monthly operating costs/unit, $300 (2) Monthly property taxes/unIt. 0.0675% of development cost. Based on 2006 annual property tax rate of $8.10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by income category less 500% vacancy rates less operating costs. Source: Hawaii County Code, Hawaii County Real Property Tax Office, developer Interviews, David Paul Rosen & Associates I 1 ' The estimated development cost savings that could be achieved through the 10% density bonus for the housing prototypes were estimated by subtracting the estimated development cost for the projects with the density bonus from the costs for the baseline prototype, Tables 31 and 32 describe the owner and renter housing prototypes, respectively, with the 10% density bonus. Tables 33 and 34 summarize the development cost and financing cost assumptions for the owner and renter housing prototypes, respectively, with the 10% density bonus. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 39 F. Estimated Value of Potential Economic Incentives DRA estimated the potential value of economic incentives that may be offered to offset the costs of complying with affordable housing requirements. The potential cost savings from the following incentives is calculated for the seven housing prototypes, as appropriate: • Density bonus; ' Reduction in parking requirements; • Reduction in residential street widths; • Fee deferrals; • Reduction in processing time; • Affordable unit comparability standards. For each incentive, cost savings have been measured as a total dollar amount, per building square foot and per dwelling unit for each prototype. Per square foot and per unit measures are calculated across all of the dwelling units in the project (not just the affordable units). ' We also recalculate the land residual analysis, incorporating the cost savings from the above incentives, to evaluate the economic impact of the incentives on the housing prototypes. ' 1. Density Bonus Under Chapter 11, any project that fulfills its affordable housing requirement by ' constructing affordable dwelling units for sale or rent is entitled to a density bonus increasing the total number of residential units that may be constructed on the site by 10% and decreasing the minimum lot size by 10%, compared to the allowable number of units ' and minimum lot size established by the zoning code. By spreading the costs of land acquisition over a larger number of units, the density bonus can reduce per unit total development costs of the residential units. ' The estimated development cost savings that could be achieved through the 10% density bonus for the housing prototypes were estimated by subtracting the estimated development cost for the projects with the density bonus from the costs for the baseline prototype, Tables 31 and 32 describe the owner and renter housing prototypes, respectively, with the 10% density bonus. Tables 33 and 34 summarize the development cost and financing cost assumptions for the owner and renter housing prototypes, respectively, with the 10% density bonus. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 39 Table 31 Owner Housing Prototype Projects With 10% Density Bonus Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Density Bonus Percent: 10% 10% 10% Total Unit Count Original 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units With Density Bonus 110 Units 110 Units 110 Units Product Type Original Hillside Duplex Single -Family Det. Single -Family Det. 2 Stories 1 Story 1 Story With Density Bonus Hillside Duplex Single -Family Det. Single -Family Det. 2 Stories 1 Story 1 Story Construction Type Original Type V Type V Type V With Density Bonus Type V Type V Type V Density (DU's/Acre) Originals 11.6 11.6 4.4 With Density Bonus 12.8 12.8 4.8 Land Area (Acres) 8.621 Acres 8.621 Acres 22.727 Acres BR Count w/ Dens. Bon. Lofts 0 0 0 One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 55 55 0 Three Bedroom 55 55 55 Four Bedroom 0 0 55 Unit Size (Net SF) One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1,200 900 0 Three Bedroom 1,500 1,200 1,450 Four Bedroom 0 0 1,750 Ave. (Exclud. Mgr's) 1,350 1,050 1,600 Total Net Bldg. Sq. Feet Original 135,000 105,000 160,000 With Density Bonus 148,500 115,500 176,000 Type of Parking Carport Detached Garage Attached Garage No. of Parking Spaces Original 150 150 200 With Density Bonus 165 165 220 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 1 1 Table 32 Rental Housing Prototype Projects With 10% Density Bonus Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex Density Bonus Percent: 10% 10% 10% 10% Total Unit Count Original 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units With Density Bonus 132 Units 110 Units 40 Units 110 Units Density (DU's/Acre) Original 10.9 18.0 58.1 11.6 With Density Bonus 12.0 19.8 64.5 12.8 Land Area (Acres) 11.009 Acres 5.556 Acres 0.620 Acres 8.621 Acres BR Count w/ Dens. Bon. One Bedroom 59 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 59 88 40 55 Three Bedroom 14 22 0 55 Unit Size (Net SF) One Bedroom 625 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 835 1,150 875 1,200 Three Bedroom 945 1,250 0 1,500 Average 752 1,170 875 1,360 Total Net Bldg. Sq. Feet Original 90,180 117,000 31,500 136,000 With Density Bonus 99,370 128,700 35,000 149,500 No. of Parking Spaces Original 210 175 45 200 With Density Bonus 231 193 50 220 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 33 Development and Financing Cost Assumptions Owner Housing Prototypes with Density Bonus Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Development Cost Assumptions Infrastructure/Site Improve. Costs (Cost Per Unit) Hard Construction Costs Unit Construction Costs per Net SF Total Hard Constr. Cost per Net SF Hard Cost Contingency (% of Site Improvement and Unit Hard Costs) Architectural/Engineering (% of Unit Hard Construction Costs) Property Taxes During Construction (% of Unit Hard Costs) Insurance (% TDC) Selling/Closing Costs (%TDC) Sales Commissions M TDC) Developer Overhead/General Conditions (%TDC) Developer Profit (%TDC Exclud. Land) Fees Fair Share'Assessments (Per Unit) Sewer Connection Fees (Per Unit) Water Connection Fees (Per Unit) Construction Loan Construction Loan % of TDC Constr. Loan Amt. Interest Rate Loan Fees Average Loan Balance --Construction Development Period Total Construction Loan Term Construction Loan Interest Construction Loan Points Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached $80,000 $77,000 $117,000 $130.00 $145.00 $145.00 $130.00 $145.00 $145.00 5% 5% 5% 7% 3% 3% 4.05% 4.05% 4.05% 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 85.00% 85.00% 85.00% $39,555,833 $34,793,146 $51,873,070 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 1.00% 1.00% 1.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.000/6 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months $2,017,347 $1,774,450 $2,645,527 $395,558 $347,931 $518,731 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 i 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 34 Development and Financing Cost Assumptions Rental Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Rental Rental Mixed•Use Vertical Eightplex Flats Townhomes GF/Retail Duplex Development Cost Assumptions Infrastructure/Site Improve. Costs Per Unit $60,000 $75,000 $70,000 $75,000 Hard Construction Costs (Incl. GC Fee) Unit Construction Costs per Net SF $13000 $130.00 $160.00 $130.00 Hard Cost Contingency (% Site Improvement and Unit Hard Costs) 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% 5.00% Architectural/Engineering (% Unit Hard Construction Costs) 7.00% 700% 700% 7.00% Property Taxes During Construction (% Unit Hard Costs) 4.05% 4.05% 4.05% 4.05% Insurance During Construction (%TDC) 2.009/6 2.00% 2.00% 2.00% Marketing/Leasing/Start-Up (Per Unit) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Developer Overhead (%TDC) 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% 4.00% Developer Profit (%TDC) 12.00% 12.00% 12.00% 1200% Fees Fair Share Assessments (Per Unit) $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 Sewer Connection Fees (Per Unit) $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Water Connection Fees (Per Unit) $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Construction Loan Construction Loan As a % of TDC 7500% 75.00% 75.00% 75.00% Construction Loan Amount $24,764,606 $29,079,316 $9,915,482 $32,155,697 interest Rate 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% Loan Fees 1.00% $247,646 $290,793 $99,155 $321,557 Average Loan Balance (Constr/Lease-Up) 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% 60.00% Construction Period 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months Lease -Up Period 3 Months 3 Months 3 Months 3 Months Total Construction Loan Term 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months Construction Loan Interest $1,578,744 $1,853,806 $632,112 $2,049,926 Permanent Loan Debt Coverage Ratio 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Mortgage Term 30 years 30 years 30 years 30 years Interest Rate 8.00% 800% 8.00% 600% Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 35 Estimated Prototype Development Costs with 10% Density Bonus Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Site Area (Acres) 8.621 8.621 22.727 No. of Units 110 110 110 Net Square Feet Living Area 148,500 115,500 176,000 INFRASTRUCTURUSITE IMPROVE. $8,800,000 $8,470,000 $12,870,000 UNIT CONSTR. HARD COSTS/G.C. FEE $19,305,000 $16,747,500 $25,520,000 HARD COST CONTINGENCY $965,250 $837,375 $1,276,000 ARCH./ENG.ICONSTR. SUPERVISION $1,351,350 $502,425 $765,600 FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENTS (1) $1,073,710 $1,073,710 $1,073,710 SEWER CONNECTION FEES $110,000 $110,000 $110,000 WATER CONNECTION FEES $550,000 $550,000 $550,000 CONSTRUCTION LOAN FEES $395,558 $347,931 $518,731 CONSTRUCTION INTEREST $2,017,347 $1,774,450 $2,645,527 ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 1 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 SOILSTESTING $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 PROPERTY TAXES $781,853 $678,274 $1,033,560 INSURANCE $930,725 $818,662 $1,220,543 SALES COMMISSIONS $465,363 $409,331 $610,271 SELLING/CLOSING COSTS $2,326,814 $2,046,656 $3,051,357 DEVELOPER OVERHEAD $1,861,451 $1,637,325 $2,441,086 DEVELOPER PROFIT $5,584,353 $4,911,974 $7,323,257 TOTAL DEVELOP. COST W/O LAND $46,536,274 $40,933,113 $61,027,141 PER UNIT $423,057 $372,119 $554,792 PER SF $313.38 $354.40 $346.75 LAND ACQUISITION COSTS $7,500,000 $7,500,000 $7,500,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/ LAND $54,036,274 $48,433,113 $68,527,141 COST PER UNIT WITH DENSITY BONUS $491,239 $440,301 $622,974 COST PER UNIT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS $498,362 $447,424 $630,097 COSTS SAVINGS FROM DENSITY BONUS $7,123 $7,123 $7,123 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates 1 1 r F 1 1 1 1 11 Table 36 Estimated Prototype Development Costs Rental Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Rental Rental Mixed -Use Vertical EiQhtolex Flats Townhomes GF/Retail Duplex Acres 11.009 5.556 0 620 8.621 Number of Units with Density Bonus 132 110 40 110 Net Square Feet Living Area 99,370 128,700 35,000 149,500 BACKBONE INFRASTRUCTURE $7,920,000 $8,250,000 $2,800,000 $8,250,000 UNIT HARD CONSTR. COSTS/GC FEES $12,918,100 $16,731,000 $5,600,000 $19,435,000 HARD COST CONTINGENCY $645,905 $836,550 $280,000 $971,750 ARCH /ENGJCONSTR. SUPERVISION $904,267 $1,171,170 $392,000 $1,360,450 FAIR SHARE ASSESSMENTS (1) $1,288,452 $1,073,710 $390,440 $1,073,710 SEWER CONNECTION FEES $660,000 $550,000 $200,000 $550,000 WATER CONNECTION FEES $132,000 $110,000 $40,000 $110,000 ALTA SURVEY $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 ENVIRONMENTAL PHASE 1 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 $7,500 SOILSTESTING $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 CONSTRUCTION LOAN FEES $226,612 $266,298 $90,168 $293,165 CONSTRUCTION/LEASE-UP INTEREST $1,444,654 $1,697,650 $574,819 $1,868,924 PROPERTY INSURANCE $660,389 $775,448 $264,413 $857,485 PROPERTY TAXES DURING CONSTR. $653,979 $847,007 $283,500 $983,897 CONSTR. LOAN TITLE AND CLOSING $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 APPRAISAL FEES $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 LEGAL $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 MARKET STUDY/CONSULTING $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 MARKETING/LEASE-UP/START-UP $132,000 $110,000 $40,000 $110,000 DEVELOPER OVERHEAD $1,320,779 $1,550,897 $528,826 $1,714,971 DEVELOPER PROFIT $3,962,337 $4,652,690 $1,586,477 $5,144,912 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/O LAND $33,019,475 $38,772,421 $13,220,642 $42,874,263 TOTAL COST PER UNIT $250,148 $352,477 $330,516 $389,766 TOTAL COST PER GROSS SQUARE FOOT $332.29 $301.26 $377.73 $286.78 LAND ACQUISITION $3,600,000 $3,000,000 $1,080,000 $3,000,000 TOTAL PROJECT COSTS W/ LAND $36,619,475 $41,772,421 $14,300,642 $45,874,263 COST PER UNIT WITH DENSITY BONUS $277,420 $379,749 $357,516 $417,039 COST PER UNIT WITHOUT DENSITY BONUS $281,792 $385,064 $363,954 $420,886 COSTS SAVINGS FROM DENSITY BONUS $4,371 $5,315 $6,438 $3,847 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 37 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements and 10% Density Bonus Owner Housing Prototypes Prototype: Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Site Area (Acres) 8.621 8.621 22.727 Total Units Before Density Bonus 100 100 100 Total Unist With Density Bonus 110 110 110 Total Units by Bedroom Count Two Bedroom/2 Bath 55 55 0 Three Bedroom 55 55 55 Four Bedroom 0 0 55 Affordable Units By Bedroom Count 80% AMI Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 Unit Square Footages One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1200 900 0 Three Bedroom 1500 1200 1450 Four Bedroom 0 0 1750 Per SF Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $480 $470 N/A Three Bedroom $470 $460 $460 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $400 Per Unit Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $576,000 $423,000 N/A Three Bedroom $705,000 $552,000 $667,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $700,000 Sales Income: Market Units Two Bedroom/2 Bath $28,800,000 $21,150,000 N/A Three Bedroom $35,250,000 $27,600,000 $33,350,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $35,000,000 Subtotal Sates Income: Market Units $64,050,000 $48,750,000 $68,350,000 Sales Income: Affordable Units Two Bedroom/2 Bath $773,000 $773,000 $0 Three Bedroom $859,000 $859,000 $859,000 Four Bedroom $0 $0 $927,500, Subtotal Sales Income: Afford. Units $1,632,000 $1,632,000 $1,786,500 Total Sales Income $65,682,000 $50,382,000 $70,136,500 Tota) Direct Cost (1) $46,536,274 $40,933,113 $61,027,141 Residual Land Value $17,513,726 $7,816,887 $7,322,859 Land Value Per Unit $175,137 $78,169 $73,229 Land Value Per Square Foot $46.64 $20.82 $7.40 (1) Includes sales commissions and selling/closing costs, excludes land. Source: Interviews with developers active in the County of HawaN; Hawaii Information Service; 1� ' Table 38 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements and 10% Density Bonus Rental Prototypes 1 C n r J ' (1) Monthly operating costs/unit. $300 (2) Monthly property taxes/unit: 0.0675% of development cost. Based on current annual property tax rate of $810 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by Income category less 5.00% vacancy rates less operating costs 1 Source: Hawaii County Code; Hawar'i County Real Property Tax Office; developer interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates Renter / Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Vertical Prototype Ei ht lex Flats Townhomes Mixed -Use Du lex Site Area (Acres) 11 009 5 556 0 620 8.621 Total Units Before DIfilifty Bonus 120 100 36 100 Total Units with 10% Density Bonus 132 110 40 110 One Bedroom 59 0 0 0 Two Bedroom2 Bath 59 88 40 55 Three Bedroom 14 22 0 55 Affordable Units by Bedroom Count 60% of Median 10.0% 12 10 4 10 One Bedroom 5 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Both 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 Per Unit Monthly Market Rent Monthly Rent Per Unit One Bedroom $1,400 N/A N/A N/A TwoBedroom/2 Bath $1,600 $1,700 $1,600 $1,700 Three Bedroom $1,700 (1,000 N/A 51,800 Monthly Operating Costs/Unit (1) (2) One Bedroom $477 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $499 $558 $546 $568 Three Bedroom $510 $568 N/A $600 Monthly Net Operating Income/Unit (3) One Bedroom $853 N/A N/A N/A TwoBedfoom2 Bath $1,021 $1,057 $974 $1,047 Three Bedroom $1,105 $1,142 N/A $1,110 Annual Net Operating Income Market Rate Units One Bedroom $552,748 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $661,652 $1,014,884 $420,911 $627,943 Three Bedroom $159,059 $274,014 N/A $666,140 Total NOir Market -Rate Units 51,373,459 $1,288,898 $420,911 $1,294,082 Affordable Units One Bedroom $2,520 N/A N/A N/A Two Bedroom/2 Bath $6,120 $4,224 $2,688 $1,980 Three Bedroom $4,440 $3,048 N/A $5,760 Total NOit Affordable Units $13,080 57,272 $2,688 $7,740 Total Annual Net Operating Income $1,386,539 $1,296,170 $423,599 $1,301,822 Capitalized value ® 5.00% $27,730,775 $25,923,400 $8,471,980 $26,036,447 Total Direct Cost (Except Land) $33,019,475 $38,772,421 $13,220,642 $42,874,263 Indicated Land Value ($5,288,700) ($12,849,021) ($4,748,662) ($16,837,816) indicated Land Value Per Unit ($40,066) ($116,809) ($118,717) ($153,071) Indicated Land Value Per Square Foot ($11.03) ($5309) ($17S83) ($4484) ' (1) Monthly operating costs/unit. $300 (2) Monthly property taxes/unit: 0.0675% of development cost. Based on current annual property tax rate of $810 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by Income category less 5.00% vacancy rates less operating costs 1 Source: Hawaii County Code; Hawar'i County Real Property Tax Office; developer interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 39 Estimated Cost Savings from Reduced Parking Requirements Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units Units by BR Count One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom 50 50 50 Four Bedroom 0 0 50 Existing Parking Requirements (Spaces Per Unit) One Bedroom 2 2 2 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 2 2 2 Three Bedroom 2 2 2 Four Bedroom 2 2 2 Reduced Parking Requirements (Spaces Per Unit) One Bedroom 1 1 1 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1 1 1 Three Bedroom 2 2 2 Four Bedroom 2 2 2 Parking Savings (Total Spaces) 50 50 0 One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 50 50 0 Three Bedroom 0 0 0 Four Bedroom 0 0 0 Parking Type Carport Detached Garage Attached Garage Construction Cost Per Space $1,000 $10,000 $8,000 Total Constr. Cost Savings $50,000 $500,000 $0 Savings Per Unit $500 $5,000 $0 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 7 1 1 [% 1 Table 40 Estimated Cost Savings from Reduced Parking Requirements Rental Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex Total Unit Count 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units Units by BR Count One Bedroom 54 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/1 Bath 0 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 54 80 36 50 Three Bedroom 12 20 0 50 Existing Parking Requirements (Spaces Per Unit) Lofts 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 One Bedroom 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Two Bedroom/1 Bath 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Three Bedroom 1.25 1.25 1.25 1.25 Reduced Parking Requirements (Spaces Per Unit) Lofts 1 1 1 1 One Bedroom 1 1 1 1 Two Bedroom/1 Bath 1 1 1 1 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 1 1 1 1 Three Bedroom 1 1 1 1 Parking Savings (Total Spaces) 31 25 0 26 One Bedroom 14 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/1 Bath 0 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 14 20 0 13 Three Bedroom 3 5 0 13 Parking Type Open Garage Open Open Construction Cost Per Space $1,000 $5,000 $1,000 $1,000 Land Area Saved Per Space (SF) 320 320 320 320 Land Cost Per SF $7.51 $12.40 $39.99 $7.99 Construction Cost Savings $31,000 $125,000 $0 $26,000 Land Cost Savings $74,469 $99,166 $0 $66,466 Total Cost Savings $105,469 $224,166 $0 $92,466 Savings Per Unit $879 $2,242 $0 $925 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 41 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Reduced Street Width Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units Assumed Street Width Reduction (Linear Feet) 10 10 Street Width Reduction Per Lot (Linear Feet) 5 5 Assumed Average Lot Width (Linear Feet) 60 60 Total Savings in Paved Area (Square Feet) 30,000 30,000 Street Paving Cost Per Square Foot $3.25 $3.25 Total Cost Savings $97,500 $97,500 Savings Per Unit $975 $975 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 ' Tables 35 and 36 estimate the total development costs for the owner and renter housing prototypes, respectively, with the 10% density bonus, and shows the per unit cost savings from the bonus. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 40 e Tables 37 and 38 present the land residual analysis of the prototypes with the 10% density bonus for the owner and renter housing prototypes, respectively. ' 2. Reduction in Parking Requirements DRA prepared estimates of the cost savings that could be achieved in three areas of zoning code items thought to influence the cost of housing development. The ' development cost requires owner housing to provide 2 parking spaces per unit and renter housing to provide 1.25 parking spaces per unit. For the owner prototypes, we estimated the cost savings from reducing the required number of parking spaces from two spaces per ' unit to one space per unit on the one- and two-bedroom units only. For the renter prototypes, we estimated the cost savings from reducing the required number of parking spaces from 1.25 spaces per unit to 1 space per unit for all unit sizes. It should be noted that, due to marketing considerations, developers might not want to incorporate parking reductions. In fact, the rental housing prototypes are modeled with a greater number of parking spaces than required based on interviews with local developers as to the parking ratios they use in developing rental housing. For the single-family detached prototypes, parking reductions may not provide an economic advantage, unless they permit a reduction of lot size and increase in density. ' Tables 39 and 40 show the estimated cost savings from reduced parking requirements for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. 3. Reduction in Residential Street Widths DRA estimated the cost savings from reducing residential street widths by 10 feet for Owner Prototype #4, single-family detached homes on 10,000 square foot lots. Estimated cost savings for this prototype are presented in Table 41. ' 4. Development Fee Deferrals Tables 42 and 43 present the estimated cost savings for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively, from the deferral of fair share assessments from the time of building permit to ' certificate of occupancy based on the reduction in interest carry over the construction period. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 40 e 5. Affordable Unit Comparability Standards One way to reduce the costs of providing affordable units is to allow certain differences between the affordable units and market -rate units, keeping the outside design of the units indistinguishable. The estimated cost savings achieved through allowing differences between the affordable and market -rate units include the following items: Reduction in the size of affordable units to minimum unit sizes. The square footage of affordable units is assumed to be reduced from market unit sizes to minimums of 540 square feet for a one -bedroom; 750 square feet for a two-bedroom; 1,000 square feet for a three-bedroom; and 1,100 square feet for a four-bedroom. Tables 44 and 45 show estimated cost savings from reduction in affordable unit sizes for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. Reduction of the number of bathrooms in the affordable units. The number of bathrooms is assumed to be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two-bedroom/two-bath and three-bedroom units. Tables 46 and 47 display the estimated cost savings for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively,. Reduction in the quality of interior finishes in the affordable units. DRA has modeled a $10 per square foot reduction in development costs in the affordable units due to an assumed lower grade of interior finishes. This assumption is based on the estimated cost difference in (modest) owner and renter finishes provided through developer interviews. Tables 48 and 49 estimate the cost savings for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. Alternative product types for the affordable units. Substituting higher density product types can reduce the cost of providing affordable units, especially for low-density market rate product types. DRA has modeled the potential cost savings from providing either vertical duplex units (Prototype #1) or single-family detached bungalows (Prototype #2) instead of the affordable units required for the single-family detached homes on 10,000 square foot lots (Prototype #3). Table 50 estimates the cost savings. 6. Summary of Cost Savings and Economic Impact of Incentives Tables 51 and 52 summarize the cost savings from offsets and incentives, including the 10% density bonus, for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. Tables 53 and 54 recalculate the land residual analysis for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively, from a combination of potential cost savings measures including a 10% density bonus, reduction in affordable unit sizes and interior finish quality, and deferral of fair share assessments. Tables 55 and 56 summarize the results of the land residual analysis for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively, under a range of different scenarios, including 100% market -rate units, compliance with Chapter 11 requirements, and with incentives. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 41 ' Table 43 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Develoment Fee Deferrals Rental Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis C 1 C PROTOTYPE Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex BASELINE PROTOTYPES Total Unit Count 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units Est. Development Impact Fees $1,171,320 $976,100 $351,396 $976,100 to be Deferred (Fair Share Assess.) Current Fee Payment Schedule Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Deferred Payment Schedule Certificate of Certificate of Certificate of Certificate of Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Length of Deferral 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months Construction Loan Interest Rate 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% Interest Savings from Deferral $124,453 $103,711 $37,336 $103,711 Savings Per Unit $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 PROTOTYPES WITH 10% DENSITY BONUS Total Unit Count 132 Units 110 Units 40 Units 110 Units Est. Development Impact Fees $1,288,452 $1,073,710 $390,440 $1,073,710 to be Deferred Current Fee Payment Schedule Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Deferred Payment Schedule Certificate of Certificate of Certificate of Certificate of Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Length of Deferral 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months 15 Months Construction Loan Interest Rate 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% Interest Savings from Deferral $136,898 $114,082 $41,484 $114,082 Savings Per Unit $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 42 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Development Fee Deferrals Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units Est. Development Impact Fees $976,100 $976,100 $976,100 to be Deferred (Fair Share Assess.) Current Fee Payment Schedule Building Permit Building Permit Building Permit Deferred Payment Schedule Certificate of Certificate of Certificate of Occupancy Occupancy Occupancy Length of Deferral 12 Months 12 Months 12 Months Construction Loan Interest Rate 8.50% 8.50% 8.50% Interest Savings from Deferral $82,969 $82,969 $82,969 Savings Per Unit $830 $830 $830 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 f 1 ' S. Affordable Unit Comparability Standards One way to reduce the costs of providing affordable units is to allow certain differences between the affordable units and market -rate units, keeping the outside design of the units indistinguishable. The estimated cost savings achieved through allowing differences between the affordable and market -rate units include the following items: • Reduction in the size of affordable units to minimum unit sizes. The square footage of affordable units is assumed to be reduced from market unit sizes to minimums of 540 square feet for a one -bedroom; 750 square feet for a two-bedroom; 1,000 square feet for a three-bedroom; and 1,100 square feet ' for a four-bedroom. Tables 44 and 45 show estimated cost savings from reduction in affordable unit sizes for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. • Reduction of the number of bathrooms in the affordable units. The number of bathrooms is assumed to be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two-bedroom/two-bath and three-bedroom units. Tables 46 and 47 display the estimated cost savings for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. • Reduction in the quality of interior finishes in the affordable units. DRA has modeled a $10 per square foot reduction in development costs in the affordable units due to an assumed lower grade of interior finishes. This assumption is based on the estimated cost difference in (modest) owner and renter finishes provided through developer interviews. Tables 48 and 49 estimate the cost savings for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. • Alternative product types for the affordable units. Substituting higher density product types can reduce the cost of providing affordable units, especially ' for low-density market rate product types. DRA has modeled the potential cost savings fromproviding either vertical duplex units (Prototype #1) or single-family detached bungalows (Prototype #2) instead of the affordable ' units required for the single-family detached homes on 10,000 square foot lots (Prototype #3). Table 50 estimates the cost savings. 6. Summary of Cost Savings and Economic Impact of Incentives Tables 51 and 52 summarize the cost savings from offsets and incentives, including the 10% density bonus, for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively. Tables 53 and 54 recalculate the land residual analysis for the owner and renter prototypes, respectively, from a combination of potential cost savings measures including ' a 10% density bonus, reduction in affordable unit sizes and interior finish quality, and deferral of fair share assessments. �7 Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 41 Table 44 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Sizes Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis (1) Excludes fixed costs that do not vary based on square footage or total development costs, such as environmental Phase i, soils testing, water and sewer fees. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. u u u 1 Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family PROTOTYPE Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units Market Unit (Net SF) Two Bedroom 1,200 900 N/A Three Bedroom 1,500 1,200 1,450 Four Bedroom N/A N/A 1,750 BMR Unit Min. (Net SF) Two Bedroom 725 725 725 Three Bedroom 1,000 1,000 1,000 Four Bedroom 1,100 1,100 1,100 Total Development Costs $279 $261 $256 Less Fixed Costs Per SF (1) Chapter 11 Requirements: 80% AMI 10 10 10 Total Affordable Units Two Bedroom 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 Net Savings --Sq. Feet 4,875 1,875 5,500 Total Cost Savings $1,357,815 $488,496 $1,410,146 Cost Savings Per Unit $13,578 $4,885 $14,101 (1) Excludes fixed costs that do not vary based on square footage or total development costs, such as environmental Phase i, soils testing, water and sewer fees. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. u u u 1 M 1 1 P 1 1 7 u J Table 45 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Sizes Rental Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Renter 1 Rental Eiphtplex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex Total Unit Count 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units Market Unit (Net SF) One Bedroom 625 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 835 1150 875 1200 Three Bedroom 945 1,250 0 1,500 BMR Unit Min. (Net SF) One Bedroom 540 540 540 540 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 725 725 725 725 Three Bedroom 900 900 900 900 Total Development Costs $291.47 $266.43 $313.02 $238.87 Less Fixed Costs Per SF (1) Chapter 11 Requirements: 60% AMI Total Affordable Units 12 10 4 10 One Bedroom 5 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 Net Savings --Sq. Feet 1,065 4,100 600 5,375 Total Cost Savings $310,412 $1,092,379 $187,814 $1,283,906 Cost Savings Per Unit $2,587 $10,924 $5,217 $12,839 (1) Excludes fixed costs that do not vary based on square footage or total development costs, including enviromental, legal, marketing, audit, closing, water and sewer fees. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 46 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Bathroom Count Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis C' 1 (1) Excludes fixed costs that do not vary based on square footage or total development costs, such as environmental Phase I, soils testing, sewer and park fees. ' (2) Assumes number of bathrooms may be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two-bedroom and three-bedroom affordable units. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. L' F11 1 �f Cl Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family PROTOTYPE Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units Sq. Feet Per Bathroom 75 75 75 Total Development Costs $278.53 $260.53 $256.39 Less Fixed Costs Per SF (1) Chapter 11 Requirements: 80% AMI 10 10 10 Total Affordable Units One Bedroom 0 0 0 Two Bedroom 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 Total Cost Savings (2) $208,895 $195,398 $96,146 Cost Savings Per Unit (All Units) $2,089 $1,954 $961 C' 1 (1) Excludes fixed costs that do not vary based on square footage or total development costs, such as environmental Phase I, soils testing, sewer and park fees. ' (2) Assumes number of bathrooms may be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two-bedroom and three-bedroom affordable units. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. L' F11 1 �f Cl 1 1 t 11 lJ 1 1 n 11 Table 47 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Unit Bathroom Count Rental Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Renter 1 Rental Ei ht lex Flats Renter 2 Rental Townhomes Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail Renter 4 Vertical Duplex Total Unit Count 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units Sq. Feet Per Bathroom 50 50 50 50 Total Development Costs $291.47 $266.43 $313.02 $238.87 Less Fixed Costs Per SF (1) Chapter 11 Requirements: 60% AMI Total Affordable Units 12 10 4 10 One Bedroom 5 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 Reduction in Bathrooms 7 10 4 10 in Affordable Units Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 Total Cost Savings (2) $102,013 $133,217 $62,605 $119,433 Cost Savings Per Unit (All Units) $850 $1,332 $1,739 $1,194 (1) Excludes fixed costs that do not vary directly with square footage, including enviromental, legal, marketing, audit, closing, and sewer fees. (2) Assumes number of bathrooms may be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two-bedroom/two-bath and three-bedroom affordable units. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table 48 Cost Savings from Reduction In Affordable Unit Interior Finish Quality Owner Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis PROTOTYPE Owner 1 Vertical Duplex Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows Owner 3 Single Family Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units 100 Units Est. Red. in Interior Finish Costs Per SF $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Chapter 11 Requirements: 80% AMI Total Affordable Units 10 10 10 Two Bedroom 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 Unit Size (SF) Two Bedroom 1,200 900 0 Three Bedroom 1,500 1,200 1,450 Four Bedroom 0 0 1,750 Total SF of Affordable Units Two Bedroom 6,000 4,500 0 Three Bedroom 7,500 6,000 7,250 Four Bedroom 0 0 8,750 Total SF 13,500 10,500 16,000 Total Cost Savings $135,000 $105,000 $160,000 Cost Savings Per Unit $1,350 $1,050 $1,600 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 1 1 11 1 11 1 L 1 1 1 I 1 11 1 li CI 1 s 1 1 Table 49 Cost Savings from Reduction in Affordable Interior Finish Quality Rental Housing Prototype Projects Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Source: Developer interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Rental Rental Mixed -Use Vertical PROTOTYPE Eightplex Flats Townhomes GF/Retail Duplex Total Unit Count 120 Units 100 Units 36 Units 100 Units Est. Red. In Interior Finish Costs Per SF $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 $10.00 Chapter 11 Requirements: 60% AMI 12 10 4 10 Total Affordable Units One Bedroom 5 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 5 Square Feet Per Unit One Bedroom 625 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 835 11150 875 1,200 Three Bedroom 945 1,250 0 1,500 Total SF of Afford. Units One Bedroom 3,125 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 4,175 9,200 3,500 6,000 Three Bedroom 1,890 2,500 0 7,500 Total SF 9,190 11,700 3,500 13,500 Total Cost Savings $91,900 $117,000 $35,000 $135,000 Cost Savings Per Unit $766 $1,170 $972 $1,350 Source: Developer interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates Table 50 Estimated Potential Cost Savings from Alternative Product Type Provision of Duplex or Bungalows for Single -Family Detached on 10,000 SF Lots Kona Affordability Gap Analysis ORIGINAL PROTOTYPE: Owner 3 Owner 3 Single Family Single Family Detached Detached Total Unit Count 100 Units 100 Units Affordable Units Required Under Chapter 11 70% AMI 10.00% Two Bedroom/2 Bath 0 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 Four Bedroom 5 5 Total Development Cost Per Unit Two Bedroom/2 Bath N/A N/A Three Bedroom $604,204 $604,204 Four Bedroom $655,990 $655,990 ALTERNATIVE COMPLIANCE PROTOTYPE: Owner 1 Owner 2 Vertical Single -Family Duplex Detached Bungalows Total Development Cost Per Unit Two Bedroom/2 Bath $475,148 $421,531 Three Bedroom $521,576 $473,317 Four Bedroom N/A N/A COST SAVINGS FROM ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT TYPE Assumed Affordable Units Provided Two Bedroom/2 Bath 0 0 Three Bedroom 10 10 Four Bedroom N/A N/A Per Unit Development Cost Savings Two Bedroom/2 Bath N/A N/A Three Bedroom $82,628 $130,887 Four Bedroom N/A N/A TOTAL COST SAVINGS FROM ALTERNATIVE PRODUCT TYPE Two Bedroom/2 Bath N/A N/A Three Bedroom $826,280 $1,308,870 Four Bedroom N/A N/A Total $826,280 $1,308,870 PER UNIT COST SAVINGS (ALL UNITS) $8,263 $13,089 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 1 11 1 r 1 s 1 r r s 11 LJ Table 51 Total Economic Value of Incentives Owner Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Owner 1 Owner 2 Owner 3 Vertical Single -Family Single Family Duplex Detached Bungalows Detached Acres 8.621 8.621 22.727 Number of Units (Baseline) 100 100 100 Net Square Feet Living Area 135,000 105,000 160,000 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM DENSITY BONUS Total Development Cost Per Unit without Density Bonus $498,362 $447,424 $630,097 Total Development Cost Per Unit with Density Bonus $491,239 $440,301 $622,974 Cost Savings Per Unit $7,123 $7,123 $7,123 Total Cost Savings from Density Bonus $712,307 $712,307 $712,307 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM OTHER INCENTIVES Reduction in Affordable Unit Sizes (1) $1,357,815 $488,496 $1,410,146 Reduction in Affordable Unit Bathroom Count (2) $208,895 $195,398 $96,146 Reduction in Affordable Interior Finish Quality (3) $135,000 $105,000 $160,000 Reduced Parking Requirements (4) $50,000 $500,000 $0 Fee Deferral (5) , $82,969 $82,969 $82,969 Total $1,834,678 $1,371,863 $1,749,261 Per Unit (All Units) $18,347 $13,719 $17,493 POTENTIAL TOTAL COST SAVINGS (DENSITY BONUS PLUS OTHER INCENTIVES) $2,546,985 $2,084,170 $2,461,568 Per Unit (All Units) $25,470 $20,842 $24,616 (1) Based on reduction in unit sizes of affordable units to the following minimum unit sizes: one -bedroom --540 SF two -bedroom --725 SF; three -bedroom --1,000 SF. (2) Assumes number of bathrooms may be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two-bedroom/two-bath three-bedroom affordable units. (3) Assumes $10.00 per square foot reduction in interior finish costs. (4) Assumes reduction in the parking requirement of 1 space per unit on one- and two-bedroom units. (5) Assumes deferral of development impact fee payment from start of construction to certificate of occupancy. Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates 10/23106 i A POTENTIALTOTAL COST SAVINGS (DENSITY BONUS PLUS OTHER INCENTIVES) $1,258,806 $2,201,952 $554,534 $2,119,247 Per Unit (All Units) $10,490 $22,020 $15,404 $21,192 (1) Based on reduction in unit sizes of affordable units to the following minimum unit sizes. one -bedroom --540 SF; two -bedroom --725 SF; three -bedroom --1,000 SE (2) Assumes number of bathrooms may be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two•bedroomhwo-bath and three-bedroom affordable units. (3) Assumes $10.00 per square foot reduction In interior finish costs (4) Assumes reduction In the parking requirement of 0.25 spaces per unit. (5) Assumes deferral of development impact fee payment from start of construction to certificate of occupancy. Represents a deferral of 15 months. Source, David Paul Rosen & Associates a 1, Table 52 Total Economic Value of Incentives Rental Housing Prototypes Kona Affordability Cap Analysis Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 EiRhtplex Flats Townhomes CF/Retail _ Duplex Acres 11.009 5.556 0 620 8.621 Number of Units (Baseline) 120 100 36 100 Net Square Feet Living Area 90,180 117,000 31,500 135,000 Total Gross Square Feet 100,200 130,000 37,059 160,000 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM DENSITY BONUS Total Development Cost Per Unit without Density Bonus $281,792 $385,064 $363,954 $420,886 Total Development Cost Per Unit with Density Bonus Cost Savings Per Unit $277,420 $4,371 $379,749 $5,315 $357,516 $6,438 $417,039 $3,847 Total Cost Savings from Density Bonus $524,558 $531,480 $231,779 $384,731 POTENTIAL COST SAVINGS FROM OTHER INCENTIVES Reduction in Affordable Unit Sizes (1) $310,412 $1,092,379 $187,814 $1,283,906 Reduction in Affordable Unit Bathroom Count (2) $102,013 $133,217 $62,605 $119,433 Reduction in Affordble Interior Finish Quality (3) $91,900 $117,000 $35,000 $135,000 Reduction in Parking Requirements (4) $105,469 $224,166 $0 $92,466 Deferral of Fees (5) $124,453 $103,711 $37,336 $103,711 Total Savings $734,248 $1,670,472 $322,755 $1,734,516 Total Savings Per Unit (All Units) $6,119 $16,705 $8,965 $17,345 POTENTIALTOTAL COST SAVINGS (DENSITY BONUS PLUS OTHER INCENTIVES) $1,258,806 $2,201,952 $554,534 $2,119,247 Per Unit (All Units) $10,490 $22,020 $15,404 $21,192 (1) Based on reduction in unit sizes of affordable units to the following minimum unit sizes. one -bedroom --540 SF; two -bedroom --725 SF; three -bedroom --1,000 SE (2) Assumes number of bathrooms may be reduced by one (from two baths to one bath) in two•bedroomhwo-bath and three-bedroom affordable units. (3) Assumes $10.00 per square foot reduction In interior finish costs (4) Assumes reduction In the parking requirement of 0.25 spaces per unit. (5) Assumes deferral of development impact fee payment from start of construction to certificate of occupancy. Represents a deferral of 15 months. Source, David Paul Rosen & Associates a 1, 1 1 11 1 1 t i J Table 53 Land Residual Analysis Owner Housing Prototypes with 10% Density Bonus, Fee Deferral and Affordable Unit Design Modifications Chapter 11 Requirements Met with Units Affordable ® 80% AMI Prototype: Total Units: Owner 1 Vertical Duplex 110 Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows 110 Owner 3 Single Family Detached 110 Inclusionary Units: 700/6 AMI 10.0% 10 10 10 Per Unit Market Sales Prices Two Bedroom/2 Bath $564,000 $423,000 N/A Three Bedroom $690,000 $552,000 $667,000 Four Bedroom N/A N/A $744,000 Total Units by Bedroom Count with 10% Density Bonus Two Bedroom/2 Bath 55 55 0 Three Bedroom 55 55 55 Four Bedroom 0 0 55 Affordable Units By Bedroom Count 70% AMI 10.0% Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 5 0 Three Bedroom 5 5 5 Four Bedroom 0 0 5 Total Market Sales Prices with Density Bonus Two Bedroom/2 Bath $28,200,000 $21,150,000 $0 Three Bedroom $34,500,000 $27,600,000 $33,350,000 Four Bedroom $0 $0 $37,200,000 Gross Sales Income, Market Units $62,700,000 $48,750,000 $70,550,000 Gross Sales Income, Inclusionary Units (1) $1,632,000 $1,632,000 $1,786,500 Total Gross Sales $64,332,000 $50,382,000 $72,336,500 Total Direct Cost Except Land with Density Bonus (2) $46,536,274 $40,933,113 $61,027,141 Less: Fee Deferral Cost Savings $82,969 $82,969 $82,969 Less: Afford. Unit Design Modif. Savings (3) $1,492,815 $593,496 $1,570,146 Less: Cost Savings from Alternative Product Type (4) N/A N/A $1,308,870 Net Direct Cost Except Land $44,960,491 $40,256,648 $58,065,156 Residual Land Value $19,371,509 $10,125,352 $14,271,344 Land Value Per Unit $176,105 $92,049 $129,739 Land Value Per Square Foot $51.58 $26.96 $14.42 (1) Assumes inclusionary units are sold at an affordable housing cost (including mortgage principal interest, taxes, insurance, homeowners assocation dues and utilities) to a household earning 80% of area median, adjusted for household size. (2) Includes sales commissions and selling/closing costs. (3) Includes reduction in affordable unit square footages and grade of interior finishes. (4) Assumes the affordable units are three-bedroom single-family detached bungalows. Source: Interviews with developers active in the County of Hawai'i; Hawaii Information Service; David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 10/23/06 Kona0wnerAs Table 54 Land Residual Analysis Rental Housing Prototypes with Chapter 11 Requirements 10% Density Bonus, Fee Deferral and Affordable Unit Deft Modifications Chapter 11 Requirements Met with Units Affordable ® 60% AMI (1) Monthly operating costs/unit: $300 (2) Monthly property taxesAmit: 0.0675% of development cost. Based on current annual property tax rale of $8.10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by Income category less 5.00% vacancy rates less operating costs. (4) Includes reduction in affordable unit square footages and Rrade of interior finishes. Source: HawaPi County Code; Hawaii County Real Property Tax Office, developer Interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 Ll f i 1 1 1 1 Renter 1 Renter 2 Renter 3 Renter 4 Vertical Prototype Elghtplex Flats Townhomes Mixed -Use Du lex Site Area (Attest 11.009 S.SS6 0 620 8.621 Total Units Before Density Bonus 120 100 36 100 Total Units with 10% Density Bonus 132 110 40 110 One Bedroom 59 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 59 88 40 55 Three Bedroom 14 22 0 55 Affordable Units by Bedroom Count 60% of Median 10.0% 12 10 4 10 One Bedroom S 0 0 0 Two Bedroom/2 Bath 5 8 4 5 Three Bedroom 2 2 0 S Per Unit Monthly Market Rent Monthly Rent Per Unit One Bedroom $1,400 WA WA WA TwoBedroom/2 Bath $1,600 $1,700 $1,600 $1,700 Three Bedroom $1,700 $1,800 WA $1,800 Monthly Operating Costs/Unit (1) (2) One Bedroom $477 WA WA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $499 Mill $546 $568 Three Bedroom $510 $568 WA $600 Monthly Net Operating Income/Unit (3) One Bedroom $853 WA N/A WA Two Bedroorr/2 Bath $1,021 $1,057 $974 $1,047 Three Bedroom $1,105 $1,142 WA $11110 Annual Net Operating Income Market Rate Units One Bedroom $552,748 N/A WA WA Two Bedroom/2 Bath $661,652 $1,014,864 $420,911 $627,943 Three Bedroom $159,059 $274,014 WA $666,140 Total NOI: Market -Rate Units 51,373,459 $1,288,898 $420,911 $1,294,082 Affordable Units One Bedroom $2,520 WA WA WA Two Bedroomn Bath $6,120 $4,224 $2,688 $1,980 Three Bedroom $4,440 $3,048 N/A $5,760 Total NOI: Affordable Units $13,080 $7,272 $2,688 $7,740 Total Annual Net Operating income $1,366,539 $1,296,170 $423,599 $1,301,822 Capitalized Value 5.00% $27,730,775 $25,923,400 $8,471,980 $26,036,447 Total Direct Cost (Except Land) $33,019,475 $38,772,421 $13,220,642 $42,874,263 Less: Fee Deferral CostWngs $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 $1,037 less: Afford. Unit Design Modif. Savings (4) $402,312 $1,209,379 $222,814 $1,418,905 Net Direct Cost Except Land $32,616,126 $37,562,005 $12,996,791 $41,454,319 Indicated Land Value ($4,885,350) ($11,638,605) ($4,524,810) ($15,417,872) indicated Land Value Per Unit ($37,010) ($1051805) ($113,120) ($140,162) Indicated land Value Per Square Foot ($10.19) ($4809) ($16754) ($41.06) (1) Monthly operating costs/unit: $300 (2) Monthly property taxesAmit: 0.0675% of development cost. Based on current annual property tax rale of $8.10 per $1,000 valuation in the County of Hawaii, with assessed valuation equal to market value. (3) Equals affordable monthly rent by Income category less 5.00% vacancy rates less operating costs. (4) Includes reduction in affordable unit square footages and Rrade of interior finishes. Source: HawaPi County Code; Hawaii County Real Property Tax Office, developer Interviews; David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 Ll f i 1 1 1 1 1 R 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Table 55 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area Owner Housing Prototypes Prototype: Total Units: Owner 1 Vertical Duplex 100 Owner 2 Single -Family Detached Bungalows 100 Owner 3 Single Family Detached 100 100% Market -Rate Units $54 $31 $15 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements 70% AMI $42 $22 $10 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements and 10% Density Bonus 70% AMI $47 $21 $7 Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements, 10% Density Bonus, Fee Deferrals and Affordable Unit Design Modifications (1) $52 $27 $14 70% AMI (1) Affordable unit design modifications include reduction in unit sizes of affordable units to the following minimum unit sizes: one -bedroom --540 SF; two -bedroom --725 SF; three -bedroom --1,000 SF and 10% reduction in cost per square foot. Fee deferrals refers to deferral of fair share assessments from building permit to certificate of occupancy. Source: Interviews with developers active in the County of Hawaii; Hawaii Information Service; Table 56 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Residual Land Value Per Square Foot Site Area Rental Prototypes Prototype: Total Units; Renter 1 Rental Eightplex Flats 120 Renter 2 Rental Townhomes 100 Renter 3 Mixed -Use GF/Retail 36 Renter 4 Vertical Duplex 100 100% Market -Rate Units $5.68 ($10.05) ($72.67) ($13.92) Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements 60% AMI ($10.98) ($50.25) ($166.09) ($41.65) Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements and 10% Density Bonus 60% AMI ($11.03) ($53.09) ($175.83) ($44.84) Land Residual Analysis with Chapter 11 Requirements, Fee Deferrals, 10% Density Bonus and Affordable Unit Design Modifications (1) ($10.19) ($48.09) ($167.54) ($41.06) 60% AMI (1) Affordable unit design modifications include reduction in unit sizes of affordable units to the following minimum unit sizes: one -bedroom --540 SF; two -bedroom --725 SF; three -bedroom --1,000 SF and 10% reduction in cost per square foot. Fee deferrals refers to deferral of fair share assessments from building permit to certificate of occupancy. Source: Interviews with developers active in the County of Hawaii; Hawaii Information Service; 1 1 ILI 1 L, n 1 1 n G. Policy Issues for Affordable Housing Requirements This section reviews policies and program options that the County should consider in implementation of Chapter 11 requirements and/or revisions to the statute. Major policy issues include: methods of preserving the affordability of rental and owner affordable units for the required term of affordability; options for developers to comply with affordable housing requirements. 1. Enforcement of Affordability Restrictions Chapter 11 requires the establishment of resale restrictions to ensure that affordable units created under the statute remain affordable. Such restrictions may include buy-back, shared appreciation, and other restrictions. Affordability requirements for rental developments are typically evidenced by recorded regulatory agreements. Chapter 11 requires that the rental prices on affordable units be controlled for no less than 20 years after initial occupancy. DRA recommends permanent affordability of rental units, which from a legal perspective may need to be associated with a time period such as 55 or 99 years. With owner developments, resale restrictions are typically used to preserve the affordability of restricted -price units. There are alternative ways of structuring resale restrictions. One method is to require resale of the unit at a "maximum sales price" which permits increases in the sales price of the affordable unit based on increases in median income or the Consumer Price Index. Another alternative is equity share, whereby the homebuyer and the County share in the market appreciation of the unit. By restricting the resale of these homes, the County will ensure that these homebuyers do not experience windfalls by purchasing homes at restricted prices and selling them at market prices. Local agencies enforce resale restrictions by incorporatinthese restrictions in the deed. With each sale of the property, unless the owner has held d the property for longer than term or affordability, a new resale restriction period is imposed. Another issue is whether the resale "clock" is reset upon sale or transfer (with possible exceptions for transfers upon death to a spouse or child). Upon sale or transfer, the resale restrictions may stay in force only for the remainder of the original term of affordability, or may "reset" to the full term of affordability. DRA recommends a term of affordability of at least 55 years for owner units if the "clock" does not reset upon transfer, 30 years if it does. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 68 Additionally, local agencies may impose occupancy requirements on buyers of affordable units. This requirement ensures that the use of the property meets the original intention, which is providing a low or moderate -income person an affordable home. This policy also avoids any potential issues with absentee owners of rental properties. Finally, local agencies often hold a first right of refusal to purchase a property if it is sold prior to expiration of the resale restricted period. By exercising the right to purchase, the local agency has the opportunity to provide this unit to another qualifying household. With the imposition of affordability restrictions, local agencies must develop appropriate asset management systems to ensure that developers are meeting their obligations. An asset management system should enable the agency to determine if developers are renting their units at affordable rates, units are occupied by targeted income groups, homes are sold to targeted income groups, and resale restrictions are managed properly. 2. Alternative Compliance Options The ultimate goal of affordable housing requirements is to produce housing units affordable to very low, low, and/or moderate income persons. The simplest method is to require developers to build affordable units on the same site and at the same time as the market rate units. However, developers face a variety of circumstances where a local agency may wish to consider alternatives to on-site compliance of affordable unit requirements. One important consideration is the need to create incentives to ensure that a jurisdiction's public policy goals for its affordable housing requirements are met. To achieve this goal, jurisdictions can design alternative compliance measures to provide developers with an incentive to build affordable units on-site. For example, as under Chapter 11, a jurisdiction may allow developers to dedicate land to the jurisdiction or a nonprofit housing developer rather than provide affordable housing units on the same site as the market rate development. The value of the dedicated land, determined byappraisal, is credited against the in lieu fee. Since the current in lieu fee is insufficient to fill the gap on the affordable units, the dedication of land will also be insufficient to fill the gap. As an incentive for developers to provide affordable units on the same site as the market rate development, the jurisdiction may require that the value of the land dedicated by a developer exceed the cost of providing the affordable units on-site. In this context, the affordability gap analysis can be used to develop alternative compliance measures that provide developers with an incentive to construct affordable units on-site because the gap analysis quantifies the cost of providing affordable units. Most jurisdictions offer alternative compliance options as part of their affordable housing programs. Alternative compliance measures offer developers opportunities to reduce development costs by allowing developers to meet their affordable housing requirements through methods other than on-site construction of units comparable to market rate units. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 69 1 1 1 1 1 t 1 i Table 57 summarizes the strengths and weaknesses of two alternative compliance measures, discussed further in the following sections. • in -lieu fees: payment of fees to a jurisdiction in lieu of constructing affordable housing units; • off-site compliance: construction of affordable units at a site other than the market rate development. Table 57 Summary of Strengths and Weaknesses of Alternative Compliance Measures Kona Affordable Housing Study Alternative Compliance Option Strengths Weaknesses In -lieu Fee • easy to administer • unless fees are comparable to . • can be used when affordability gap, fees may affordable unit result in development of fewer requirements result in affordable units fractions of units • affordable units may not be • jurisdiction can target uses constructed in a defined time of funds to meet a variety frame of affordable housing • affordable units not provided policy goals on-site --no mix of incomes Off -Site Compliance • may lower costs of difficult to enforce construction compliance of units • can result in development affordable units not provided of more affordable units on -site/ --no mix of incomes with additional subsidies completion of affordable units • allows for partnerships may be delayed between market rate and potential neighborhood affordable housing opposition issues developers • Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 70 3. In -Lieu Fees a. Advantages of In -Lieu Fee Option Most local agencies offer the payment of in lieu fees as an alternative compliance measure. In practice, an in lieu fee option is simple to administer. Once a schedule of in lieu fees is developed (based on factors such as a jurisdiction's affordability requirements, target household incomes, size of units, rental or ownership housing), then it is a simple matter to assess the fee. In lieu fees are especially useful with jurisdictions that choose to apply affordable housing requirements to very small developments. When affordable housing requirements result in fractional units, developers can pay fees in lieu of building an affordable unit In lieu fees also provide a jurisdiction with an added degree of flexibility with its affordable housing production. With in lieu fees, a jurisdiction decides how it will use the funds tg.sdownpayment and mortgage assistance for first-time homebuyers, constructing rental ing for very low income households, etc.). In contrast, requiring on-site compliance usually means that the affordable housing product type will be similar to the market rate housing product. b. Disadvantages Generally, jurisdictions seek construction of affordable housing units rather than payment of in lieu fees for three reasons. First, unless in lieu fees are set at a level that matches the affordability gap (the amount of capital required to develop housing affordable to very low, low, and/or moderate income households), fewer affordable units may be constructed when compared to on-site compliance. In order to create incentive for developers to provide affordable units on-site, in lieu fees would have to be set at a level comparable to the affordability gap. Second, on-site compliance means that affordable housing units will be constructed within a defined time frame (generally, jurisdictions require affordable units to be built concurrently with market rate units). With in lieu fees, the timing of development of affordable housing units depends on several factors, such as availability of land, identifying appropriate developers, and securing any additional subsidies to leverage in lieu fees (if necessary). Therefore, it is impossible to know exactly when affordable units will be constructed with in lieu fees, but it certainly will be substantially later than the market rate units that generated the affordable housing obligation. Third, an important public policypurpose of an affordable housing program is to provide a mix of housing affordability levels at a single development. In other words, one benefit of an affordable housing program is to encourage developments that accommodate a mix of household income levels. Payment of in lieu fees means that a developer does not provide affordable units on-site. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates Final Report Page 71 1 1 C. In Lieu Fee Amounts Most jurisdictions prefer that developers construct affordable housing units on-site rather than pay in lieu fees. To ensure that developers do not have an incentive to pay in lieu fees rather than build affordable units, in lieu fees must be set at the economic equivalency of providing affordable unit on-site. If in lieu fees are set at amounts lower than this economic equivalency, then developers have a financial incentive to pay fees rather than build affordable units. With rental developments, the economic equivalent of providing an affordable unit on-site is the affordability gap. The renter affordability gap is the difference between the total development cost of the unit and the amount of mortgage that the net cash flow an affordable unit can produce. Net cash flow is equal to rent revenues less operating expenses and any set -asides for operating and replacement reserves. This is the affordability "gap to cost." Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 72 With ownership units, the economic equivalent of providing an affordable unit on-site is the difference between the market price of the units in a development and the amount of mortgage and downpayment that a targeted household can afford. This is the affordability "gap to price." 4. Off -Site Compliance Developers may satisfy the affordable housing requirements of Chapter 11, owner and renter, by constructing affordable units off-site within a 15 -mile radius of the project site. a. Advantages of Off -Site Compliance Option A developer may seek off-site compliance for two reasons. First, the cost of developing the affordable units on-site may be more expensive than the development of off-site units if the housing product -type of the market rate development is expensive. To maintain a consistent "character" for a project and to maintain its perceived attractiveness, a developer may feel the need to build an affordable unit that is comparable in size and quality to a market rate unit. In this case, off-site construction may be less expensive because the developer can build less expensive units in the off-site affordable housing development (by developing smaller units, using less expensive interior finishes, or constructing a higher density development). rovide a developer an opportunityto take advantage of Second, off-site compliance maoprovide lower land costs at aeparate location. Under certain circumstances, a greater number of affordable units may be built under an off-site compliance option. For example, developers building market rate developments at high per unit total development costs (e.g. luxury homes) may agree to build a greater number of affordable units if the developer is allowed to build the affordable units off-site. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 72 Second, off-site compliance allows developers to partner with nonprofit affordable housing developers to construct units off-site. The market rate and non-profit developers can act as joint partners in an off-site affordable housing development. From the local agency's perspective, partnerships with nonprofit developers can -be beneficial because of nonprofit developers' expertise in developing affordable units and their long-term interest in maintaining quality affordable housing developments. b. Disadvantages Off-site compliance may be considered an unattractive alternative compliance measure for several reasons. First, as we stated with payment of in lieu fees, a public policy purpose of an affordable housing program is to provide a mix of housing affordability levels at a single development. Second, off-site compliance can be problematic to enforce. Most jurisdictions with off-site compliance options require construction of affordable units either before or concurrently with the construction of the market rate units. In practice, this requirement may be difficult to enforce. Because of the complexities of the development process (including potential community opposition to an affordable housing project), it is difficult for a developer to synchronize the construction of two projects. A developer has more economic incentive to complete the market rate units than the affordable units. A jurisdiction may not have any effective methods to enforce compliance with the affordable housing requirement once the market rate units have started construction. Kona Affordable Housing Economic Analysis October 23, 2006 David Paul Rosen & Associates final Report Page 73 1 i Appendix A List of Developer Contacts u 1 1 11, 1 1 1 Developer Interview List Jeff Minter Unidev Hawaii, LLC 808-536-1110 iminter@unidevllc.com Janis Takahashi Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii 808-587-0680 Stephanie Aviero Executive Director Housing and Community Development Corporation of Hawaii 808-587-0680 Darren Ueki Corporation Finance Branch Chief 808-587-0574 Darren.ueki@hcdch.hawaii.gov Marvin Awaya, President Pacific Housing Assistance Corporation ' 677 Ala Moana Boulevard, Suite 712 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: 808-523-5681 Fax: 808-523-1282 m-awaya@hawaii.rr.com Dean Uchida, Executive Director Land Use Research Foundation of Hawaii 700 Bishop Suite 1928 Honolulu, Hawaii 96813 Phone: 808-521-4717 duchida@lurf.org Craig Watase Mark Development 3165 Waialae Ave. Honolulu, Hawaii 96816 Phone: 808-735-9099 Alan Dickler Westpro Holdings, LLC 808-326-4675 alan@westprodev.com Paul Key Stanford Carr Development 808-325-2255 Dan Bolton 808/329-8240 Calvin Mann Castle & Cooke 808-548-2902 cmann@castlecooke.com Keith Kato Hawaii Island CDC 808-969-1158 ext. 105 keith@HICDC.org D.R. Horton Ken Takahashi 808-521-5661 kttakahashi@drhorton.com 1 1 !I Appendix B Per Unit Development Cost Estimates By Bedroom Count 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 II U G 1 Ci 0 J Table B-1 PER UNIT PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY BEDROOM COUNT OWNER PROTOTYPE 01 Prototype Description: Duplex TYPE AND SIZE OF UNIT Total Number of Units: 100 Units 2BD/2BA 3BD/2BA 1,200 Net S.F. 1,500 Net S.F. Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve $80,000 /DU $80,000 $80,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 $0 Unit Construction Costs $130.00/ Net S.F. $156,000 $195,000 Total Hard Costs $236,000 $275,000 Fees Fair Share $9,761 /DU $9,761 $9,761 Sewer $1,000/DU $1,000 $1,000 Water $5,000 /DU $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal $15,761 $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $84,363 /DU $84,363 $84,363 Total Direct Costs (Except land) $336,124 $375,124 Dev, Fee/Profit & Overhead 16% $64,024 $71,452 Subtotal. -Develop. Costs (Except land) $400,148 $446,576 Land Costs $75,000 /DU $75,000 $75,000 Total Project Costs $475,148 $521,576 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table B-2 PER UNIT PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY BEDROOM COUNT OWNER PROTOTYPE let Prototvne Description: Detached Bunealows TYPE AND SIZE OF UNIT ------ .. - - --- - - Total Number of Units: 100 Units 2BD/2BA 3BD/2BA 900 Net S.F. 1,200 Net S.F. Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. $77,000 /DU $77,000 $77,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 $0 Unit Construction Costs $145.00/ Net S.F. $130,500 $174,000 Total Hard Costs $207,500 $251,000 Fees Fair Share $9,761 /DU $9,761 $9,761 Sewer $1,000 /DU $1,000 $1,000 Water $5,000 /DU $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal $15,761 $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $67,825 /DU $67,825 $67,825 Total Direct Costs (Except Land) $291,086 $334,586 Dev. Fee/Profit & Overhead 16% $55,445 $63,731 Subtotal --Develop. Costs (Except Land) $346,531 $398,317 Land Costs $75,000 /DU $75,000 $75,000 Total Project Costs $421,531 $473,317 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. 1 1 1 1 1 u 11 Table B•3 PER UNIT PROTOTYPE DEVELOPMENT COSTS BY BEDROOM COUNT OWNER PROTOTYPE #3 Prototype Description: Detached Total Number of Units: 100 Units 3BD/2BA 4BD/2BA 1,450 Net S,R 1,750 Net S.F. Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. $117,000 /DU $117,000 $117,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 $0 Unit Construction Costs $145.00/ Net S.F. $210,250 $253,750 Total Hard Costs $327,250 $370,750 Fees Fair Share $9,761 /DU $9,761 $9,761 Sewer $1,000 /DU $1,000 $1,000 Water $5,000 /DU $5,000 $5,000 Subtotal $15,761 $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $101,521 /DU $101,521 $101,521 Total Direct Costs (Except Land) $444,532 $488,032 Dev. Fee/Profit & Overhead 16% $84,673 $92,958 Subtotal --Develop. Costs (Except Land) $529,204 $580,990 Land Costs $75,000 /DU $75,000 $75,000 Total Project Costs $604,204 $655,990 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates. Table B-4 Per Unit Development Costs By Unit Bedroom Count Renter Prototype #1 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Cost to Housing Authority Drnfnh,nn rlun A f:nn. Flekfnlnv Elft TVPF ANTI CM nF t INIT Total Number of Units: 120 Units 1BDA BA 2BD/2BA 3BD/2BA 625 Net S.F. 835 Net S.F. 945 Net S.F. 625 Total S.F. (1) 835 Total S.F. 1) 945 Total S.F. (1 Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. $60,000 /DU $60,000 $60,000 $60,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 $0 $0 Unit Construction Costs $130.00/ Net S.F. $81,250 $108,550 $122,850 Total Hard Costs $141,250 $168,550 $182,850 Fees Fair Share $9,761 /DU $9,761 $9,761 $9,761 Sewer $5,000 /DU $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Water $1,000/DU $1,000 $1,000 $1,000 Subtotal $15,761 $15,761 $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $38,049 /DU $38,049 $38,049 $38,049 Total Direct Costs (Except Land) $195,060 $222,360 $236,660 Dev. Fee/Profit & Overhead 160/0 $37,154 $42,354 $45,078 Subtotal --Develop. Costs (Except land) $232,214 $264,714 $281,738 Land Costs $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 Total Project Costs $262,214 $294,714 $311,736 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates i L 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 E Table B-5 Per Unit Development Costs By Unit Bedroom Count Renter Prototype #2 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Cost to Housing Authority Prototvoe Description: Townhomes TYPE AND SI7F r)F UNIT Total Number of Units: 100 Units 280/28A 3BD/26A 1,150 Net S F. 1250 1,150 Total S.F. (1) 1,250 Total S.F. (1) Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. $75,000 /DU $75,000 $75,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 $0 Unit Construction Costs $130.00/ Net S.F. $149,500 $162,500 Total Hard Costs $224,500 $237,500 Fees Building Permit $9,761 /DU $9,761 $9,761 School Fees $5,000 /DU $5,000 $5,000 Sewer Fees $1,000 /DU $1,000 $1,000 Subtotal $15,761 $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $55,393 /DU $55,393 $55,393 Total Development Costs $295,654 $308,654 Dev. Fee/Profit & Overhead 16% $56,315 $58,791 Subtotal --Develop. Costs (Except Land) $351,969 $367,445 Land Costs $30,000 $30,000 Total Project Costs $381,969 $397,445 ISource: David Paul Rosen & Associates KonaRenter.xis n Table B-6 Per Unit Development Costs By Unit Bedroom Count Renter Prototype #3 Kona Affordability Cap Analysis Cost to Housing Authority PrntntvnP []Psrrintinn! C:F/RPtail TYPE ANr] S17F OF I)NIT Total Number of Units: 36 Units 213D/2BA 875 Net S.F. 875 Total S.F. 1) Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. $70,000 /DU $70,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 Unit Construction Costs $160.00/ Net S.F. $140,000 Total Hard Costs $210,000 Fees Fair Share $9,761 /DU $9,761 Sewer $5,000 /DU $5,000 Water $1,000 /DU $1,000 Subtotal $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $54,761 /DU $54,761 Total Development Costs $280,522 Dev. Fee/Profit & Overhead 16% $53,433 Land Costs $30,000 Total Project Costs $363,954 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates 1 1 1 i 1 1 KonaRenter.xls 1 1 C 1 LI 1 Table B-7 Per Unit Development Costs By Unit Bedroom Count Renter Prototype 114 Kona Affordability Gap Analysis Prntntvna nPerrintinne nienipw Total Number of Units: 100 Units 21313/26A 3BD/28A 1200 1500 1,200 Total S.F. (1) 1,500 Total S.F. (1) Hard Construction Costs Infrastructure/Site Improve. $75,000 /DU $75,000 $75,000 Site Improvements $0 /DU $0 $0 Unit Construction Costs $130.00 Per SF $156,000 $195,000 Total Hard Costs $231,000 $270,000 Fees Fair Share $9,761 /DU $9,761 $9,761 Sewer $5,000 /DU $5,000 $5,000 Water $1,000 /DU $1,000 $1,000 Subtotal $15,761 $15,761 Indirect/Soft Costs $62,083 /DU $62,083 $62,083 Total Development Costs $308,844 $347,844 Dev. Fee/Profit & Overhead 16% $58,827 $66,256 Land Costs $30,000 $30,000 Total Project Costs $397,672 $444,100 (1) Assumes efficiency ratio (net/gross SF) of: Plus pro rata (per unit) share of 0 Source: David Paul Rosen & Associates KonaRenter,xis 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Appendix C Chapter 11 1 I Chapter 11 r I I f'. 8 HOUSING fArticle 1. Affordable Housing. Section 11-1. Title. ' Section 11-2 Objectives. Section I1-3. Definitions. Section 11-4. Affordable housing requirements. Section 11-5. Satisfaction of affordable housing requirements. ' Section 11-6. Calculation of in -lieu fee. Section 11-7. Calculation of affordable sales price. ' Section I 1-8. Section 11-9. Density bonus. Sale of lots and units. Section 11-10. Buyer of finished lots. Section 11-11. Rental units. Section 11-12. Use of in -lieu fees. Section 11-13. Eligibility. Section 11-14. Resale restrictions. Section 11-15. Transfer of excess credits. Section 11-16. Section 201G projects. Section 11-17. Effect on existing requirements. Section 11-18. Adoption of rules. ' Section 11-19. Reports by administrator. * Editor's Note: Chapter 11, •'Housing," was repealed by Ordinance 96-162, section 21, and replaced with "Affordable Housing," pursuant to Ordinance 98-1. r I I f'. 8 This page intentionally left blank. is HOUSING Chapter i I 0 1 11-1 SUPP.1 (1-2006) HOUSING Article 1. Affordable Housing. Section 11-1. Title. This article shall be referred to as the County of Hawaii affordable housing policy. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-2. Objectives. The objectives of this affordable housing policy are to: (1) Implement goals and policies of the general plan; (2) Promote and assist private development of housing for senior citizens, persons with disabilities and qualified households; (3) Use available governmental grants and funds in the development of affordable housing and increase the capabilities of qualified households to obtain affordable housing; (4) Support innovative, lower-cost approaches which may be used in the development of affordable housing; (5) Require large resort and industrial enterprises to address related affordable housing needs as a condition of rezoning approvals, based upon current economic and housing conditions; (6) Require residential developers to include affordable housing in their projects or contribute to affordable housing off-site. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-3. Definitions. The following words and phrases, unless the context otherwise requires, are defined as follows: (1) "Affordable housing" means dwelling units which may be rented or purchased at cost levels which can be afforded by persons or families who are within the definition of "qualified households," as provided herein; (2) "Affordable housing income guidelines" means those household income levels which shall be published annually by the Office of Housing and Community Development and as described further herein; (3) "Fifteen mile radius" means the distance from the site in question as measured in a straight line from the boundary of the parcel being rezoned; "Qualified (4) households" mean an individual or two or more related by blood, state -sanctioned adoption, foster parentage, guardianship, or marriage, occupying a dwelling unit and whose total household income is within the affordable housing income guidelines or who would otherwise qualify in a state or federal affordable housing program; (5) "Affordable unit" or "affordable housing unit" means a lot or dwelling unit for sale or lease which is affordable to qualified households earning no more than the percentages of the median income in the County of Hawaii as stated in this chapter; (6) "Eligible buyer" means a person who meets eligibility requirements, including income limitations, as established by rule. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-111, sec. 1.) 0 1 11-1 SUPP.1 (1-2006) 11-4 HAWAII COUNTY CODE Section 11-4. Affordable housing requirements. (a) The affordable housing requirements shall apply to: (1) All new rezonings that may create additional residential uses, including rezonings, to RS, RD, RM, RCX, RA and FA districts, and APD rezonings where lot sizes are less than five acres, and CO, CV, CN and PD districts when residential uses are established in those districts; (2) All new rezonings to resort, including hotels established in V, CV, CG, CDH or PD districts; (3) All new rezonings to ML, MG, and MCX districts; (4) All prior rezoning actions which contain affordable housing conditions that have not been satisfied as of the effective date of this ordinance, or to which the County has not agreed previously as to the specific means of satisfying the requirements. (b) Requirements for residential uses. (1) Four or fewer residential units or lots: no requirement; (2) Five or more residential units or lots: the applicant must earn affordable housing credits equal to twenty percent of the number of units or lots (rounded to the nearest .5); (3) Time share units shall be considered as residential units. (c) Requirement for resort and hotel uses. Resort and hotel uses generating more than one hundred employees on a full-time equivalent basis must earn one affordable housing credit for every four full-time equivalent jobs created. (d) Requirements for industrial uses. The industrial uses that must fulfill the affordable housing requirements are any uses allowed as of right in an ML or MG district, except for home improvement centers, and any uses that are also allowed as of right in a CG district. Individual industrial enterprises generating more than one hundred employees on a full-time equivalent basis must earn one affordable housing credit for every four full-time equivalent jobs created. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-111, sec. 2.) Section 11-5. Satisfaction of affordable housing requirements. (a) The developer may satisfy the affordable housing requirements by doing any of the following: (1) Construct affordable for -sale units on-site; (2) Construct affordable finished lots on-site, but only if the entire project consists of finished lots; (3) Construct affordable for -sale units off-site, but within a fifteen -mile radius of the project site; (4) Construct affordable rental units on-site, or off-site, within a fifteen -mile radius of the project site; (5) Pay in -lieu fees to the Agency; (6) Provide developable land, within a fifteen -mile radius of the project site, with a value determined by appraisal, that shall be credited against the in -lieu fee; (7) Provide infrastructure, within a fifteen -mile radius of the project site, that shall be credited against the in -lieu fee. Any infrastructure provided must be directly related to the future provision of affordable housing; (8) With the approval of the administrator, construct housing on-site or off-site, that addresses a critical regional housing need, at least equivalent to satisfying the requirements of any sub -sections (1)-(4) above, provided that the project must be located within the allowable areas for in -lieu fees under sec. 11-12; (9) Obtain excess credits from another developer pursuant to sec. 11-15. (b) The affordable unit or finished lot shall be completed with road access, drainage, water, electricity, sewer lines, if required, and telephone, and, in the case of finished lots, shall not have unusual site conditions that make it difficult to build a home. (c) Affordable housing credits. The developer shall earn affordable housing credits as follows: (1) Sale of completed dwelling units affordable for qualified households earning 120-140% of median: 0.5 credits per unit; SUPP 1. (1-2006) 11-2 n f HOUSING § 11-5 u (2) Sale of completed dwelling units affordable for qualified households earning 100-120% of median: (a) The in -lieu fee for a completed dwelling unit shall be twenty-five percent of: the actual sales price of the 1.0 credits per unit; (3) Sale of completed dwelling units affordable for qualified households earning 80-100% of median: (c) The in -lieu fee for each required affordable dwelling unit for resort, hotel, and industrial uses shall be 1.5 credits per unit; (4) Sale of completed dwelling units affordable for qualified households earning less than 80% of twenty -percent of the median. median: 2.0 credits per unit; (5) Construction of rental units affordable for qualified households earning 80-100% of median: 1.0 the project in the previous calendar year, minus the affordable price for households earning one hundred credits per unit; (6) Construction of rental units affordable for qualified households earning 60-80% of median: 1.5 11-7. Calculation of affordable sales price. credits per unit; (7) Construction of rental units affordable for qualified households earning less than 60% of median: percentages of the median income for the County of Hawaii, using the Housing and Community 2.0 credits per unit; (8) Sale of finished lots affordable for qualified households earning no more than 100% of median: 0.5 previous year, as published by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. For 2005, the affordable sales (9) credit per lot; Sale of finished lot affordable for qualified households earning no more than 80% of the median: adjustments due to association fees or similar fees. 1.0 credit per lot. (10) Donation of land to a nonprofit corporation or governmental agency for construction of for -sale housing units affordable for qualified households earning no more than 80% of the median, or construction of for -rent housing units affordable for qualified households earning no more than 60% of the median, subject to the approval of the administrator of the feasibility, location, and type of project. After the approval of the administrator, the credits are earned upon the donation of the land: 1.0 credit per unit. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-111, sec. 3.) u Section 11-6. Calculation of In -lieu fee. (a) The in -lieu fee for a completed dwelling unit shall be twenty-five percent of: the actual sales price of the unit minus the affordable price for households earning one hundred twenty percent of the median. (b) The in -lieu fee for a finished lot shall be twenty-five percent of: the actual sales price of the lot minus the affordable price for households earning one hundred percent of the median. (c) The in -lieu fee for each required affordable dwelling unit for resort, hotel, and industrial uses shall be twenty five percent of. the median sales price for a single-family home in the tax map zone containing the project, in the previous calendar year, minus the affordable price for households earning one hundred e twenty -percent of the median. (d) The in -lieu fee for each completed dwelling unit not offered for sale (such as units offered for rent) shall be twenty-five percent of. the median sales price for a single-family home in the tax map zone containing the project in the previous calendar year, minus the affordable price for households earning one hundred twenty percent of the median. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) ASection 11-7. Calculation of affordable sales price. (a) The OHCD shall calculate the affordable sales price for various household sizes annually. The affordable sales price for completed units shall be the price that is affordable to households earning the stated percentages of the median income for the County of Hawaii, using the Housing and Community ,Development Corporation of Hawaii guidelines, and the most current annual average interest rate for a thirty-year conventional fixed mortgage, not seasonally adjusted, for the twelve months ending in the previous year, as published by the Federal Home Loan Mortgage Corp. For 2005, the affordable sales price for a household of four persons earning one hundred percent of median shall be $203,400 less any adjustments due to association fees or similar fees. 11-3 SUPP.1 (1-2006) u § 11-7 HAWAII COUNTY CODE (b) The affordable sales price for finished lots shall be the affordable sales price for a completed unit for a household of four persons, earning one hundred percent of the median income in the County of Hawaii, less the cost to build a single-family home of 1,100 square feet in the general area, as estimated by OHCD. In 2005, the affordable sales price for a finished lot shall be $95,000. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section I1-8. Density bonus. (a) Any project subject to an affordable housing requirement under this chapter that fulfills its housing requirement by constructing affordable dwelling units for sale or rent shall be entitled to a density bonus increasing the total number of residential units that may be constructed on the site by ten percent, and decreasing the minimum lot size by ten percent, compared to the number of units otherwise allowable and the minimum lot size as established by the zoning code. (b) If a project fulfills its affordable housing requirement off-site, the density bonus can be used on the non - affordable site, or the affordable housing site, or divided between the two sites. (c) The density bonus may not be used in the State Land Use Agricultural District or Rural Districts to create lots less than the minimum lot sizes required in those districts. (1998, Ord. No. 98-1, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-9. Sale of lots and units. (a) Before obtaining final subdivision approval or plan approval for any for -sale residential project subject to the affordable housing requirements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County that the required number of homes or lots will be sold at the required affordable sales price, or that the required number of rental units will be offered for rent at the affordable rental price, or that the in -lieu fee will be paid upon the sale of each for -sale dwelling unit or lot, or that the applicant will obtain excess credits sufficient to satisfy its requirements. (b) Before obtaining final plan approval for any resort, hotel, or industrial project, or not -for -sale residential project subject to the affordable housing requirements, the applicant shall enter into an agreement with the County that the affordable housing requirements will be met before the issuance of a certificate of occupancy for the project. (c) All agreements shall be recorded against the property, and that the in -lieu fee, if applicable, shall be a lien payable upon the closing of sale of each unit or lot or prior to the issuance of a certificate of occupancy under subsection (b). (d) All for -sale affordable units and lots shall be sold only to eligible buyers during a ninety -day preferential marketing period. (e) If the developer cannot sell the units or lots to eligible buyers during the ninety -day preferential marketing period, the units shall be offered for sale to persons who are otherwise eligible, but have previously owned a residence, for an additional period of thirty days. If a unit or lot cannot be sold after the one hundred twenty -day period, the developer may sell the unit or lot to any person at the affordable sales price. The Agency may also purchase the unit or lot after the ninety -day preferential marketing period at the affordable sales price. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-10. Buyer of finished lots. The purchaser of a finished lot that is used to fulfill an affordable housing requirement, and that is sold during the preferential marketing period, shall enter into a binding contract for the construction of a residence on the lot within two years of the date of sale, and complete construction within three years of the date of sale, or, if the purchaser is an owner -builder, shall commence construction within two years and complete construction within three years of the date of sale. During this three-year period, the purchaser may sell only to eligible buyers, as determined by the administrator, and the sales price shall not exceed the original purchase price, plus an inflation factor based on the increase in the Consumer Price Index for Honolulu, and reasonable compensation for improvements, if any, made by the purchaser. If the purchaser does not meet SUPP 1. (1-2006) 11-4 C ril r n C C u C 0 C 0 C 0 HOUSING § 11-10 these time limits, the purchaser shall offer to sell the lot to the Agency, or, at the election of the administrator, to eligible buyers, at a price that does not exceed the original purchase price, plus an inflation factor based on the Consumer Price Index for Honolulu, plus reasonable compensation for improvements, if any, made by the purchaser. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-11. Rental units. (a) The Agency shall determine the affordable rental price for units of various sizes annually. (b) The developer shall enter into an agreement with the County that the rental prices on the units shall be controlled for no less than twenty years after initial occupancy. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-12. Use of in -lieu fees. The in -lieu fee shall be used to support affordable housing located no more than twenty-five miles, as measured on a straight line, from the project that generated the in -lieu fee provided that the Agency can authorize use outside of this distance restriction if it determines that the project is necessary to satisfy a critical housing need. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-13. Eligibility. The administrator shall establish eligibility criteria by rule. Eligibility criteria shall include residency requirements to the extent permitted by law. The administrator may allow households with incomes up to twenty percent greater than the income on which the maximum sales price was based to be qualified to purchase a unit. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-14. Resale restrictions. The Agency shall establish resale restrictions by rule to ensure that units created under this policy remain affordable. Such rules may include, but not be limited to, buy-back, shared appreciation, and other restrictions. The administrator may be delegated the authority to select the resale restriction applicable to a particular project. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-15. Transfer of excess credits. (a) Developers who construct new affordable housing units in excess of any requirements imposed under this chapter or any other requirement may earn "excess credits" which they may transfer to other developers. (b) The developer shall earn the excess credits pursuant to section I l -5(c). (c) To qualify for excess credits, units must be sold or rented to qualified households. The developer shall apply to the administrator for approval of the excess credits. (d) After approval of the excess credits, the developer may transfer the excess credits to any other project that is within the distance established in section 11-5(a)(3), to fulfill part or all of the affordable housing requirements of the other project. (e) If the project applying for the excess credits was developed with a direct subsidy from the federal, state, or county governments, the administrator shall either (1) discount the excess credits earned by the value of the subsidy, or (2) require that the Agency or other public entity subsidizing the project share equitably in the proceeds from the transfer of the excess credits. If the project was developed by a nonprofit corporation and sold to qualified households earning not more than 80% of the median, or rented to qualified households earning not more than 60% of the median, the discount shall not exceed 50% of the credits. The administrator may waive these requirements if the project earning the excess credits addresses a critical housing need and the excess credits, in addition to the direct subsidy, are or were a 11-5 SUPP.1 (1-2006) § 11-15 HAWAI`l COUNTY CODE necessary inducement to the construction of the project, or if the excess credits are earned by a nonprofit entity that will use the proceeds for the construction of more affordable housing. (f) For the purposes of this section, a "direct financial subsidy" includes the provision of land at below market value, or governmental construction of infrastructure necessary for a housing project, but does not include density bonuses, zoning or other permitting exemptions under section 201G-118, Hawaii Revised Statutes, or federal or state tax credits for the construction of rental housing. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2; Am. 2005, Ord. No. 05-111, sec. 4.) Section 11-16. Section 201G projects. The County's exemption authority, as contained in chapter 2010, Hawaii Revised Statutes, may be utilized to expedite change of zone requests, subdivision applications, and plan review as well as the consideration of reduced development standards. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-17. Effect on existing requirements. This policy supersedes all previous affordable housing requirements and Hawaii County Housing Agency Resolution 65 dated May 2, 1990 and Ordinance 98-1. Any affordable housing condition or portion thereof in any prior rezoning ordinance which has not been fully satisfied as of the effective date of this policy shall be reassessed pursuant to this policy unless the County has previously agreed as to the specific means of satisfying the requirements, in which case, this amended policy shall apply only to the extent it is not inconsistent with the agreement. In no event shall the County of Hawaii reimburse or be obligated to reimburse any person or entity for the partial or full satisfaction of an affordable housing condition in any ordinance which became effective prior to the effective date of this policy. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-18. Adoption of rules. The Housing Administrator is authorized to adopt such rules pursuant to Chapter 91, Hawaii Revised Statutes, as are necessary to carry out this ordinance. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) Section 11-19. Reports by administrator. The administrator shall make timely periodic reports to the Agency of all significant actions taken under authority of this chapter, including but not limited to the approval of excess credits, the acceptance of transferred credits, and the choice of resale restrictions. (2005, Ord. No. 05-23, sec. 2.) SUPP 1. (1-2006) 11-6 1 1 11 1 t GREY INiFRASTRUCTURE REPORT ' Wilson Okamoto Corporation March 2007 1 1 II II II II I GREY INFRASTRUCTURE REPORT Submitted to: County of Hawaii �._ Department of Planning March 2007 WILSON OKAMOTO CORPORATION 7 1 F -I Grey Infrastructure Report Kona Community Development Plan 11 Prepared for County of Hawaii Planning Department Prepared by Wilson Okamoto Corporation 11 IMarch 2007 r] n i F, n 1 1 n P, n u TABLE OF CONTENTS Grey Infrastructure Report Paae WATER.............................................................................................................1-1 1.1 Nature, Occurrence, and Availability of Ground -Water Resources ....... .... 1-1 1.1.1 Ground -Water Occurrence .................. ......... . ................ ........... 1-1 1.1.2 Estimated Ground -Water Availability ..... ............ ........ ........... ..... 1-1 1.13 Kona Area Ground -Water Development Issues .......... ... .... ...... 1-5 1.2 County Water Planning Context ........................ .................. .... ...... 1-6 12.1 Water Legislation and Water Planning Requirements ......... .... ..1-7 1.2.2 The County Water Use and Development Plan and Status of CurrentUpdate . ........................................ ................. ...........1-7 1.2 2.1 State Water Code Requirements ... ........................ 1-7 1.2.2.2 HWP Framework Requirements .... .... ................... 1-9 1.2.3 Status of County WUDP Update ......... ... .................. ........1-10 1.3 Existing and Projected Use of Ground -Water Resources .... ... . ........ ... 1-10 1.3.1 Current Ground -Water Withdrawals by Aquifer System Area . ..1-11 1.32 Projected Ground -Water Use .............. .. .... ........... ......... .. 1-11 1.4 Existing Water Infrastructure and Service Areas .... .. .... ........................ 1-14 1.4.1 North Kona Water System ........................ ... .......... ........... ..... 1-14 14.2 South Kona Water System ................. ... .... .............. ...... 1-15 1.43 Non -Service Areas ...................... ....... ..... ......... ....... .... 1-16 1.5 Historical and Projected Municipal Water System Demands ........... ....... 1-17 1.5.1 Historical Municipal System Water Demands ... .................... .... 1-17 1 5.2 Projected Municipal System Water Demands ....... ........... .... .... 1-19 1.6 Municipal Water System Analysis ........... ............ .............. ... ..... . 1-21 16.1 Transmission and Distribution System Analysis ........... ........ .. 1-21 1.6.2 Storage Analysis ... .............. .................. ......... .......... ... ... 1-22 17 Municipal Water System Capital Improvement Program ......... ..... .. ... 1-23 1.7.1 North Kona Water System Planned Capital Improvements.. ... 1-24 1.72 South Kona Water System Planned Capital Improvements ........1-25 18 Wastewater Reuse, Water Conservation, and Drought Mitigation .. ........ 1-26 1.8.1 Wastewater Reuse ........................ .............. ......... ............1-26 1.8.2 Water Conservation .. ....................... .... ........ ........ .. .1-29 18.3 Drought Mitigation ...................................... .......... ... ......... 1-30 2 WASTEWATER................................................................................................2-1 2.1 Sewered Areas ........... ......................... .. ... ......................... 2-1 2.1.1 Municipal Sewerage — Kealakehe WWRF ............................... 2-1 2.1.2 Private Sewerage — Heeia WWRF ...... .... .............................. 2-3 22 Unsewered Areas ............................ ......... .. .. . . .... ........ 2-4 2.2.1 Critical Wastewater Disposal Areas. ... .. ... ... .................. 2-4 2.2.2 Large Capacity Cesspools .................................... ... ......... 2-5 2.23 Septic Systems ........... ......... .... ... ... ........ ... ... ....... 2-5 224 Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems ... ................... ......... 2-7 Grey Infrastructure Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Page 4 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................... 1.4-1 4.1 Existing Roadway Network........................................................................4-1 4.2 Previous Plans ............ .............................................................................. 4-4 4.2.1 Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP) 1998 .... 4-4 4.2.2 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (1991) .................................4-4 4.2.3 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan (1997) 4-5 4.2.4 Keahole to Kailua Roadway Master Plan (2001) ...........................4-5 4.2.5 Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (2003) ...............4-5 4.2.6 State Transportation Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Projects......................................................................................................4-6 4.3 Congestion.................................................................'................................4-8 4.4 Transportation Needs.................................................................................4-9 4.4.1 Shortcomings...............................................................................4-9 4.4.2 Solutions.....................................................................................4-10 4.4.3 Public Transit Needs...................................................................4-13 4.4.4 Pedestrian/Bikeway Needs.........................................................4-14 4.5 Connectivity.............................................................................................4-14 2.2.5 Underground Injection Control......................................................2-7 2.3 Potential Impacts on Coastal Water Quality...............................................2-8 2.3.1 West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force.................................2-8 2.3.2 Department of Health Water Sampling..........................................2-9 3 FLOOD HAZARD..............................................................................................3-1 3-1 3.1 Previous Studies........................................................................................ 3.1.1 North Kona Flood Hazard Analysis ............................................... 3-1 3.1.2 South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses..............................:..............3-3 3.1.3 County of Hawaii Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan.............................3-4 3.1.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer........................................................3-6 3.2 Flood Occurrences ..... ............................................................................... 3-7 3.3 Flood Insurance Rate Maps......................................................:................3-7 3.3.1 Letter of Map Revisions(LOMR).................................................3-11 3.3.2 Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) ...........................3-11 3.4 Mauka Lands Management and Development.........................................3-13 3.5 Adequacy of Drainage Standards............................................................ 3-14 3.5.1 Storm Drainage Standard, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, October 1970..................................................................3-14 3.5.2 Chapter 27, Flood Control - Hawaii County Code ....................... 3-14 3.5.3 Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Hawaii County Code...........................................................................................3-14 3.6 Proposed Measures.........................................:.......................................3-14 4 TRANSPORTATION..................................................................................... 1.4-1 4.1 Existing Roadway Network........................................................................4-1 4.2 Previous Plans ............ .............................................................................. 4-4 4.2.1 Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP) 1998 .... 4-4 4.2.2 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (1991) .................................4-4 4.2.3 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan (1997) 4-5 4.2.4 Keahole to Kailua Roadway Master Plan (2001) ...........................4-5 4.2.5 Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (2003) ...............4-5 4.2.6 State Transportation Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Projects......................................................................................................4-6 4.3 Congestion.................................................................'................................4-8 4.4 Transportation Needs.................................................................................4-9 4.4.1 Shortcomings...............................................................................4-9 4.4.2 Solutions.....................................................................................4-10 4.4.3 Public Transit Needs...................................................................4-13 4.4.4 Pedestrian/Bikeway Needs.........................................................4-14 4.5 Connectivity.............................................................................................4-14 r 1 C H TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Grey Infrastructure Report Page 5 PARKS.............................................................................................................. 5-1 51 Existing Conditions.. ... ... ... ... .. ....... ... ........ ..... ........ .... ... 5-1 52 After School Programs ........... ...... ... ... ... ....... . ... ..... ... 5-7 5.3 Funding .. ....... ... ... ......... .. .... ........... ... - . ..5 7 5.4 Public Access to Shoreline and Mountains. . .. ..... 5-8 5.5 Needs .. ...... ......... ... ... . ........ . .. ...... .. ........ .............. 5-8 6 EMERGENCY SERVICES...................................................... 6-1 6.1 Police ... ... ................ ................. .......... .. .... .. ........ ........ ...:...... .......6-1 6.1.1 Existing Conditions .. ....... .................. ........... ...... .. . ... .... 6-1 .. 6 1 2 Proposed improvements .......... .... ...... ... ...... 6-1 6.13 Issues and Recommendations: . . . ............ .... .... .... ..6-1 62 Fire .......... ... .. ... .. ..... ............... ........- 63 6.21 Existing Conditions ........ ...... ... ... .... .. 6-3 62.2 Proposed Improvements .. .. .... 6-4 63 Medical ... ....... ....... ....... .. .. ...... ... ............... ....... ... ... 6-4 7 SCHOOLS.........................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Existing Conditions .... .. .......... .... .... ....... .... .... 7-1 71.1 Public School System . ... ......... . ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Private Schools . ..... ......... ...... ...... ......................... 7-3 7.2 Expansion Plans ....... ....... ......... .... ...... 7-3 8 SOLID WASTE..................................................................................................8-1 9 REFERENCES..................................................................................................9-1 U 4.5.1 Connectivity Concept and Standards ................ ... .... ... . .. 4-15 4.5.1 1 Residential Districts ..................... ...................... .4-15 45-12 Commercial Districts ................. ... .. ....... ...... 4-16 4.6 Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation ............................................. ... ..4-17 46.1 Bike Designations ..................... ... ......... ... ................ 4-17 4.62 Existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Plans .... .. .... ............ .... ... 4-17 4.6.2 1 Bike Plan Hawaii ... .... .. ................. ... ... ...... 4-17 47 Relationship of residences to jobs .......... ........ ............. ....... ... 4-22 4.8 Transportation Demand Management Strategies ........................ .... 4-22 4.9 Parking . .......... .. ... ....... ... ...... .. ........ ........ ..... .... ...... .- 4 23 4.9.1 Centralized Parking .................. ... .. ............ .............. 4-23 4.9.2 Park -and -Ride Facilities . ... .. ... . ... .... .. . .. . .......4-23 5 PARKS.............................................................................................................. 5-1 51 Existing Conditions.. ... ... ... ... .. ....... ... ........ ..... ........ .... ... 5-1 52 After School Programs ........... ...... ... ... ... ....... . ... ..... ... 5-7 5.3 Funding .. ....... ... ... ......... .. .... ........... ... - . ..5 7 5.4 Public Access to Shoreline and Mountains. . .. ..... 5-8 5.5 Needs .. ...... ......... ... ... . ........ . .. ...... .. ........ .............. 5-8 6 EMERGENCY SERVICES...................................................... 6-1 6.1 Police ... ... ................ ................. .......... .. .... .. ........ ........ ...:...... .......6-1 6.1.1 Existing Conditions .. ....... .................. ........... ...... .. . ... .... 6-1 .. 6 1 2 Proposed improvements .......... .... ...... ... ...... 6-1 6.13 Issues and Recommendations: . . . ............ .... .... .... ..6-1 62 Fire .......... ... .. ... .. ..... ............... ........- 63 6.21 Existing Conditions ........ ...... ... ... .... .. 6-3 62.2 Proposed Improvements .. .. .... 6-4 63 Medical ... ....... ....... ....... .. .. ...... ... ............... ....... ... ... 6-4 7 SCHOOLS.........................................................................................................7-1 7.1 Existing Conditions .... .. .......... .... .... ....... .... .... 7-1 71.1 Public School System . ... ......... . ...... 7-1 7.1.2 Private Schools . ..... ......... ...... ...... ......................... 7-3 7.2 Expansion Plans ....... ....... ......... .... ...... 7-3 8 SOLID WASTE..................................................................................................8-1 9 REFERENCES..................................................................................................9-1 U Grey Infrastructure Report TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) LIST OF FIGURES Page Figure 1-1 Island of Hawaii Ground -Water Hydrologic Unit Boundaries With LIST OF TABLES Table 1-2 Reported Ground -Water Withdrawals, North and South Kona..............1-11 Table 1-3 DWS Water Use Projections, 2005 to 2025 ..........................................1-12 Table 1-4 Hawaii County Projected Water Use 2005 to 2025 (MGD) by Water UseCategory ................ ..... . ............ .................................................. 1-13 Table 1-5 North Kona Water System Summary ....................................................1-15 Table 1-6 South Kona Water System Summary ..................................... ............. 1-16 Table 1-7 Estimated Average Day Historical Water Production for the North and South Kona Water Systems ........... ........................ ............................. 1-17 Table 1-8 Potable Water Consumption by Agricultural Customers in the North and South Kona Municipal Water Systems..................................................1-18 Table 1-9 Projected 2005 to 2025 Average Day Water Demand for the North and South Kona Water Systems..................................................................1-19 Table 1-10 Historical and Projected Average Day Water Demand for the North and South Kona Water Systems, 2001 to 2025 ...........................................1-20 Table 1-11 Storage Surplus/Deficit for 2005 to 2025 for the North and South Kona WaterSystems.....................................................................................1-23 Table 1-12 Recommended Storage Capacity Improvements for the North and South Kona Water Systems .............. ................................... ............ ............ 1-23 Table 1-13 County of Hawaii DWS 2007-2026 CIP and Improvement Program Projects.................................................................................................1-24 Table 1-14 North Kona District CIP and Improvement Program Project Costs ....... 1-25 Table 1-15 South Kona District CIP and Improvement Program Project Costs ......1-26 Table 2-1 Department of Health Clean Water Branch Water Quality Monitoring Stations................................................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1 Drainage Way Acres Inundated and Length ........................................... 3-3 L Respect To The North and South Kona Judicial District Boundaries...... 1-2 Figure 2-1 Wastewater Service Areas......................................................................2-2 Figure 2-2 Critical Wastewater Disposal Area..........................................................2-6 Figure 2-3 Island of Hawaii Underground Injection Control Areas . .......................... 2-8 Figure 3-1 Flood & Drainage - North Kona...............................................................3-2 Figure 3-2 Flood & Drainage - South Kona.............................................................. 3-5 Figure 3-3 Flood Occurrence...................................................................................3-8 Figure 4-1 Existing Roadway Network ................................... .............. .................. 4-2 Figure 4-2 Existing and Proposed Bikeways........................................................ 4-19 Figure5-1 Parks.......................................................................................................5-2 Figure 6-1 Emergency Facilities......................................................................... .6-2 Figure 7-1 Schools & Libraries ................................................... ............................. 7-2 LIST OF TABLES Table 1-2 Reported Ground -Water Withdrawals, North and South Kona..............1-11 Table 1-3 DWS Water Use Projections, 2005 to 2025 ..........................................1-12 Table 1-4 Hawaii County Projected Water Use 2005 to 2025 (MGD) by Water UseCategory ................ ..... . ............ .................................................. 1-13 Table 1-5 North Kona Water System Summary ....................................................1-15 Table 1-6 South Kona Water System Summary ..................................... ............. 1-16 Table 1-7 Estimated Average Day Historical Water Production for the North and South Kona Water Systems ........... ........................ ............................. 1-17 Table 1-8 Potable Water Consumption by Agricultural Customers in the North and South Kona Municipal Water Systems..................................................1-18 Table 1-9 Projected 2005 to 2025 Average Day Water Demand for the North and South Kona Water Systems..................................................................1-19 Table 1-10 Historical and Projected Average Day Water Demand for the North and South Kona Water Systems, 2001 to 2025 ...........................................1-20 Table 1-11 Storage Surplus/Deficit for 2005 to 2025 for the North and South Kona WaterSystems.....................................................................................1-23 Table 1-12 Recommended Storage Capacity Improvements for the North and South Kona Water Systems .............. ................................... ............ ............ 1-23 Table 1-13 County of Hawaii DWS 2007-2026 CIP and Improvement Program Projects.................................................................................................1-24 Table 1-14 North Kona District CIP and Improvement Program Project Costs ....... 1-25 Table 1-15 South Kona District CIP and Improvement Program Project Costs ......1-26 Table 2-1 Department of Health Clean Water Branch Water Quality Monitoring Stations................................................................................................... 2-9 Table 3-1 Drainage Way Acres Inundated and Length ........................................... 3-3 L u r� TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued) Grey Infrastructure Report Page 1 1 0 C1 n f] N n Table 3-2 Table 3-3 Historical Flood Incidents in Kona .... ................. . . . ........... .. . ....... 3-9 Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRM)...... . . . . . ............ .............. .. 3-10 Table 3-4 Updated Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) .. ... ........... ..... .... ... 3-12 Table 3-5 Table 4-1 Updated Conditional Letters of Map Revisions (CLOMR)...... . . ....... Transportation Improvement Projects Already Funded...... ..............4-7 3-12 Table 4-2 Existing Bike Facilities ...................... . . .............. ........... ....4-18 Table 4-3 Bike Plan Hawaii Proposed Projects.. ........... .. . .............. ... 4-20 Table 5-1 Existing Conditions of Parks Within the County of Hawaii Kona District. 5-3 Table 5-2 General Activities occurring within DOE Facilities ............ . . .......... .. .. 5-7 Table 6-1 Offenses and Complaints Known to Police . ......... . . . ........... .. .. ... 6-3 Table 7-1 Projected and Current Enrollment of the DOE West Hawaii Complex Schools. . ... . . ............... ................. 7-3 . ............ Table 7-1 Private Schools in West Hawaii.... .. ....... ..7-4 Table 8-1 Quantities of Solid Waste from Transfer Stations For Year 2000 ....... 8-2 1 1 0 C1 n f] N n 1 Grey Infrastructure Report I This page intentionally left blank. vi L' 1 11, 1 17, 17] n f I I Grey Infrastructure Report 1 WATER 1.1 Nature, Occurrence, and Availability of Ground -Water Resources In 1987, the Fourteenth Legislature enacted the State Water Code to establish programs for the development, protection, conservation, control, and regulation of the use of Hawaii's water resources for the benefit of the people of the State. The State Department of Land and Natural Resources (DLNR) Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) is responsible for administering the State Water Code. One of the primary objectives of the State Water Code is the development of a program of comprehensive water resource planning to address the problems of supply and conservation of water (HRS §174C-2). Pursuant to this mandate, the CWRM inventories and assesses water resources statewide This is particularly important with regard to the development of ground water sources for municipal water supply. 1.1.1 Ground -Water Occurrence Ground -water resources in Hawaii vary considerably in setting and hydrologic characteristics Aquifers can be limited or of considerable extent, isolated or subject to influence from one or more adjacent aquifers. Ground water can occur in sedimentary deposits, perched settings, or basal lenses resting on seawater In order to protect and monitor ground -water resources, a consistent scheme of classification and nomenclature for the aquifers of the State of Hawaii was created based on aquifer and groundwater parameters and hydrographic divisions. Aquifer system boundaries do not typically coincide with topographic or political boundaries as they are delineated according to subsurface features and ground -water behavior. Figure 1-1 shows the aquifer system area boundaries for the North and South Kona areas. As illustrated on the map, hydrologically related aquifer system areas are grouped into aquifer sectors. 1.1.2 Estimated Ground -Water Availability The planning area for the Kona CDP spans portions of the Northwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area and the Southwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area, as well as the entire Hualalai Aquifer Sector Area. Figure 1-1 illustrates the coincidence of the North and South Kona districts and the ground -water hydrologic unit boundaries. The aquifer system areas included within these sector areas are listed below in Table 1-1 with their respective estimated sustainable yields in millions of gallons per day (mgd). ' The convention used by the US Geological Survey and the State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources is to hyphenate the terms "ground -water" and "surface -water" when used as compound adjectives (e g , ground -water monitoring, ground -water quality, surface -water discharge, etc ) The nouns "ground water' and "surface water" are not hyphenated 1-1 Infrastructure Northwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area North Kona (30 mgd SY) District Boundary • • Kiholo� • • • Aquifer System Hualalal Area 118 modl Aquifer Sector Area Aaaehoomalu (56 mi SY) Aquifer System Area _ Keauhou (30 mgd) •,Aquifer System Area 138 mgdl Ke*kekua Ag fifer System%rea(30 mggl ti •r Southwest Mauna Loa Kaaplma South Kona • •A Area (0 mqd) rquiferSector Area rSystern -Areal90mgdJDistrict Boundary (130 mod SY) • Ma I Figure 1-1: Island of Hawaii Ground -Water Hydrologic Unit Boundaries with respect to the North and South Kona Judicial District Boundaries. The aquifer sector area names and aquifer system area names, along with ground water sustainable yields are as noted in the figure. Table 1-1: Planning Area Aquifer System Sustainable Yield Estimates Aquifer Sector and System Area Sustainable Yield MGD Reliability of SY Estimate Northwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area Anaehoomalu Aquifer System Area 1 30 Not reliable includes brackish Southwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area Mauka Aquifer System Area 42 Not reliable includes brackish Kaa una Aquifer System Area 50 Not reliable includes brackish Kealakekua Aquifer S stem Area I38 Poor includes brackish Hualalal Aquifer Sector Area Keauhou Aquifer System Area 38 Poor includes brackish Kiholo Aquifer System Area 18 Fair Total: 216 a.u,coo ..... uon rran, vomme r, mate OT mawau uepamnent of Land and Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management, Honolulu: June 1990. FOIA II IGrey Infrastructures Report The aquifer sustainable yields that have been adopted by the State Commission on Water Resource Management and published in the 1990 Water Resources Protection Plan (WRPP) are estimates. Sustainable yield cannot be equated to the amount of developable groundwater. The estimates are constrained by very limited data and do not consider the feasibility of actually developing the groundwater Estimates of sustainable yield are determined by using standardizations assigned to components of a water balance equation to solve a basic balance algorithm that is applicable, with some allowance for local conditions, to all Aquifer Systems. The fundamental water balance equation includes expressions of precipitation, stream runoff, evapotranspiration, and infiltration. Each of these variables is qualified by their own extensive set of assumptions, and therefore, each variable contributes to the unreliability of the estimated sustainable yield. The sustainable yield estimates do not include high-level or perched water bodies, but the estimates may include brackish water components. The WRPP further comments on the determination of sustainable yields with the following: To establish the sustainable yield of an aquifer, the dynamic and equilibrium states of the aquifer must be understood. The history of the response of an aquifer to exploitation by means of wells and infiltration galleries, augmented by pumping tests to determine the characteristics of the aquifer medium, allows the dynamics of groundwater behavior to be completely described and future behavior to be predicted. This type of fundamental knowledge, however, is available for only a few aquifer systems in the State, in particular in Oahu and West Maui. Elsewhere, the record of aquifer response over time is sporadic and fragmentary (emphasis added). In the West Hawaii area, ground water flow patterns and an extensive ground -water anomaly have long perturbed hydrologists and contribute to the uncertainties regarding development of ground water. The following sections are excerpted from the 1990 WRPP descriptions of the planning area aquifer sectors and systems, with notes on the reliability of sustainable yield estimates. NORTHWEST MAUNA LOA AQUIFER SECTOR AREA Anaehoomalu Aquifer System Area: The surface is covered by Kau volcanics, but these Mauna Loa lava flows cover Hualalai volcanics to the south and Mauna Kea volcanics to the north. Basal groundwater occurs in highly permeable aquifers for at least five miles inland. At approximately ten or more miles from the coast high level water may occur at great depth. Lack of caprock at the coast prevents the buildup of a thick lens. It is not possible to develop potable water where the lens is thin, as it is in most accessible places. About five miles inland a discontinuity disrupts the smooth curve of the water table, causing head to rise several feet higher than expected 1-3 Grey Infrastructure Report The estimated sustainable yield of 30 mgd assumes that all recharge taking place in the System discharges at the coast between Anaehoomalu and Puako. This may not be so. A significant portion of estimated sustainable yield is probably brackish. The estimate is not reliable. HUALALAI SECTOR AREA Kiholo Aquifer System: Basal groundwater occurs in Hualalai volcanics for at least five miles inland. At about four miles inland a hydrologic discontinuity apparently causes the head to rise several feet more than expected. The lens is not protected by caprock at the coast. This is the condition throughout the young island of Hawaii. High-level groundwater lies at considerable depth in the rift zones, including the Puu Waa Waa rift. The estimated sustainable yield of 18 mgd would be potable if all of it were developed more than five miles inland where elevations normally exceed 1500 feet. The estimate is fair. Keauhou Aquifer System: Basal groundwater in aquifers of Hualalai volcanics is known to extend at least four miles inland to Mamalahoa Highway. Beyond about five miles high-level groundwater may exist in one of the Hualalai rift zones. The sustainable yield of 38 mgd is not developable only as potable water. The estimate is poor. SOUTHWEST MAUNA LOA SECTOR AREA Kealakekua Aquifer System Area: As in the Manuka and Kaapuna Systems, the Kau volcanic series covers the whole region. Its extremely high permeability coupled with the absence of coastal caprock prevents the buildup of a thick basal lens. High level groundwater may occur far inland. The estimated sustainable yield of 38 mgd would be difficult to develop entirely as potable water. The estimate is poor, but unquestionably a considerable volume of potable groundwater is developable. Kaapuna Aquifer System Area: Permeable Kau volcanics cover the entire System. Basal groundwater extends at least six miles inland. It is not protected by caprock. High level water may be found at great depth toward the boundary of the System along the southwest rift of Mauna Loa. The basal lens is thin and difficult to exploit because of the high permeability of the Kau basalts. The estimated sustainable yield of 50 mgd refers to extractions made more than several miles inland. It is not a good estimate and includes brackish water. 1-4 I Grey Infrastructure Report Manuka Aauifer System Area: Highly permeable basalt of the Kau series carries basal water over a distance at least six miles inland. The lens is thin and difficult to develop for potable water. It is not protected by caprock at the coast. Far inland high level dike water lies at great depth. Exploratory drilling has demonstrated that the basal lens is brackish inland to the belt highway. The estimated sustainable yield of 42 mgd includes brackish and potable water. It is not a reliable estimate. 1.1.3 Kona Area Ground -Water Development Issues Questions and concerns regarding the amount of developable ground water in West Hawaii are not new. During the 1980's through the early 1990's Kailua-Kona experienced tremendous growth. The growth patterns of the early 1990's triggered high demands on water supplies and competition among large landowners/developers for new sources of water. As more and more wells were drilled, new and interesting geological and hydrological information began to emerge that spurred additional wells at higher elevations, and at greater cost. Because of competition for well site locations and concerns by the Commission on Water Resource Management about proper planning, well placement, and associated problems of well interference, CWRM began a series of meetings in North Kona and South Kohala Districts among the major landowners, developers, engineers, and hydrologic consultants in order to come to agreement as to the proper development of the groundwater resource. Two ad hoc groups were formed: the Hualalai Users Group focused on problems near Kailua-Kona and the North Kona District, while the Lalamilo Users Group centered on problems related to the South Kohala District. The group meetings provided an avenue to diffuse any disputes and to forestall the designation of the West Hawaii region as a ground -water management area. Through the group discussions, it became clear that a deficit of good baseline ground -water data existed and that major decisions were being made using incomplete knowledge of the resource. It was for this reason that CWRM began monitoring ground -water levels in West Hawaii. From 1991 to 2002, the CWRM collected9 round -water elevation measurements in 40 public and private wells and test holes throughout the North and South Kona and South Kohala Districts of West Hawaii. In September 2003, the CWRM published the findings and conclusions of Kona area monitoring activities in a report titled "A Study of the Ground -Water Conditions in North and South Kona and South Kohala Districts, Island of Hawaii, 1991-2002." The results of the Kona ground -water modeling project compliment other studies of the area performed by the U S Geological Survey. Major findings and conclusions are listed below and are based upon 171 individual water level measurements in the high-level wells and 636 measurements in the basal wells, and are summarized from CWRM's 2003 report: 1-5 Grey Infrastructure Report 1. The data strongly suggest a slow decline of water levels in some of the high- level wells and an apparent relationship to water level decline and climatic conditions as recorded in the Lanihau and Huehue Ranch rain gages. Future wells drilled into this resource should be used, prior to pump installation, as observation wells to verify these trends. 2. The data suggest that the high-level wells tap interconnected, though bounded, aquifers whose rate of water level decline is inversely proportional to its volume. Future well drilling for high-level potable sources must include accurate, well-designed aquifer tests that will aid in the determination of geologic boundaries to provide information on the geometry of the aquifer. 3. The data suggest that there may be more than a geological mechanism that created the high-level aquifer. 4. The data suggest that there is a water level pattern observed in the high-level wells with Keopu being the "drain" for the ground -water flow system. The ground -water flux south of Keopu is to the north, and north of Keopu, the ground -water flow is to the south. 5. Some high-level wells do exhibit quasi -stable water levels, and show little variation over time. Use of long-term water level transducers in these wells should continue in conjunction with long-term water level transducers in those wells that show water level decline. Real time correlation between water levels in the wells with climatic conditions measured at Lanihau Rain Gage will provide better insight into the behavior of the potable high-level aquifers. 6. The data suggest the influence of climate (drought conditions) over long-term trends in the basal aquifers. 7. The strong correlation between well pairs will aid in predicting a water level if only one of the wells can be measured. 8. The data suggest the variability of the ground -water flow direction in a shallow basal lens system, as can be seen at the West Hawaii Landfill, is translatable to other areas. 9. The low ground -water gradients suggest a highly permeable basal coastal aquifer where basaltic lavas comprise the aquifer, and this finding is supported by tidal analysis. The composition of the lava flows determines its permeability, and in turn, the ground -water gradient. 10. These data will become calibration targets for future numerical and analytical ground -water models and will aid in the site selection for new wells. 1.2 County Water Planning Context The following sections describe the planning context and existing controls that provide a framework for water planning in Hawaii. It should be noted that the legislative mandate provided by the State Water Code, §174C Hawaii Revised Statutes, emphasizes water planning at the local level that is inclusive of all existing and projected water use, public and private, that is located or planned for development within the county boundaries. The sections below were written in consultation with the State Department of Land and Natural Resources, Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM) 2. The 2 Fujli, Neal State DLNR, CWRM. Personal communication, May 19, 2006 1-6 t 1 P, 1 L 1 V. iI �7 C I L� J Grey Infrastnicture Report information presented is consistent with the State Water Code and the forthcoming update to the statewide Water Resources Protection Plan. 1.2.1 Water Legislation and Water Planning Requirements As noted earlier, one of the primary objectives of the State Water Code is the development of a program of comprehensive water resource planning to address the problems of supply and conservation of water (HRS §174C-2). A major component of this program is the Water Use and Development Plan (WUDP) that must be prepared by each county (HRS §174C-31). The Water Code also provides for planning consistency across government levels by requiring the County WUDPs to be adopted by CWRM and integrated into the Hawaii Water Plan, as initially occurred in 1990. 1.2.2 The County Water Use and Development Plan and Status of Current Update The State Water Code requires each county to prepare and regularly update a County Water Use and Development Plan to address the County's future water demands, "setting forth the allocation of water to land use in that county" (HRS §174C -31(a)(2)) The WUDP is the instrument by which all other Water Code planning components are integrated and used to implement comprehensive water resource planning at the county level. The County WUDP objectives include the following activities: ® Assess existing and future land uses and associated municipal water demands; ® Incorporate agriculture, military, private, State, and other non -municipal water demand projections; and ® Evaluate the cost and adequacy of proposed development plans and identify preferred and alternative water development plans to meet projected demands. Requirements, recommendations, and guidance for preparing the County WUDPs are found in the State Water Code, the Hawaii Administrative Rules, and in the Statewide Framework for Updating the Hawaii Water Plan (CWRM, 2000). The pertinent sections of the Water Code and the Framework document are summarized below. 1.2.2.1 State Water Code Requirements The purpose of the County Water Use and Development Plans is to inventory all projected water demands and ensure that the future water needs of the county are met The plan also provides additional guidance to state -level decision-making on water use and water reservation requests. Most importantly, the key outcome of the County WUDP is the allocation of water to land use. The State Water Code mandates that each county's WUDP "shall be consistent with the respective county land use plans and policies including general plan and zoning as determined by each respective county" (HRS §174C -31(b)(2). The code also specifies that WUDPs must be adopted by county ordinance. 1-7 Grey Infrastructure Report HRS §174C -31(f) states that the County WUDPs must include, but are not limited to the following information: (1) Status of water and related land development including an inventory of existing water uses for domestic, municipal, and industrial users, agriculture, aquaculture, hydropower development, drainage, reuse, reclamation, recharge, and resulting problems and constraints, (2) Future land uses and related water needs, and (3) Regional plans for water developments including recommended and alternative plans, costs, adequacy of plans, and relationship to the water resource protection and water quality plans. HRS §174C -31(o) mandates interagency coordination as follows: (o) In formulating or revising the plans, each county and the commission shall consult with and carefully evaluate the recommendations of concerned federal, state, and county agencies. Finally, HRS §174C-31 concludes with the following directive: Each county shall update and modify its water use and development plans as necessary to maintain consistency with its zoning and land use policies. Requirements of the Hawaii Administrative Rules Hawaii Administrative Rules §13-170-32 provides additional guidelines for preparation of the County WUDPs as follows: (b) All water use and development plans shall be prepared in a manner consistent with the following conditions: (1) Each water use and development plan shall be consistent with the water resource protection plan and the water quality plan. (2) Each water use and development plan and the state water projects plan shall be consistent with the respective county land use plans and policies, including general plan and zoning as determined by each respective county. (3) Each water use and development plan shall consider a twenty-year projection period for analysis purposes. 1-8 IGrey Infrastructure Report (4) The water use and development plan for each county shall also be consistent with the state land use classification and policies. 1.2.2.2 HWP Framework Requirements The Statewide Framework for Updating the Hawaii Water Plan is a guidance document adopted by the CWRM to help agencies integrate and update their respective components of the Hawaii Water Plan With regard to the County WUDPs, several key objectives from the Framework document are listed below: ® To achieve integration of land use and water planning efforts that are undertaken by federal, state, county, and private entities so that a consistent and coordinated plan for the protection, conservation and management of our water resources is achieved, ® To recommend guidelines for the HWP update so that the plan and its component parts are useful to the CWRM, other state agencies, the counties, and the general public; ® To develop a dynamic planning process that results in a "living document' for each component of the HWP which will provide county and state decision -makers with well formulated options and strategies for addressing future water resource management and development issues; ® To better define roles and responsibilities of all state and county ' agencies with respect to the development and updating of the HWP components; and To describe and outline the techniques and methodologies of integrated resource planning as the basic approach that should be utilized in developing and updating the County WUDPs The County WUDPs respond to the need for integration of resource development strategies at the county level. It is emphasized that the County WUDPs are required to encompass all water usage and water development plans projected throughout the county Since the various State agencies ultimately build their projects within one of the four counties, State agency water use demands and proposals for development of various resources to meet those demands must be factored into the overall water demands and development strategies of each of the counties. The responsibility for preparation of the County WUDP rests with the specific entities charged with water planning within that county, as may be enumerated by county ordinance As provided by the HWP Framework document, to initiate the County WUDP update process a County -Specific Project Description is to be prepared by each county. The WUDP Project Description should present specific issues, planning activities, project scope, and objectives to be met by the county in its planned update of the County WUDP. It should also include the roles and responsibilities of the various county agencies involved in the development and preparation of the WUDP and the specific steps and projected timetable for updating and 1-9 Grey Infrastructure Report adopting the WUDP. The Project Description should be submitted for review and approval by CWRM prior to the county's undertaking of the update process. 1.2.3 Status of County WUDP Update All four counties are at various stages of their WUDP update process. In 1992, the counties briefed the Commission on prepared updates to the WUDPs, however, the adoption of the plans was deferred pending plan refinement and the inclusion of additional information. In 2000, more guidance to the counties was provided through the adoption of the Statewide Framework for Updating the Hawaii Water Plan and through the Hawaii Supreme Court's decision in the Waiahole Ditch Combined Contested Case, which imparted and reaffirmed the application of the public trust doctrine and the precautionary principle in Hawaii's water resource planning efforts. Within this planning context, the Hawaii County DWS kicked off their County Water Use and Development Plan (WUDP) effort in September 2005 by presenting to the CWRM the County's project description and technical approach for updating the Hawaii County WUDP. In the project description, the County proposed to accomplish the following tasks through the technical approach: • Inventory of existing sources; • Inventory of existing uses; • Identification of existing water systems; • Assess land use plans and policies; • Project future water demands; • Identify supply side & demand side options; and • Encourage public and stakeholder participation. The relationship between land use plans/policies and infrastructure/resource availability will be - addressed with respect to the County General Plan and County zoning ordinance. The sustainability of current land use policies will be addressed by modeling the "infill" of un -developed or under -developed lands and calculating water demands. Three scenarios for water demands will be evaluated: low growth, medium growth and high growth. Incremental water needs at 5-, 10-, 15- and 20 -year intervals will be based on population and growth rate projections for the next 20 years. According to the project description provided by Hawaii County, the DWS expects the Hawaii WUDP update to be completed by the end of 2006. The County is currently developing a long-range Water Master Plan and an implementation strategy for infrastructure upgrades that also includes a financial plan and, a five—and twenty-year CIP program. 1.3 Existing and Projected Use of Ground -Water Resources The sections below describe current ground -water withdrawals, and existing and projected water use. The ground -water withdrawal information represents the information reported to the Commission on Water Resource Management by well permit holders. The information on historic and projected ground -water use was determined by 1-10 t 1 1 C' L r— n Grey Infrastructure Report the County of Hawaii DWS through planning efforts in support of the forthcoming County Water Use and Development Plan and the forthcoming 20 -Year Water Master Plan. 1.3.1 Current Ground -Water Withdrawals by Aquifer System Area For the Island of Hawaii, current pumpage from all aquifer systems is at less than 40%. The CWRM uses a twelve-month moving average to assess water use, and depends upon data from monthly reports received from water use permit holders, including the Hawaii County DWS, to monitor ground -water demand. Table 1-2 describes the ground -water withdrawals reported for aquifer system areas that underlie the North and South Kona Districts The municipal system does not cover large parts of the island, and there are many private domestic wells that serve residential needs. These uses are generally not reflected in Table 1-2 below. It is emphasized that the aquifer system areas do not correspond to municipal water service areas, and that the aquifer boundaries extend beyond the North and South Kona Planning Districts Table 1-2: Reported Ground -Water Withdrawals, North and South Kona Aquifer System Area Sustainable Yield (MGD) Total Existing Water Use 12 MAV July 2005 (MGD) Existing County DWS Water Use 12 MAV July 2005 MGD Existing Private Water Use 12 MAV July 2005 MGD Pum a e # of wells Pum a e # of wells Northwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area naehoomalu 30 4.983 1 00001 01 4 983 22 Total 30 4.983 1 00001 01 49831 22 Southwest Southwest Mauna Loa Aquifer Sector Area Manuka 42 0 079 0 000 0 0 079 1 una 50 0.008 0 000 0 0 008 1 Kealakekua 38 2057 1.541 5 0.516 2 Total 130 2 144 1 1.5411 51 0 603 4 Hualalai Aquifer Sector Area Kiholo 18 3 703 1 00001 01 370 19 Keauhou 38 10 723 1 99651 111 07581 9 Total 56 14.426 1 99651 111 44611 28 Source State Commission on Water Resources Management reported water use based on 12 month moving average as of July 2005 1.3.2 Projected Ground -Water Use The Hawaii County DWS, through its current update of the County Water Use and Development Plan, has projected future total water use for geographic areas that correspond to subsurface aquifer sector area boundaries It should be noted that, although water use was projected per aquifer sector area, the DWS has indicated that the agency is looking to meet portions of non -potable demand through alternative water sources and to decrease potable demand through water conservation efforts. The Kona Grey Infrastructure Report CDP planning area completely or partially spans three aquifer sector areas, as listed in Table 1-3. Water use projections reflect information provided by the DWS in March 2006. For purposes of general comparison, the sustainable yield estimates, and total reported current water use are provided for each aquifer system. The table is intended only to provide perspective on resource availability with respect to anticipated water use, and does not equate to anticipated aquifer withdrawals or to projected demands upon the municipal system. Again, it should be noted that aquifer system areas do not correspond to municipal water service areas, and that the aquifer boundaries extend beyond the North and South Kona Planning Districts (see Figure 1- 1). Table 1-3 DWS Water Use Projections, 2005 to 2025 Sustainable Existing DWS Projected Water Use Aquifer Sector Yield Water Use MGD (MGD) 12 MAV July 2005 MGD 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 NW Mauna Loa 30 4 983 7.76 901 10.45 12.11 1403 Hualalai 56 14.426 16.19 18.09 2016 22.47 25.05 SW Mauna Loa 130 2.144 5.13 5.70 6.31 7.00 7.75 TOTAL 216 21.387 29.08 32.80 36.92 41.58 46.83 The DWS also projected water use in terms of use categories (see Table 1-4). Again, the DWS does not intend to meet projected demand entirely through ground -water development. The projected demands above must be qualified with several caveats: Data on agricultural water use and demand is sparse. Agricultural demand projections will be further refined as the State Department of Agriculture completes the Agricultural Water Use and Development Plan, as mandated by the State Water Code. The initial phase of the plan, which inventoried a handful of State agricultural water systems, was completed in 2004. The next phase of the plan is underway. Ultimately, the plan is to account for and project all agricultural water use statewide from both public and private systems. The State Water Projects Plan, most recently updated in 2003, includes projections of State agency water demands through 2020. The next update of the plan will provide input to refine projections for the year 2025 and beyond. The Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL) determines the uses permitted upon its land holdings, which are not subject to County zoning designations. Currently, most DHHL lands are designated for agriculture. As the DHHL plans for future development, the County must update demand projections appropriately. VIM 1 Grey Infrastructure Report J t I IJ ri C ri Hawaii Count Table 1-4 Projected Water Use 2005 to 2025 MGD by Water seCategory o Water Use Category Mauna Loa uifer Sector Area ANW Hualalai SW Mauna Loa Hawaii County 2005 Total 776 1619 513 122.61 Domestic 000 0.25 0.32 2.99 Industrial 000 007 000 45.93 Irrigation 580 361 071 11.39 , Agriculture 018 0.68 299 28.61 Military 0.03 0.00 000 0.03 Municipal 175 11.58 1 12 33.66 2010 Total 9.01 18.09 5.70 133.85 Domestic 000 028 035 3.40 Industrial 000 0.08 0.00 47.93 Irrigation 674 4.03 079 1302 Agriculture 021 0.76 331 31.80 Military 003 000 000 003 Municipal 203 1293 1 24 37.67 2015 Total 10.45 20.16 6.31 146.31 Domestic 000 032 039 387 Industrial 0.00 0.09 0.00 50.02 Irrigation 781 4.49 0.87 1486 Agriculture 025 085 367 3537 Military 004 0.00 0.00 0.04 Municipal 235 14.41 1 38 4217 2020 Total 12.11 22.47 7.00 160.50 Domestic 000 035 043 4.41 Industrial 000 010 000 52.32 Irri ation 905 5.01 097 1696 Agriculture 029 0.94 407 3945 Military 005 0.00 000 0.05 Municipal 272 1607 1 53 4731 2025 Total 14.03 25.05 7.75 176.43 Domestic 000 039 048 503 Industrial 000 0.11 000 5474 Irrigation 1049 558 107 19.37 Agriculture 033 1.05 451 4409 Military 0 05 0.00 000 0.05 Municipal 316 17.91 169 53.14 - Data is needed to quantify federal and private water system use and projected demand Such information should be acquired and Integrated into County WUDP demand projections. Based on past consumption, the DWS has developed and proposed updated average day water use unit rates for single-family residential units. These unit rates result In higher water demand projections as compared to the Water System Standard (2002) unit rates, and are considered more realistic. 1-13 Grey Infrastructure Report 1.4 Existing Water Infrastructure and Service Areas The Department of Water Supply services approximately 35,000 customers countywide with about 8.5 billion gallons of water annually. The DWS operates 24 public water systems and 66 water sources throughout the County. According to the Environmental Protection Agency, a public water system is defined as a system that provides water to the public for human consumption through pipes or other constructed conveyances and supports at least 15 service connections or regularly serves at least 25 individuals. County water systems in the more densely populated districts of South Hilo and Kona are interconnected. The DWS's water rates are designed to encourage conservation through an inverted block rate structure, which charges higher unit costs for heavy water users. The DWS has designated four water operations districts to manage the systems and service areas; Kona (District III) includes the North Kona water system and the South Kona water system. While the DWS operates and maintains these systems, funding considerations and the rapid development of Kona have typically enabled system expansions through improvements funded by private development. The following sections describe the North and South Kona public municipal water systems. 1.4.1 North Kona Water System The North Kona water system produces the second highest volume of water and supplies the second highest number of water service connections countywide. According to DWS historic consumption records, however, the North Kona Water System has the highest metered water consumption in Hawaii County. This high rate of consumption is attributed to residential irrigation, and community and resort use. The average system production (2003) is 9.8 mgd with service to 8,950 connections (2003). The North Kona distribution system is generally located between Mamalahoa Highway and the ocean from Keahole Airport to just beyond the intersection of Mamalahoa Highway and Kuakini Highway. The system serves elevations ranging from sea level to 5,013 feet and has a closed connection that can allow water to be exported to the South Kona water system. The upper service area extends from Kealakehe School in the north to the connection with the South Kona system in the Honalo area. The lower service area is fed by gravity from the Kahaluu reservoirs. The system extends from Keahole Airport to Keauhou Bay. The average consumption is 3.56 mgd. The lower service area can be roughly divided into three sections: 1) Keahole Airport to Kailua (Casa De Emdeko); 2) Casa De Emdeko to Kahaluu Bay; and 3) the Keauhou Bay area. General system infrastructure includes the following: • Source. The system is supplied by 13 ground -water sources: Kahaluu Shaft Wells (1 through 4), Kahaluu Wells (A through D), Holualoa Well, Keahuolu (QLT) Well, Kalaoa Well, Honokohau Well, and Hualalai Well. Two additional wells, the Waiaha Well and the Makalei No. 1 Well, are anticipated to come on-line in the near future. 1-14 1 1 1 [I C C [I iJ 11 Grey Infrastructure Report • Booster Pumps. A total of 26 booster pump stations are located throughout the system • Storage. Currently, 53 storage tanks are in use. The DWS anticipates restoring one other tank to service soon. • Distribution Lines. The system includes approximately 197 miles (1,039,509 ft) of pipe ranging in diameter from 1 inch to 24 inches. There are three important issues related to the operation of the North Kona water system: 1. Rapid growth and development requires careful planning to ensure that the DWS can meet water demands, water quality standards, operational requirements, and ongoing maintenance needs. 2 Potential water quality issues may arise with the overuse of the Kahaluu shaft -based water sources. 3 There is a need to develop new sources of supply in mauka areas to access upper-level aquifers. Table 1-5 below summarizes basic information on the North Kona Water system. Table 1-5 North Kona Water System Summary Operations District: Kona District III Average Production 2003: 9 8 m d Service Connections 2003: 8,950 connections Water Treatment Method: Disinfection Sources: 4 shaft wells, 11 wells Storage: 53 tanks Booster Pumps: 26 stations Pressure -Reducing Valves: 84 valves Distribution Lines: 197 miles of pipe 1.4.2 South Kona Water System The South Kona water system is one of the DWS's larger systems, and it is located immediately south of the North Kona water system A connection exists between the two systems Although it normally remains closed, it can be opened to provide additional supply to the South Kona system. The average system production (2003) is 1.9 mgd with service to 2,131 connections (2003). The South Kona system is generally located along the corridor of Hawaii Belt Road from St. Paul Road near North Kona to Hookena Beach Road. The system serves the communities of Captain Cook, Keokea, Kealia, Hookena, Napoopoo, and Honaunau, and the service area ranges from Kealakekua in the north to Hookena School in the south, spanning elevations from sea level to 1,747 feet General system infrastructure includes the following: 1-15 Grey Infrast►ucture Report • Source. The system is supplied by five ground -water sources: Keei Wells (A through D) and Halekii Well. The primary source wells are the Keei Well D and the Halekii Well, while the remaining wells are stand-by sources. • Booster Pumps. The South Kona system has eight booster pump stations, although two stations are stand-by and not typically in use. • Storage. There are nine storage tanks within the system. • Distribution Lines. The system includes approximately 40 miles (209,652 feet) of pipe ranging in diameter from two inches to 12 inches. When the Halekii Well is off-line, the DWS imports water from the North Kona water system. Table 1-6 below summarizes basic information on the South Kona Water system. Table 1-6 South Kona Water System Summary Operations District: Kona District 111 Average Production 2003: 1.9 m d Service Connections 2003: 2,131 connections Water Treatment Method: Disinfection Sources: 5 wells Storage: 9tanks Booster Pumps: 8 stations Press u re-ReducingValves: 21 valves Distribution Lines: 40 miles of pipe 1.4.3 Non -Service Areas Areas without County DWS or private water service are assumed to be on water catchment systems. Unfortunately, many areas without water service coincide with areas of low rainfall and high drought frequency, as these areas occur primarily throughout West Hawaii. According to a March 2006 public notice from the DWS3, Approximately 40,000 to 50,000 residents on the Island of Hawaii presently use water catchment systems for their household water supply, and must go outside of their homes to acquire potable water. The DWS estimates that 1,264 households (41%) in S. Kona and 2,899 households (28%) in North Kona are without municipal water. 4Many of these residents obtain their drinking water from public water spigot facilities provided by the DWS. At the time of the public notice, there were 15 spigot locations on the island. Many of the existing spigots are located in areas that are unsafe (close to high speed roadways), are in need of maintenance, lack adequate vehicle parking and Americans with Disability 3 Notice of Availability of a Draft EA and FONSI — Drinking Water Spigot Project Published in The Hawaii Tribune Herald and West Hawaii Today, March 6 and 8, 2006. 4 Notice of availability of NEPA Final EA and FONSI for Construction of Islandwide Water Spigots Facilities, The Environmental Notice, Office of Environmental Quality Control, April 23, 2006. 1-16 1 1 Ll Ll � I Grey Infrastructure Report Act (ADA) access. The County identified the greatest need for improvements and/or additional spigot locations in the Puna, Kau, and South Kona Districts of the Island of Hawaii. In addition to domestic water supply issues, areas without water service also increase certain risks to public health and safety. Regarding public health, regulations for the design and construction of catchment systems are lacking. Poor design, maintenance, and choice of construction materials can compromise water quality and lead to contamination of the system As for public safety, agricultural areas, which are also highly dependent upon rainfall, are also prominent along the dry Kona Coast The juxtaposition of agricultural and wildland areas with developed urban areas increases the risk of wildland fire, especially when dry periods or drought conditions cause grasslands and scrub areas to turn into fuel. In Hawaii County, a total of 40 of the 48 fires in Hawaii County from 1953 to 2001 occurred in low rainfall zones. Most of these fires can be attributed to human negligence or arson due to the location of the burn areas and the wildland-urban interface zone. 1.5 Historical and Projected Municipal Water System Demands This section summarizes the results of DWS demand analysis and projection efforts undertaken in support of the forthcoming 20 -Year Water Master Plan. 1.5.1 Historical Municipal System Water Demands The table below shows historical water production data for the North and South Kona water systems with respect to total water production countywide, as determined by the County DWS. DWS also examined seasonal variation in water production By comparing monthly production data from 2001 to 2004, it was determined that there are no large seasonal changes. Total water demand includes two components: Metered water consumption, and Non -Revenue water In order to characterize historical demand, both consumption and non -revenue water must be quantified 1-17 Table 1-7 Estimated Average Day Historical Water Production for the North and South Kona Water Systems Water System Water Production for Fiscal Year Ending June 30 2001 an d 2002 an d 2003 an d DWS Total for County 29 430 31 370 32 251 North Kona 9 618 9 295 9 788 South Kona 1 496 1 318 1 875 DWS also examined seasonal variation in water production By comparing monthly production data from 2001 to 2004, it was determined that there are no large seasonal changes. Total water demand includes two components: Metered water consumption, and Non -Revenue water In order to characterize historical demand, both consumption and non -revenue water must be quantified 1-17 Grey Infrastructure Report Historical Water Consumption The DWS estimated the number of water service connections for fiscal year 2003. These estimates include all DWS customers, including residential, commercial, industrial, resort, and agricultural customers. The North Kona water system was estimated to serve 8,950 connections, while 2,131 connections were estimated in the South Kona system. Therefore, the service connections within the planning district represent 28.67% of the total 38,653 DWS connections countywide. In contrast, the 2003 water consumption in North and South Kona, respectively, was 9.571 mgd and 1.576 mgd. This represents 43.64% of the total DWS consumption of 25.542 mgd. DWS also found that the top 20 customer accounts with the highest average daily water consumption in 2003 were all located in either North Kona water system or the Lalamilo water system, which is located immediately north of the Community Development Plan Area. These accounts are responsible for 13% of the total 2003 water consumption. Ten of the top 20 water consumers are located within the North Kona District, including the account with the highest overall consumption of 0.415 mgd. It should be noted that a considerable portion of water consumption is attributed to agricultural uses. Although agricultural uses such as irrigation do not require potable water, alternative water sources are not readily available to farmers in the North and South Kona area. Agricultural water consumption is summarized in Table 1-8 below. Table 1-8 Potable Water Consumption by Agricultural Customers In the North and South Kona Municipal Water Sys ems 2003 Agriculture Number of Total 2003 Agricultural Consumption as Water System Consumption Agriculture Consumption for % of Total System (mg d Customers Water System Consumption North Kona 1 012 231 9.571 11% South Kona 0.275 168 1.576 17% Historical Non -Revenue Water Non -revenue water is the difference between the amount of water that is produced and the amount of water sold to consumers, and is characterized as either "accounted -for' non -revenue water or "unaccounted-for" non -revenue water, as described below: "Accounted -For' Non -Revenue Water: - Water main flushing at hydrants - Fire -fighting measured at hydrants - Metered reservoir overflows "Unaccounted -For' Non -Revenue Water: - Water main leaks - Water meter inaccuracies 1-18 1 1 Ci LJ� 1 1� �1 Grey Infrastructure Report - Production source meter inaccuracies - Unmetered water main flushing, fire -fighting, and reservoir overflows - Inaccuracies in billing system - Unmetered withdrawals from the system The largest portion of non -revenue water is usually attributable to water main leaks and meter inaccuracies. From 2001 to 2003, the DWS estimated that 20% to 23% of the volume of water produced countywide became non -revenue water. For the North and South Kona water systems, non -revenue water was less than 10%. This 10% estimate accounts for instances where water is produced in one system but consumed in another, specifically, the small portion of the North Kona system that is supplied by water produced by the South Kona system's Helekii well. Although there is no industry standard that defines the maximum acceptable amount of non -revenue water for a system, ten percent or less is a very common goal among water utilities. Often, utilities with non -revenue water exceeding 10 to 15 percent begin efforts to reduce non -revenue water DWS expects to use the non -revenue water data to assist with prioritization of control and reduction efforts. 1.5.2 Projected Municipal System Water Demands In preparing the forthcoming 20 -Year Water Master Plan, the DWS projected system water demands for FY 2005, 2010, and 2025 (see Table 1-9). The projected water demand is the sum of projected water consumption and projected non -revenue water. It is also equal to the projected water production. Table 1-10 below compares the historic municipal demand data with the projected municipal demand for 2005 to 2025. 1-19 Table 1-9 Projected 2005 to 2025 Average Day Water Demand for the North and South Kona Water Systems Water System Projected Water Demand m d Average Annual % Increase 2005 2010 2025 Consumption Demand DWS Total for 34 490 37 991 50 625 29% 1 9% County North Kona 1 10.802 13 491 21.585 35% 35% South Kona 1 1 606 1 800 2.451 21% 21% Table 1-10 below compares the historic municipal demand data with the projected municipal demand for 2005 to 2025. 1-19 Grey Infrastructure Report Projected Water Consumption Projected water consumption for FY 2005 was influenced more by historical data from 2001 through 2003, while projected consumption for FY 2010 and 2025 were based on population growth rates published for each district in the Hawaii County Revised General Plan and information on planned developments for which construction should be completed over the next 20 years. For the North Kona District, the projected annual growth rate for 2005 to 2025, according to the Revised General Plan, is 2.2%. However, the anticipated major development projects in the district have water demands that exceed the 2.2% demand growth predicted by the Plan. Additionally, the DWS has issued water commitments for other smaller developments in the district. Therefore, the projected 2005 to 2025 annual consumption growth rate used to calculate demand is adjusted to 3.5%. The water demands of major developments that are addressed within the 3.5% consumption growth rate include the following projects: - Hiluhilu (mixed use) - Haseko (residential) - The Shores at Kohanaiki (mixed - YO Ltd. Partnership (residential) use) - Kona Kai Ola (mixed use) - Host Park (NELHA related) - HELCO (utility) - Five separate residential projects - Gamlon - Kahakai-Kona LLC - Westpro (a.k.a. Lohiki) (residential) - Kohanaiki Business Park, Phase 2 (commercial) - Kaloko Industrial Park, Phases 3 & 4 (light industrial) - Queen Liliuokalani Trust (light industrial & other) - Villages of Lai Opua (DHHL) - Bencorp (multifamily residential) - Kona Plantation - OLT Estate - D -Bar Ranch, LLC. - Kamehameha Investment Corp. - McClab Enterprises (multifamily residential) - Puaa Development Corp. (multifamily residential) - Pacific Basin (a.k.a. Kona Hawaiian) (multifamily residential) - Sunstone Realty Partners (multifamily residential) The DWS notes that, particularly in the North Kona District, the high volume of planned developments increases the difficulty of projecting water demands. Additionally, schedules and project details change rapidly and often. The 3.5% consumption growth 1-20 Table 1-10 Historical and Projected Average Day Water Demand for the North and South Kona Water Systems, 2001 to 2025 Historical Water Production m d Pro ected Water Demand m d Water System 2001 2002 2003 2005 2010 2025 DWS Total for County 29.430 31 370 32.251 34.490 37.991 50 625 North Kona 9.618 9 295 9.788 10.802 13 491 21.585 South Kona 1 496 1.318 1 875 1 1 606 1.800 2.451 Projected Water Consumption Projected water consumption for FY 2005 was influenced more by historical data from 2001 through 2003, while projected consumption for FY 2010 and 2025 were based on population growth rates published for each district in the Hawaii County Revised General Plan and information on planned developments for which construction should be completed over the next 20 years. For the North Kona District, the projected annual growth rate for 2005 to 2025, according to the Revised General Plan, is 2.2%. However, the anticipated major development projects in the district have water demands that exceed the 2.2% demand growth predicted by the Plan. Additionally, the DWS has issued water commitments for other smaller developments in the district. Therefore, the projected 2005 to 2025 annual consumption growth rate used to calculate demand is adjusted to 3.5%. The water demands of major developments that are addressed within the 3.5% consumption growth rate include the following projects: - Hiluhilu (mixed use) - Haseko (residential) - The Shores at Kohanaiki (mixed - YO Ltd. Partnership (residential) use) - Kona Kai Ola (mixed use) - Host Park (NELHA related) - HELCO (utility) - Five separate residential projects - Gamlon - Kahakai-Kona LLC - Westpro (a.k.a. Lohiki) (residential) - Kohanaiki Business Park, Phase 2 (commercial) - Kaloko Industrial Park, Phases 3 & 4 (light industrial) - Queen Liliuokalani Trust (light industrial & other) - Villages of Lai Opua (DHHL) - Bencorp (multifamily residential) - Kona Plantation - OLT Estate - D -Bar Ranch, LLC. - Kamehameha Investment Corp. - McClab Enterprises (multifamily residential) - Puaa Development Corp. (multifamily residential) - Pacific Basin (a.k.a. Kona Hawaiian) (multifamily residential) - Sunstone Realty Partners (multifamily residential) The DWS notes that, particularly in the North Kona District, the high volume of planned developments increases the difficulty of projecting water demands. Additionally, schedules and project details change rapidly and often. The 3.5% consumption growth 1-20 1 1 1 r n C �1 Grey Infrastructure Report rate does not include the following projects, for which no information was available at the time of analysis: DHHL Airport Mauka Properties - Cliftos Ooma DHHL Keahoulu (if not part of the - UH Center West Hawaii (if not part of Villages of Lai Opua) Hiluhilu development) DLNR development at Honokohau For the South Kona District, the Revised General Plan projected annual growth rate for 2005 to 2025 is 2.14%. The development of the Hokulia project in South Kona will create an increase demand at one point of the system while having the overall effect of decreasing the average annual growth rate across the system Therefore, the projected 2005 to 2025 annual consumption growth rate used to calculate demand is adjusted to 2.1%. Proiected Non -Revenue Water For non -revenue water, DWS assumed a volume of 10% for planning purposes. This is likely to be a conservative assumption for the North and South Kona systems, as 2003 non -revenue water was estimated to be less than 10% 1.6 Municipal Water System Analysis In light of the results of the water demand projections for 2005 to 2025 summarized in the previous section, the DWS conducted system evaluations to determine infrastructure needs and deficits that should be addressed to meet future demands The water systems were evaluated with respect to DWS service and design criteria, including water system polices and standards, pipeline criteria, storage criteria, peaking factors, and federal regulations The following sections summarize the results of the water system analysis that are relevant to the North and South Kona Community Development Plan area 1.6.1 Transmission and Distribution System Analysis Hydraulic analysis models were used to evaluate distribution and transmission capacity for existing and future demand conditions. The hydraulic models are useful in sizing and verifying size requirements for distribution and transmission mains, pump stations, and reservoirs The North Kona system transmission and distribution analysis found that most of the service area meets the service criteria during both the 2005 and 2025 peak hour demands. Under both existing and future demand conditions, there are areas of high pressure and high velocity. In the 2025 scenario, there are several areas of low pressure Fireflows did not meet the required criteria for approximately one-half of the locations analyzed The recommended system improvements for the North Kona water system may be summarized as follows: • Install larger transmission and distribution pipelines in corridors, both east/west and north/south. There are several areas with transmission and 1-21 Grey Infrastructure Report distribution corridors that have insufficient capacity due to smaller diameter mains (6 -inch and 8 -inch). There are also outlying areas and ends of the distribution systems with pipes less than 6 inches in diameter that should be replaced. • There is insufficient east/west capacity in the industrial/commercial/resort area between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Kuakini Highway. Pipelines along Kaiwi Street and Palani Road should be upsized, as well as the 6 -inch line along Alii Drive. • In the Kilohana Kai, Alii Kai, and Komohana Kai areas between Kuakini Highway and Alii Drive, additional east/west capacity is needed to meet peak demands and satisfy DWS service criteria. • Along Palani Road, the 8 -inch mains should be replaced with minimum 12- to 16 -inch diameter mains. • To meet planned future development in the Kalaoa area, additional transmission and distribution capacity will be needed along the Kaiminani Drive corridor. • There are some storage tanks that have undersized inlet/outlet pipes, such as the Holmes and Lanes tanks that are served by 8 -inch mains. These should be upsized. The South Kona water system analysis showed that both existing and future conditions would result in some low-pressure areas and some high velocity areas. The recommended system improvements for the South Kona water system may be summarized as follows: • Replace 6 -inch pipeline on inlet side of Halekii Tank with 8 -inch main. • Replace 8 -inch main form Halekii Tank down along Mamalahoa Highway to Konawaena Road with a 12 -inch main. • Replace 8 -inch main south from Keei No 3 Tank along the Mamalahoa Highway with a 12 -inch main. • Replace all pipelines that are less than 6 inches with minimum 6 -inch mains. • Provide new storage south of Keei No. 3 Tank along Mamalahoa Highway and near junction between Mamalahoa Highway and Ke Ala O Keawe Road. 1.6.2 Storage Analysis The storage analysis showed that both the North Kona and South Kona water systems have storage deficits under 2005 conditions and 2025 conditions. With the additional capacity of planned storage improvements to be constructed from 2006 to 2010, the deficit is mitigated to some extent, but significant deficits still exist. The results of the analysis are summarized in Table 1-11. 9-22 I Grey Infrastructure Report n G 1 Table 1-11 Stora a Surplus/Deficit for 2005 to 2025 for the North and South Kona Water Systems Water System Storage Surplus/Deficit m 2005 2010 2025 Existing Storage Only With Planned Stora a Existing Storage Only With Planned Storage Existing Storage Only With Planned Storage___ North Kona -8.30 -495 -1049 -6.69 -1962 -1384 South Kona -1.11 -042 -1 58 -050 -233 -0.72 Total -9.41 -537 -1207 -719 -21 95 -14.56 The recommended storage improvements for the North and South Kona water systems are summarized in Table 1-12, however, it is further recommended that the available and required storage be reevaluated every few years in order to account for changing water use, demands, and the possibility for using other alternatives for storage requirements on a case-by-case basis Table 1-12 Recommended Storage Capacity Improvements for the North and South Kona Water S stems Water System Storage Facility Additional Capacity Volume Provided North Kona 131 13.1 South Kona 36 31 Total • 167 162 1.7 Municipal Water System Capital Improvement Program 1 As part of the forthcoming 20 -Year Water Master Plan for the municipal water system, the DWS has developed a prioritized capital improvement program (CIP) that includes projects expected to be required during the 2007 to 2026 planning period. These projects include new construction and replacement of old or undersized facilities and will enable DWS to accomplish the following: • Continue to provide quality water service to customers, • Upgrade service where necessary to meet DWS standards and regulatory requirements; and • Serve anticipated growth within DWS's water systems by constructing new water system facilities The DWS has prioritized projects in a 5 -year CIP (Phase 1) and a 20 -year improvement program (Phases 2 and 3) for the County. The prioritization process evaluated CIP projects in terms of the following criteria: health and safety; DWS service criteria; 1 regulatory requirements; operation and maintenance; coordination among other utilities; financing; and DWS strategic direction. 1 1-23 �l Grey Infrastructure Report Table 1-13 summarizes the 2007 to 2026 CIP and Improvement Program Projects cost in 2005 dollars. Table 1-13 County of Hawaii DWS 2007-2026 CIP and Improvement Program Projects 2005 dollars $ millions Phase 1 (5 -Year CIP) 20 -Year Improvement 2007 to Cost Item Prol ram 2026 CIP 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Total Total 2012-2016 2017-2026 DWS CIP DWS -Funded 14.50 8.25 5.30 1475 850 5130 22.18 49.82 12330 Projects Grant- & Loan- 3.30 6.50 300 3.30 -- 1610 16.10 16.00 48.20 Funded Projects Subtotal 17.80 14.75 830 18.05 8.50 67.40 38.28 6582 171.50 Indirect Costs 5.34 4.43 2.49 5.42 2.55 20.22 11.48 19.74 51.45 Subtotal 23.14 19.18 10.79 23.47 11.05 8762 49.76 8556 22294 Renewals & 4.35 6.75 6.75 6.85 6.85 1 31.55 26.25 67.60 12540 Replacements Total DWS CIP 27.49 25.93 17.54 30.32 17.90 1 119.17 76.01 153.16 348.34 OTHER CIP Developer -Funded 4.10 1 4.00 1.70 1 3.00 1 3.00 1 15801 4.12 1.55 1 21.47 Projects Indirect costs include engineering, legal, administrative, and construction contingency, assumed equal to !-:0f] construction costs The projects will be funded by DWS through various sources including CIP reserves, rate revenues, Drinking Water State Revolving Fund loans, and long-term bonds. Additionally, some projects may be funded through grants or by developers. The sections below summarize the CIP elements that are relevant to the North and South Kona water systems. 1.7.1 North Kona Water System Planned Capital Improvements Table 1-14 lists the prioritized CIP projects planned for the North Kona water system. The projects are listed by phase, then by the CIP priority ranking number (the ranking number resulted from the countywide prioritization process). Specific implementation year information was not provided for Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects. All CIP projects are located within the existing North Kona Water System boundary. 1-24 1 I Grey Infrastfucture Report 1 C r. r r u Table 1-14 North Kona District CIP and Im rovement Prol iram Project Costs 2006 dollars Funding Source & Amount CIP Project Name &CIP Year New or Estimated $millionsCost DWS Developer Grant, Loan, or No. (if available) Replacement ($millions) Other Phase 1 2007-2011 20 Palani Rd QLT Transmission — New 850 850 -- -- 2011 42 Keopu-Puuhonua 1 0 MG Reservoir New 1 00 1 00 -- -- - 2008 43 Keopu-Puuhonua Production Well — New 250 2.50 -- -- 2008 65 Hina Lani 10 MG Reservoir — 2008 New 200 200 -- -- 66 Hina Lani Transmission Main — 2008 New 100 1 00 -- -- Phase 1 Total 17.00 17.00 -- -- Phases 2 & 3 2012-2026 19 Palani Rd QLT Reservior (1 0 MG) New 200 200 -- -- - 2010 44 Waiaha Makai 2 0 MG Reservoir Replacement 200 200 -- -- 325'OF 45 Waiaha Water System New 860 -- -- 860 Improvements 64 Hina Lani Mauka Tank New 2.00 -- 200 -- 67 Kuakini No 2 Tank Replacement 060 060 -- 68 Mamalahoa Highway Water System New (no info 00 -- -- Improvements, Ph 2provided)0 69 Ooma Well Development, Ph 1 New 100 1.00 -- -- 70 Ooma Well Development, Ph 2 New 200 200 -- -- 71 Ooma Well Development, Ph. 2, 10 New 200 200 -- -- MG Reservoir 72 Waiaha Standby Well New 200 -- -- 2.00 85 Kahaluu,Shaft Water Quality New 200 200 -- -- Enhanceent, Part 2 92 Kahaluu Shaft Booster New 010 0.10 -- 118 Hduhdu Water System New 300 -- 300 -- Improvements 119 Kau No 1 Production Well & New 100 -- 100 -- Supporting Facilities 120 Keauhou Water System New 400 -- 400 -- Improvements 121 Kona Base and Beautification Replacement 010 010 -- 122 Kohanaiki Tank 0 3 MG New 080 -- 080 -- Phases 2 & 3 Total 31.20 9.80 10.80 10.60 1.7.2 South Kona Water System Planned Capital Improvements Table 1-15 lists the prioritized CIP projects planned for the South Kona water system. All South Kona system CIP projects are programmed for Phase 2 and Phase 3 1 Implementation. The projects are listed by the CIP priority ranking number (the ranking number resulted from the countywide prioritization process) Specific implementation Ci n 1-25 Grey Infrastructure Report year information was not provided for Phase 2 and Phase 3 projects. All CIP projects are located within the existing South Kona Water System boundary. 11 Table 1-15 Three pipeline replacement projects are also programmed for the South Kona water system, however, these are considered part of the renewal and replacement program and are not listed in the CIP table above. All three projects are estimated to cost less than $500,000 each. 1.8 Wastewater Reuse, Water Conservation, and Drought Mitigation 1.8.1 Wastewater Reuse Recently, the CWRM completed the 2004 Hawaii Water Reuse Survey and Report as the initial step in the development of a statewide wastewater reuse program. The report inventories and describes existing reuse projects in the State, and more importantly, identifies opportunities for future reuse projects throughout the State. As presented in the 2004 Hawaii Water Reuse Survey and Report, the inventory of reuse projects in Hawaii County is included below: Current Wastewater Reuse Applications: Water reuse on the Big Island is mainly taking place at private resort developments where wastewater is treated at resort owned wastewater reclamation facilities and then blended with other water sources and reused for irrigation of the resorts' golf courses. Other projects include the State Department 1-26 soutn trona District cit, and im rovement Proi iram Pro ect cosis 2006 sonars CIP No. Project Name & CIP Year (if available) New or Replacement Estimated Cost ($millions) Funding Source & Amount $millions DWS Developer Grant, Loan, or Other Phase 1 2007-2011 No Phase I projects in South Kona Phase 1 Total 0.00 Phases 2 & 3 2012-2026 46 Helekii Well No. 2, Ph. 1 New 100 1.00 -- -- 47 Helekii Well No. 2, Ph. 2 New 1.75 1.75 -- -- 48 Helekii Well No 2, Ph. 2, 1.0 MG Reservoir New 1.75 1.75 -- -- 49 Replace Kahauloa (Cidako) Tank 0.1 MG Replacement 0.50 050 — -- 73 Keei No. 3 Reservoir 1.0 MG Replacement 2.00 2.00 -- -- 86 Wai unaula Reservoir 11.0 MG Replacement 2.00 200 -- -- 100 Ci of Refu a Waterline New 1.00 1.00 -- -- 101 Hookena Standpipe New 0.32 032 -- -- 123 Keel No. 4 Reservoir New 0.30 0.30 -- -- 124 Keokea — Hookena Pipeline Re lacement Replacement 180 180 -- -- 125 1 Keokea 0.3 MG Reservoir New 0.50 0.50 -- — Phases 2 & 3 Total 12.92 12.92 -- -- Three pipeline replacement projects are also programmed for the South Kona water system, however, these are considered part of the renewal and replacement program and are not listed in the CIP table above. All three projects are estimated to cost less than $500,000 each. 1.8 Wastewater Reuse, Water Conservation, and Drought Mitigation 1.8.1 Wastewater Reuse Recently, the CWRM completed the 2004 Hawaii Water Reuse Survey and Report as the initial step in the development of a statewide wastewater reuse program. The report inventories and describes existing reuse projects in the State, and more importantly, identifies opportunities for future reuse projects throughout the State. As presented in the 2004 Hawaii Water Reuse Survey and Report, the inventory of reuse projects in Hawaii County is included below: Current Wastewater Reuse Applications: Water reuse on the Big Island is mainly taking place at private resort developments where wastewater is treated at resort owned wastewater reclamation facilities and then blended with other water sources and reused for irrigation of the resorts' golf courses. Other projects include the State Department 1-26 1 I Grey Infrastructure Report L I I I L 1-7 1 1 1 i� of Transportation's Keahole International Airport where R-1 water is used for irrigation of the airport's landscaping and at Parker Ranch where R-3 water is used for pasture irrigation. The County of Hawaii has not developed a water reuse program and currently provides R-2 recycled water to only one project, the Swing Zone Golf Practice Facility in Kona. In this case, the owner of the Swing Zone installed the recycled water distribution system from the County's Kealakehe WWRF to the practice facility at his own expense The County's Wastewater Division is contemplating developing a distribution system which will provide recycled water from its Kealakehe WWRF to a number of irrigation projects including parks and future golf courses. Lack of available funding however has delayed implementation of these ideas. Technical planning assistance has been provided to the County of Hawaii by the Bureau of Reclamation for the planning and design of a proposed constructed wetlands system that will utilize recycled water from the Kealakehe WWRF. Federal authorization is being pursued in Congress for funding of this project, along with two other county water reclamation projects (on Maui and Oahu). Federal funding shall be subject to authorization and subsequent Congressional approval for appropriation of funds on a cost -shared basis. Kealakehe WWRF Wastewater is treated to R-2 quality at the Kealakehe WWRF using five aerated facultative lagoons in series and chlorine disinfection. Recycled water is provided at no cost to the Swing Zone, a golf practice facility located in the Kona area of west Hawaii The owner of Swing Zone installed a recycled water transmission system at his own expense from the County of Hawaii's Kealakehe WWRF to convey 0 06 mgd of R-2 water to the Swing Zone property where it is used to irrigate the facility's turf grass. The County of Hawaii's Department of Environmental Management (DEM) was in the planning stages of developing a recycled water distribution system that would utilize recycled water from the Kealakehe WWRF Phase 1 and 2 has now been put on hold. Phase 1, which would have satisfied the requirement of a consent decree for the county to use recycled water, involved the construction of a pipeline that would have delivered recycled water to the Honokohau Harbor where it would be used for landscape irrigation. This phase could have also served a future development by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Phase 2 involved the development of a pipeline and reservoir system that could deliver recycled water to a possible future golf course as well as a future development. The DEM has issued a letter to the Department of Health requesting that the Consent Order requiring irrigation water to be provided to Honokohau Harbor be revised to allow replacement of alternate Environmentally Beneficial Projects since plans by the Jacoby Development group indicates that major changes to the area are planned. The DEM will continue to attempt to obtain federal funding for a constructed wetlands system that will be used to upgrade the Kealakehe WWRF recycled water to a R-1 quality system. 1-27 Grey Infrastructure Report Heeia WWRF The Heeia WWRF in the Keauhou Resort Community is owned and operated by the Kamehameha Investment Corporation. It produces 0.5 mgd of R-2 water. The recycled water is pumped to reservoirs located mauka on the Alii Course and blended with brackish water. The blended water is used for irrigation and in water features at the Kona and Alii Country Clubs. Kona International Airport The Kona International Airport is located in west Hawaii and is the only project on the Big Island that utilizes R-1 water for irrigation purposes. The State Department of Transportation completed construction of the Kona International Airport WWRF in 2001. The daily flow of 0.03 mgd is blended at the treatment plant with an equal volume of potable water in a mixing basin and used to irrigate the airport's landscaping. Kona and Alii Country Clubs The Kona and Alii Country Clubs are located in the Keauhou area of west Hawaii. R-2 recycled water has been used for irrigation and in water features at the golf courses since 1981. Currently, R-2 water is blended with brackish water and used to irrigate the front nine holes of the Kona Country Club course where there are few fairway homes present. Golf course maintenance personnel have the ability to utilize the recycled water throughout both courses if the need arises. The Heeia WWRF produces 0.5 mgd of R-2 water using activated sludge in the sequencing batch reactor (SBR) mode and chlorine disinfection. The Heeia WWRF is reimbursed for the electrical costs associated with pumping the R-2 water to the reservoirs. The blended water is then directed to the Kona (makai) course's irrigation system. The driving factor for water reuse at this project is water supply. Potable water is too expensive to use and brackish water in the area is high in total chlorides (3400 mg/L). A challenge for this project is that the recycled water is also high in salinity with a total chlorides concentration of 2800 mg/L thus the blended water results in salt build up in the courses' soils. During periods of reduced rainfall, the courses' turf has a noticeable yellow appearance due to the high salt content of the irrigation water. This challenge has been addressed by adding gypsum to the courses but this is an expensive remedy that costs approximately $75,000 per year. The main benefit of the recycled water according to the golf course superintendent is that it is "available and wet'. No noticeable fertilizer benefit of the recycled water was reported but it is believed that the use of high salinity water for irrigation is hiding this potential benefit. Swing Zone, LLC The Swing Zone is a golf practice facility located in the Kona area of west Hawaii. This is somewhat of a unique project because the owner of Swing Zone installed a recycled water transmission system at his own expense from the County of 1-28 r 7 I 'l 7 L 1 1 1 1 Grey Infrastructure Report Hawaii's Kealakehe WWRF to convey 0.06 mgd of R-2 water to the Swing Zone property where it is used to irrigate the facility's turf grass Since buffer zones are required when using R-2 water via spray irrigation, potable water is still used to irrigate sections of the facility, which are close to roads and adjacent properties. R-2 water is blended with high salinity brackish water in a 3,000 -gallon tank located at the practice facility. Wastewater is treated to R-2 quality at the Kealakehe WWRF using five aerated facultative lagoons in series and chlorine disinfection The driving factor for this project is water supply as the high cost of potable water prompted the owner to construct the recycled water transmission system. Recycled water is provided at no cost to the Swing Zone at this time although the County is considering charging $1.00 per thousand gallons at some point in the future. The main benefits at this project include cost savings and dilution of the salinity level of the brackish water A challenge is that the sprinkler head screens tend to clog with fish parts as mosquito fish are present both in the lagoons at the Kealakehe WWRF and in the storage tank at the Swing Zone Opportunities for Expanding Wastewater Reuse: The County of Hawaii's Wastewater Division is in the planning stages of developing a recycled water distribution system that will utilize recycled water from the Kealakehe WWRF. Phase 1, which will satisfy the requirement of a consent decree for the county to use recycled water, involves the construction of a pipeline that will deliver recycled water to the Honakahau Harbor where it will be used for landscape irrigation. This phase is expected to be completed by June 2005 and could also serve a future development by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Phase 2 is in the preliminary design stage and involves the development of a pipeline and reservoir system that could deliver recycled water to a possible future golf course as well as a future development. The Wastewater Division will continue to attempt to obtain federal funding for a constructed wetlands system that will be used to upgrade the Kealakehe WWRF recycled water to a R-1 quality system 1.8.2 Water Conservation Generally, water conservation measures may be described in four categories. - Resource conservation; - Water system conservation; - Consumer conservation; and - Public education programs. Resource conservation and water system conservation are primarily the functions of a water utility. The utility should also promote consumer conservation and incorporate a significant public education component in their water conservation program. 1-29 Grey Infrastructure Report Under it's water conservation program, the County DWS issues water conservation notices for voluntary water use reductions of 10% and limited water use for agricultural irrigation only between the hours of 8 p.m. and 6 a.m. Notices include tips to reduce water to meet 10% goal. If consequent water use reductions are not sufficient, DWS then issues a notice for mandatory use reductions. Also, the DWS water rates are designed to encourage conservation through an inverted block rate structure, which charges higher unit costs for heavy water users. The forthcoming County WUDP will incorporate conservation measures into demand-side management. 1.8.3 Drought Mitigation As part of a statewide effort to address and mitigate the effects of drought through the Hawaii Drought Program, which is coordinated by the State Commission on Water Resource Management (CWRM), the County of Hawaii Drought Committee and the CWRM held a series of workshops in 2004 to compile an inventory of existing drought mitigation programs, identify data gaps, identify drought risk areas, and recommend and prioritize drought mitigation projects. The workshops and the resulting report, County of Hawaii Drought Mitigation Strategies, were funded through a Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Pre -Disaster Mitigation Planning Grant. The County can choose to seek funding for the drought mitigation projects identified in the report through FEMA or other sources. The project was completed with support and cooperation from the State of Hawaii Department of Defense, Civil Defense Division. The Hawaii County Drought Committee includes volunteer participation from key government agencies, quasi -public organizations, and major landowners with interest in drought -related issues. During the planning workshops, the committee shared local knowledge and information about current drought conditions and past experiences coping with drought. Through facilitated discussion, the group collectively developed local and regional drought mitigation strategies to minimize the effects of drought upon domestic and municipal water supplies, fire suppression activities, agricultural water use, and the environment. The drought mitigation projects identified by the committee are prioritized and listed with cost estimates and other recommended actions in the Drought Mitigation Strategies Report. it is recommended that the drought mitigation projects and other follow-on actions be considered for implementation by the County of Hawaii and the Hawaii County Drought Committee. 1-30 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 ' Grey Infrastructure Report ' 2 WASTEWATER Wastewater facilities in North and South Kona range from individual cesspools and ' septic systems to public and private wastewater collection, treatment and disposal systems, including wastewater reuse. Older developments are primarily served by cesspools while many newer developments have been required to provide individual septic systems or privately operated treatment plants. The County of Hawaii operates the only municipal sewer system that collects wastewater for treatment, disposal and reuse at its Kealakehe Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WWRF). ' 2.1 Sewered Areas 2.1.1 Municipal Sewerage — Kealakehe WWRF There is only one municipal sewerage district in North and South Kona. Areas between Royal Sea Cliff in the south, Kailua-Kona, and Kealakehe High School in the east are serviced by the County's Kealakehe Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WWRF) (See Figure 2-1). The WWRF is presently designed to treat approximately 5.3 million gallons per day (mgd) and is presently treating approximately 1.0 mgd of wastewater. Wastewater is treated to R-2 reuse quality at the Kealakehe WWRF using five aerated facultative lagoons in series and chlorine disinfection. The County of Hawaii Department of Public Works constructed the Kealakehe Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WWRF) near Kailua-Kona with the intent of reusing effluent from the plant to 1 irrigate the proposed Kealakehe Golf Course, which, due to a variety of factors, was never constructed. As a result, since 1993, the primary method of disposal for the R-2 quality effluent produced at the plant has been into a temporary sump located in the lava fields east or mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Highway, about 2,000 feet northeast of the WWTP. Only a small portion of the effluent (approximately 0.06 mgd is used to irrigate the Swing Zone golf practice facility. The County of Hawaii's Department of Environmental Management (DEM) was in the planning stages of developing a recycled water distribution system that would utilize recycled water from the Kealakehe WWRF. Phase 1 and 2 has now been put on hold. Phase 1, which would have satisfied the requirement of a consent decree for the county to use recycled water, involved the construction of a pipeline that would have delivered recycled water to the Honokohau Harbor where it would be used for landscape irrigation. This phase could have also served a future development by the Department of Hawaiian Home Lands (DHHL). Phase 2 involved the development of a pipeline and reservoir system that could deliver recycled water to a possible future golf course as well as a future development. The DEM has issued a letter to the Department of Health requesting that the Consent Order requiring irrigation water to be provided to Honokohau Harbor be revised to allow replacement of alternate Environmentally Beneficial Projects since plans by the Jacoby Development group indicates that major changes to the area are planned. The DEM will continue to attempt to obtain federal funding for a constructed wetlands system that will be used to upgrade the Kealakehe ' WWRF recycled water to a R-1 quality system. 2-1 1 1 [1 1 1 Grey Infrastructure Report The County of Hawaii Department of Environmental Management is in the process of preparing a Sewer Master Plan for the North Kona Improvement District, which would be served by the Kealakehe WWRF. A draft report dated April 2006 describes the potential expansion of the sewerage district to include approximately 5,600 acres of land identified as the "project area." The project area extends from the shoreline between Kaiwi Point, near the Kealakehe WWRF, north approximately 3.75 miles to Puhili Point and mauka up to Palani Road and Mamalahoa Highway. The study year for the master plan is 2025. The first phase of the study will develop a sewer master plan identifying system improvements needed to accommodate a projected future flow. The second phase of the study will develop an implementation plan identifying proposed sewer improvements and recommending a method for financing the improvements. The implementation plan will be transmitted to the County Council for establishing the North Kona Improvement District pursuant to Resolution 129-03. The draft report states that the basis for its projected future wastewater flow is the eventual full build -out of the project area, which is designated "Urban Expansion" on the County General Plan Land Use Pattern Allocation Guide (LUPAG). Wastewater flows are projected on a capita per acre (cpa) value for future land uses in the project area. Future wastewater flows for the project area were estimated for the years 2015, 2020, 2025 and Total Build Out based on: ■ current land uses; ■ current land use entitlements; ■ major landowners' and developers' plans for future development, ■ assumptions for average, maximum and peak flows, infiltration and inflow; ■ real estate market conditions; and; ■ various government planning policies for the region, including the LUPAG. The 2025 Future Land Use Map depicts the estimated land used pattern for the project area. Alternative collection system improvements are presented to serve the projected development pattern, as well as for the distribution of reclaimed water. Notably, the projected average daily flow for 2015 is 8.98 mgd, which is well above the current 5.3 mgd design capacity for the Kealakehe WWRF. The average daily flow for the total build -out scenario is 13.25 mgd. Facility improvements for the Kealakehe WWRF are not part of the Sewer Master Plan, but the draft report recommends that planning for such improvements be considered as soon as possible. Recently, the developers of the Shores of Kohanaiki project announced its interest in using the effluent from the Kealakehe WWRF to irrigate the golf course in that development, if the County would upgrade treatment to produce R-1 quality effluent. 2.1.2 Private Sewerage — Heeia WWRF The Keauhou Resort community is served by a privately owned and operated sewerage system that collects and treats wastewater at the Heeia Wastewater Reclamation Facility (WWRF). The system is owned and operated by Keauhou Community Services Inc., a subsidiary of Kamehameha Investment Corporation. Heeia WWRF was placed 2-3 Grey Infrastructure Report in service in February 1994 in conjunction with the resort community development at Keauhou. Wastewater from the Keauhou Resort community service area is collected and conveyed to the Heeia WWRF facility for treatment and subsequent reuse as irrigation water for the Keauhou Resort golf courses. The wastewater collection system consists of a network of sewer lines and five pump stations (Kahaluu, Keauhou Bay, Kona Lagoon, Hoei and Heeia). The Heeia WWRF is a 1.8 mgd secondary sewage treatment plant that presently treats and produces approximately 0.5 mgd of R-2 quality effluent reused at the Kona and Alii Country Club golf courses (2004 Hawaii Water Reuse Survey and Report). The effluent is pumped to reservoirs mauka of the Kona Country Club, where it is blended with brackish water and used to irrigate portions of the golf courses. The Heeia WWRF is projected to eventually accommodate 3.6 mgd as the Keauhou Resort community is built -out. 2.2 Unsewered Areas The vast majority of North and South Kona is unsewered and served by individual wastewater systems, comprised mostly of cesspools. These areas include most of South Kona and older residential developments in North Kona. Due to the potential adverse impacts of cesspool disposal on the quality of groundwater, storm -water runoff and coastal water quality, both the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and the State Department of Health have promulgated rules and regulations regarding the use of cesspools and other individual wastewater systems, as discussed below: 2.2.1 Critical Wastewater Disposal Areas In August 1991, the State Department of Health (DOH) adopted rules that prohibit the use of cesspools in critical wastewater disposal areas and intends to promulgate rules in the future that will prohibit any new cesspools to be constructed in the County of Hawaii. Critical Wastewater Disposal Area (CWDA) is a geographic designation where the disposal of wastewater has or may cause adverse effects on human health or the environment due to existing hydrogeological conditions. CWDA are established based on one or more of the following concerns (Chapter 11-62 HAR): ■ High water table; ■ Impermeable soil or rock formation; ■ Steep terrain; • Flood Zone; ■ Protection of coastal waters and inland surface waters; • High rate of cesspool failures; and ■ Protection of groundwater resources. CWDA are divided into the following categories - 0 CWDA, No cesspools allowed 2-4 IGrey Infrastructure Report ® Cesspool 5, Cesspools are not allowed for lots less than 5 acres ■ Cesspool 1, Cesspools are not allowed for lots less than 1 acre ® Non-CWDA, cesspools allowed, except large capacity cesspools According to the DOH's CWDA map, the North and South Kona District includes CWDA, Cesspool 5, and Non-CWDA designations (see Figure 2-2). If, based on these designations, a new cesspool would not be allowed, an alternative method of wastewater disposal would need to be provided. Depending upon other restrictions that may apply, these could include use of septic systems, construction or ' connection to a privately operated treatment system or connection to a public wastewater treatment system While no new cesspools are allowed in the CWDA, existing cesspools are continuing concern with regard to impacts on coastal water quality. ■ 2.2.2 Large Capacity Cesspools i In December, 1999, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA promulgated Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations which prohibit the construction of new large capacity cesspools (LCC) or the use of existing LCC as of April 5, 2000. An LCC is a cesspool serving two or more dwellings or a building or business generating wastewater from 20 or more persons a day This restriction virtually prohibits any new cesspools other than for individual single-family residences within the County. Moreover, it requires any existing cesspools failing under the LCC definition to be replaced or abandoned in favor of an alternative wastewater disposal system. According to the County's GIS database, there are 25 LCC s in the Kona CDP area Depending upon other restrictions that may apply, these LCC could be replaced by septic systems, construction or connection to a privately operated treatment system or connection to a public wastewater treatment system. 2.2.3 Septic Systems Septic systems are individual wastewater systems that collect and hold effluent, allowing it to separate and biodegrade before liquid components are canted by overflow for disposal, typically into a drainfield. Septic systems may be allowed for use where cesspools are prohibited, but the State Department of Health (DOH) regulates their use. Pursuant to Section 11-62-31, Hawaii Administrative Rules (HAR), a septic system may be used for an individual single-family lot at least 10,000 square feet in area. Such individual septic systems, however, are not allowed for developments comprised of more than 50 dwelling units unless the individual lots are greater than one acre. Each system is further restricted to a flow not to exceed 1,000 gallons per day and cannot serve more than five bedrooms. Where septic systems are allowed, the size of the drainfield required for each system depends on the rate at which effluent is generated and on soil conditions determining how fast the effluent can percolate into the ground. The more rapid the percolation rate, the smaller the required drainfield size for a similar volume of effluent flow. Likewise, the lesser the calculated effluent flow, based on the 2-5 Legend Critical Wastewater Disposal Area CLASS CWDA - Cesspool, 1 acre - Cesspool, 5 acres NON-CWDA 0 1000 Ft. Buffer Major Roads Other Roads 0 3 6 12 Miles Figure 2-2 CWDA Kona Community Development Plan 7X n 1 IGrey Infrastructure Report 1 2.2.5 Underground Injection Control As discussed previously, the disposal of treated effluent from a septic system or private wastewater treatment facility may be done over a drainfield. The size of the field, however, may be extensive, depending on the rate of wastewater flow and soil conditions. A disposal alternative that requires less area for effluent disposal is the use of injection wells discharging effluent deep into the ground. The use of injection wells for wastewater effluent disposal is governed by the State's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, set forth in the State of Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 23, Underground Injection Control. The purpose of Chapter 23 is to establish an UIC program to protect the quality of the State's I underground sources of drinking water from pollution by the subsurface disposal of fluids. An underground source of drinking water is defined as an aquifer that supplies any public or private drinking water system or contains a sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system. 2-7 number of bedrooms or an equivalent of 200 gallons per day per bedroom, the lesser the required drainfield size under similar soil conditions. For buildings other than dwellings, the lot size must be greater than 10,000 square feet since each wastewater system serving the building(s) on the lot requires a minimum usable land area of 10,000 1 square feet per wastewater system, excluding the area under buildings. The total wastewater flow of a development cannot exceed 15,000 gallons per day and cannot exceed 1,000 gallons per day into each individual wastewater system. Thus, a development generating the maximum 15,000 gallons per day would require 15 individual wastewater systems, each with a usable land area of 10,000 square feet, for a total of 150,000 square feet (3 4 acres), excluding the area under buildings. The required size of the drainfield for each wastewater system is determined based on the rate of wastewater flow and soil conditions, similar to that for dwellings. Septic systems are subject to approval by the DOH. 2.2.4 Individual Wastewater Treatment Systems Individual wastewater treatment systems may be the preferred alternative if other means of wastewater disposal are prohibited or otherwise not cost-effective. For new developments this may mean that they are prohibited from using large capacity cesspools, cannot meet minimum lot size requirements for septic systems, or cannot feasibly connect into a municipal wastewater treatment system or an existing private wastewater treatment system. Individual wastewater treatment systems provide a higher level of treatment than septic systems and can be based on a variety of treatment technologies. Depending on the quality of effluent produced, it may be suitable for reuse as irrigation, disposal over a drainfield or injected into a well, as discussed below. Ocean disposal is also possible but current permitting requirements are generally prohibitive. The treatment and disposal system plan is subject to review and approval by the DOH. 1 2.2.5 Underground Injection Control As discussed previously, the disposal of treated effluent from a septic system or private wastewater treatment facility may be done over a drainfield. The size of the field, however, may be extensive, depending on the rate of wastewater flow and soil conditions. A disposal alternative that requires less area for effluent disposal is the use of injection wells discharging effluent deep into the ground. The use of injection wells for wastewater effluent disposal is governed by the State's Underground Injection Control (UIC) Program, set forth in the State of Hawaii Department of Health Administrative Rules, Title 11, Chapter 23, Underground Injection Control. The purpose of Chapter 23 is to establish an UIC program to protect the quality of the State's I underground sources of drinking water from pollution by the subsurface disposal of fluids. An underground source of drinking water is defined as an aquifer that supplies any public or private drinking water system or contains a sufficient quantity of groundwater to supply a public water system. 2-7 Grey Infrastructure Report According to Chapter 23, unless expressly exempted, all aquifers are considered to be underground sources of drinking water. Chapter 23 exempts lands located seaward of a geographically delineated UIC line from the definition of an underground source of drinking water. The UIC line is used as a guideline below which injection wells discharging treated wastewater effluent would more likely be allowed under a UIC permit (see Figure 2-3). Island of Hawaii -I Areas Ow (unWl U:C tPE PsM�M aau1NM WINYrtE 'bM wMn vu�2 Cel s'ana'.} tl x'Nb aI WxU a�a mes naaJ use ammo �mn amaoa va.mww VE (mammy uic UNE Y'!1(YIP OyaNMLMfM a JsnOvYNfmXG eeP pus tl PM�o.n..Nb a'neo rnenm.n..P u�cw,maa mn Nemga+ mR MMNnmarc rtrymeC enJ �:.mr-cY.i se TNe rtnyMil v Rous Figure 2-3: Island of Hawaii Underground Injection Control Areas. Source: State Department of Health (http://v .hawaii.gov/healthlenvironmentaltwater/sdwb/uic/pdf/hawuic.pdt 2.3 Potential Impacts on Coastal Water Quality 2.3.1 West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force The west coast of Hawaii is a major tourist destination. Over the past two decades, the population and resort/residential development have increased rapidly. In 1990, the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force was established to create coastal monitoring guidelines for West Hawaii. In 1992, these guidelines were published and intended to provide developers, government agencies, and other interest groups with a coastal monitoring program. In 2004, the Marine Science Department at the University of Hawaii at Hilo was contracted by the County of Hawaii to evaluate water quality monitoring data from development projects in West Hawaii. Monitoring reports from thirteen development projects were reviewed to evaluate water quality, microbiological, biological, geological, and physical data. Only three development projects, Waikoloa, NELHA and Hokulia, contained enough water quality data to evaluate. The data from these three RN 1 IGrey Infrastructure Report development projects were used to evaluate the effects of resort/residential development on coastal waters in West Hawaii. Four classes of waters (groundwater, anchialine pools, coastal waters, and oceanic rwaters) were sampled for water quality parameters (chlorophyll, turbidity, fecal coliform, enterococci, nitrate, ammonium, total nitrogen, phosphate and total phosphorous). 1 1 Nutrient parameters (total nitrogen, ammonia, nitrate, total phosphorous, phosphate) sampled at Waikoloa, NELHA and Hokulia were out of compliance with Hawaii Department of Health (HDOH) standards. The report (University of Hawaii at Hilo, April 2006) concluded that the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force Guidelines were not adequately implemented and development monitoring projects were not scientifically evaluated. The following recommendations were made to the County of Hawaii: 1. Guidelines from the West Hawaii Coastal Monitoring Task Force (1992) need to be revised, amplified, enhanced and adhered to, and enforced. 2. A county -wide coastal water monitoring program needs to be developed to monitor long-term environmental changes at existing and future developments, as well as, other identified sites in West Hawaii 3. Hawaii County needs to develop an anchialine pond protection/management program. 2.3.2 Department of Health Water Sampling The Department of Health Clean Water Branch gathers water quality data throughout the state. Table 2-1 lists several water quality monitoring stations along the Kona coast. These stations are part of the Coastal Monitoring Program. DOH monitors for enterococcus, clostridium, temperature, dissolved oxygen, salinity, turbidity, pH, and percent saturation The coastal monitoring program stopped a few years ago and resumed in Summer 2006. 2-9 Table 2-1 Department of Health Clean Water Branch Water Quality M nitoring Stations ■ Honaunau Bay (City of Refuge), 1201 ■ Mdolii, 1220 ■ Kahaluu Beach, 1203 ■ Honaunau Bay Embayment, 1229 ■ Kailua Pier Station A, 1204 ■ Kealakekua Bay Embayment, 1230 ■ Kailua Pier Station A-1, 1205 ■ Keauhou Bay Embayment, 1231 ■ Kailua Pier Station B, 1206 ■ Kailua Bay Embayment, 1232 ■ Kailua Pier Station C, 1207 Honokohau Boat Harbor Embayment, 1233 ■ Kailua Pier Station D, 1208 ■ Keahole Point Embayment, 1234 ■ Kauhoku Bay — Hookena, 1209 4 Banyan's Surfing Area, 1235 ■ Kealakekua Bay — Off Lei Stand, 1211 ■' OTEC, 1237 ■ Kealakekua Bay — Off Canoe Landing, 1212 Honokohau Harbor, 1239 ■ Keauhou Bay, 1213 Kealakekua Bay, 1240 ■ Kona Hilton Shoreline, 1214 Kona Coast Beach Park, 1241 ■ Magic Sands Beach, 1214 Kona Bay Estates, 1242 Source: htt -emdweb.doh Hawaii. ov/cleanwaterbranchli'ndesallsites.as 2-9 Grey infrastructure Report This page intentionally left blank. 2-10 IGrey Infrastructure Report 1 3 FLOOD HAZARD The North and South Kona districts lie over the western slopes of Mount Hualalai and Mauna Loa. As relatively recent geological formations, both volcanoes retained their "shield" configurations, which lack well-defined drainage features characteristic of the older islands in the Hawaiian archipelago. Nevertheless, erosion has formed numerous narrow drainage -ways and water courses leading towards the ocean. Drainage -ways that have been identified as potential flood zones extend mauka from the coastline between Kailua Bay to the north and Kauhako Bay, south of Hookena. These watercourses generally are non -flowing except in times of heavy and extended rainfall. Most rainfall runoff sheet flows and percolates into the ground 3.1 Previous Studies 3.1.1 North Kona Flood Hazard Analysis The North Kona district was studied as part of the "North Kona Flood Plain Management Study" (1984) by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS, presently Natural Resources Conservation Service). North Kona has steep slopes, shallow soils, frequent high intensity rains, and lacks well-defined drainage ways making this area susceptible to flooding and overland flows. The mean annual rainfall ranges from about 20 inches along the coast to 100 inches at an elevation of 3,000 feet with gradual decrease thereafter to 20 inches at the peak of Hualalai (See Figure 3-1). The Study identifies three types of soils: volcanic ash soils; organic soils; and young, unweathered lava. According to the "North Kona Flood Plain Management Study" areas along the coffee belt region with Kainaliu, Holualoa and Kailua Village experienced flood water and 1 sediment damage. The study identified seven intermittent drainage ways totaling 30 miles in length as having flood hazard potential. They included Kainaliu, Kawainui/Lehuula, Kaumalumalu, Holualoa/Horeshoe Bend, Waiaha, Hienaloli and Keopu drainage ways (See Figure 3-1). The Study also calculated the acres inundated by along the seven drainage ways for the 100 -year and 500 -year storm (See Table 3-1). The Study proposed the following alternatives for flood plain management. Non -Structural Measures. 1. Preserve and maintain the conservation and agriculture land use districts above Mamalahoa Highway. 2. Establish and maintain appropriate vegetative cover in high rainfall, sediment and debris -producing areas 3. Enforce county grading ordinance to reduce erosion and sedimentation. 4. Enforce land use zoning to restrict future development within identified flood plain areas. 3-1 - . t- 1 1 rl 1 r n r Grey Infrastructure Report 5. Initiate state/county tax incentives for keeping flood plain areas in recreational and/or open space use by: a. Reducing tax rate for these designated areas. b. Allowing tax deductions to landowners for donation of these areas to state or county. 6 Install flood warning system tied in to stream or rain gauges in the upper reaches of the drainage ways. Structural: 1. Require all new developments to dispose of their runoff (up to the 10 -year storm) on site. 2. Relocate or floodproof buildings within flood plain areas. 3. Improve road culverts and bridges to carry a larger discharge and provide additional ones where needed. Improve entrance design of culverts to prevent clogging by rocks, sediment and debris. 4 Provide a 100 -year level of protection by installing diversions, channels, culverts and debris basins for the Keopu/Hienaloli, Waiaha and Kaumalumalu drainage ways in accordance with SCS design criteria. 3.1.2 South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses The South Kona district was studied as part of the South Kona Flood Hazard Analysis (1977), by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS, presently Natural Resources Conservation Service). Rainfall is unique in this area in that summer months are wet while winter months are dry. This is due to the daytime sea breezes that push moist air over the land mass. The mean annual rainfall ranges from approximately 40 inches at sea level to about 80 inches at 3,000 feet elevation (See Figure 3-2). The Study describes South Kona as having well -drained, very shallow soils formed over lava. The drainage area above 6,000 feet elevation appears not to contribute to surface runoff. This area includes nearly barren lava, volcanic ash, pumice, and cinders. 3-3 Table 3-1 Drainage ay Acres Inundated and Length Drainage Way Acres Inundated 100 - Year 500 - Year Length (miles) Keo u 112 155 5.4 Hienaloli 54 69 38 Waiaha 125 172 6.0 Holualoa/Horseshoe Bend 68 107 5.6 Kaumalumaulu 71 99 3.9 Kawainui/Lehuula 47 66 2.8 Kainaliu 65 85 2.5 Total 545 753 300 Source: U S Department of Agriculture Soil Conservation Service, North Kona Flood Plani Management. December 1984. 5. Initiate state/county tax incentives for keeping flood plain areas in recreational and/or open space use by: a. Reducing tax rate for these designated areas. b. Allowing tax deductions to landowners for donation of these areas to state or county. 6 Install flood warning system tied in to stream or rain gauges in the upper reaches of the drainage ways. Structural: 1. Require all new developments to dispose of their runoff (up to the 10 -year storm) on site. 2. Relocate or floodproof buildings within flood plain areas. 3. Improve road culverts and bridges to carry a larger discharge and provide additional ones where needed. Improve entrance design of culverts to prevent clogging by rocks, sediment and debris. 4 Provide a 100 -year level of protection by installing diversions, channels, culverts and debris basins for the Keopu/Hienaloli, Waiaha and Kaumalumalu drainage ways in accordance with SCS design criteria. 3.1.2 South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses The South Kona district was studied as part of the South Kona Flood Hazard Analysis (1977), by the U.S. Soil Conservation Service (SCS, presently Natural Resources Conservation Service). Rainfall is unique in this area in that summer months are wet while winter months are dry. This is due to the daytime sea breezes that push moist air over the land mass. The mean annual rainfall ranges from approximately 40 inches at sea level to about 80 inches at 3,000 feet elevation (See Figure 3-2). The Study describes South Kona as having well -drained, very shallow soils formed over lava. The drainage area above 6,000 feet elevation appears not to contribute to surface runoff. This area includes nearly barren lava, volcanic ash, pumice, and cinders. 3-3 Grey Infrastructure Report According to the South Kona Flood Analyses, flooding problems have been largely due to localized high intensity rainfall from 1,000 feet elevation to 5,000 feet elevation. The Hawaii County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan (February 2005) contains a record of mi nor flooding events, including those at Kiialea, South Keokea, Honaunau and Wailapa Streams, as well as the Belt Highway in the area of 1950 lava flows and at Hookena Road. The Study identified twenty-five watercourses as having flood hazard potential (See Figure 3-2). Watercourses within South Kona are intermittent. The Study proposed the following alternatives for flood plain management: Non -Structural Measures: 1. Preserve the conservation and agricultural land use districts above Mamalahoa Highway. 2. Establish and maintain appropriate vegetative cover on sediment and debris producing areas that are subject to heavy runoff damages from sediment and rubble on lower areas. 3. Enforce county grading ordinance to reduce erosion and sedimentation. 4. Implement land use zoning to restrict future development within identified flood plains or require proper structural design to prevent floodwater damages from the 100 -year event. 5. Purchase flood insurance on all buildings and mobile homes, especially those within the flood hazard areas delineated on the maps and those in areas subject to shallow alluvial -type flooding. Structural: 1. Relocated or floodproof buildings within flood -prone area. 2. Improve road culverts and bridges to carry a larger discharge and provide additional ones where needed. Improve entrance design of culverts to prevent clogging by rocks, sediment, and debris. 3. Develop a system of diversions, using lava tubes and natural catchments to reduce the peak discharges at the highway. 4. Require all structural or land improvements to compensate for increased runoff and prevent this increased runoff from affecting adjacent lands. 3.1.3 County of Hawaii Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan The purpose of the County's "Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan: County of Hawaii" (February 2005) is to provide a strategy to reduce loss of life or property caused by natural hazard events. The Plan focuses on natural hazards such as tsunamis, floods, hurricanes, drought, lava flow, wildfires, and earthquakes. The Plan studied existing conditions and existing available data. The Plan recommends the following: 1. Initiate State/County tax incentives for keeping flood plain areas in recreation and/or open space use by: a. Reducing the tax rate for these designated areas. b. Allowing tax deductions to land owners for donation of these areas to the State or County. 3-4 Kealakekua Legend ZONE - A _ X500 LATEST LOMR ZONE ® A - X500 Streams Major Roads Other Roads 0 1 2 4 Miles Figure 3-2 Flood & Drainage - S. Kona Kona Community Development Plan Milolii a M„ L ,. q r Grey Infrastructure Report Tax incentives will not only provide financial compensation to the property owners, but the additional recreation and/or open space will also enhance the environment of the community which maybe incorporated into the green -belt concept of the community. 2. Improve warning and public education systems. Install flood warning system tied in to stream or rain gauges in the upper reaches of the drainage ways. Flood warning system tied in to stream or rain gauges provides an early warning system of potential flooding to the community, improve the preparedness of the people of the coming hazardous events. 3. Improve accuracy and complete flood zone mapping. 3.1.4 U.S. Army Corps of Engineer The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has prepared other flood studies for the Kona area and are described below (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers www.Poh.usace.army.miI/ CW/CWProiects.htm): 1. Holualoa Drainageway Holualoa drainageway flows only during intense rainfall and flows through a rural residential community consisting of single and multi family -residential homes and agricultural farm lots. As a result of a flooding condition in the Holualoa Drainageway on March 1998, the County of Hawaii requested the Corps of Engineer (COE), Honolulu District, to conduct a study to verify the 100- and 500 - year flood plain limits and stream flow paths of the Holualoa Drainageway. In August 2003, the COE submitted final flood maps to the County of Hawaii. 2. Keopu-Hienaloli Streams Flood Damage Reduction, Hawaii Study The Keopu and Hienaloli watersheds are located above Kailua-Kona. Inadequately defined channels, accumulation of debris and vegetation, steep slopes, and under -sized channel and culvert capacities has caused flooding problems within the Keopu-Hienaloli basins. Repeated problems and records of historical floods in this Kailua area date back to 1955. In December 2004, a walk-through inspection of this non -Federal Keopu Stream Flood Project was conducted by COE and County of Hawaii representatives. Based on the Continuing Eligibility Inspection (CEI) Report for Flood Control Project subsequent to the inspection, the project was rated "marginally satisfactory", its condition "minimally acceptable" and its status is "active". The COE, Honolulu District, initiated a cost -shared feasibility study which is still on-going. 3-6 I Grey Infrastructure Report ' Prior studies for the Keopu-Hienaloli watersheds prepared by the U.S. Department of Agricultural Soil Conservation Service, include: a. The "Kona Watershed Plan, Island of Hawaii," completed in December 1965, b. The "North Kona Flood Plain Management Study," completed in December 1984, c. The "Keopu-Hienaloli Flood Control study, Hydrology and Flood Plain Analysis," completed in August 1987, and d. The "Reconnaissance Report for Flood Damage Reduction, Keopu- Hienaloli Streams, North Kona, Island of Hawaii," completed in February 1988. 3.2 Flood Occurrences The Highway Division, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii maintains a record of localized drainage problems and complaints, mainly along streets and roadways in the Kona CDP area (County of Hawaii GIS). According to the information provided, there are approximately 30 locations in the Kona CDP area that have reported localized flood or drainage problems (see Figure 3-3). While the ' nature or causes of the problems are not provided, their location suggests that they occur at low points of roadways that may have inadequately designed or inadequately maintained drainage facilities. Table 3-2 lists historical flood incidents that have occurred in Kona P1 3.3 Flood Insurance Rate Maps The Flood Insurance Study (FIS) administered by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) under the National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) of 1968, identified and assessed the severity of flood hazards in various areas on the island of Hawaii. This study, which included the Kona area, developed flood risk and flood plain data for the community to establish flood insurance rates and to assist the community in its efforts to promote flood plain management. Most of the flooding analyses for the North and South Kona areas were performed by former U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Services (presently, the Natural Resources Conservation Service) in the "1984 North Kona Flood Plain Management Study" and the "1977 South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses" report. Other analyses were also performed by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Pacific Ocean Division for FEMA 3-7 1 1 1 1 r Grey Infrastructure Report Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) generally provide information on magnitude of flood risk in communities. The FIRMs provides the basis for the County to regulate development within flood hazard areas through its permit process as set forth in the Hawaii County Code. While the process has helped to prevent or mitigate additional flood damage in the Kona area, flooding problems persist in some older developments that were constructed without adequate drainage and flood control improvements. Drainage ways and watercourses in the Kona CDP area identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FIRMs are listed in Table 3-3 and shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 Drainage ways and watercourses in the Kona CDP area (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) shown on the FIRM generally are: ■ Zone AE, special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 -year flood with base flood elevations determined ■ Zone X, areas of 500 -year flood; areas of 100 -year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100 -year flood. ■ Zone X, Other areas determined to be outside 500 -year flood plain. lO Table 3-2 Historical Flood Incidents in Kona Date Location April 8, 1918 Flash flood at Kona Sugar Mill October 22, 1922 Flash floods at South Kona January 25, 1930 Holualoa Reservoir burst flash flood October 30, 1961 Flash floods in South Kona. A ril 29, 1963 Flash floods at Kainaliu September 25, 1966 Captain Cook Kainaliu October 12, 1967 Overland flow at Honokaa October 24, 1967 North Kona July 17, 1968 Localized flooding at Kaaakawa October 3, 1968 Flash flood in North Kona October 15, 1974 Flooding from Kaloko to Honaunau, 4 5" in 7 hours April 29, 1976 Flash flooding in Honaunau May 17 1982 Minor flooding at Kona September 29, 1986 Flash flooding from Captain Cook to Kealakekua November 19, 1985 -- February 16, 1986 Localized flooding at North Kona February 2 — 5, 1980 Flash flooding at South Kona September 17, 1982 Heavy thunderstorms, minor flooding January 22, 1986 2.1° in 1 hour, widespread flooding January 5, 1987 Widespread floods. Captain Cook to Kona Source County of Hawaii, Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, February 2005. Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs) generally provide information on magnitude of flood risk in communities. The FIRMs provides the basis for the County to regulate development within flood hazard areas through its permit process as set forth in the Hawaii County Code. While the process has helped to prevent or mitigate additional flood damage in the Kona area, flooding problems persist in some older developments that were constructed without adequate drainage and flood control improvements. Drainage ways and watercourses in the Kona CDP area identified on the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), FIRMs are listed in Table 3-3 and shown in Figures 3-1 and 3-2 Drainage ways and watercourses in the Kona CDP area (Figures 3-1 and 3-2) shown on the FIRM generally are: ■ Zone AE, special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 -year flood with base flood elevations determined ■ Zone X, areas of 500 -year flood; areas of 100 -year flood with average depths of less than 1 foot or with drainage areas less than 1 square mile; and areas protected by levees from 100 -year flood. ■ Zone X, Other areas determined to be outside 500 -year flood plain. lO Grey Infrastructure Report Table 3-3 Flood Insurance Rate Mas FIRM Name of Stream I Community — Panel Number North Kona Keo u Drainage -way 155166 0712C 0713D Hienaloli Drainage -way. 155166 0714C, 0713D Waiaha Drainage -way. 155166 0714C, 0713D Holualoa Drainage -way. 155166 0927D, 0926E Horseshoe Bend Drainage -way. 155166 0927D, 0926E Kaumalumalu Drainage -way. 155166 0926E, 0927D Kainaliu Drainage -way. 155166 0937C, 0941C Kawanui-Lehuula Drainage -way 155166 0937C, 0941 C Kawanui Drainage -way, 155166 0937C, 0941 C Lehuula Drainage -way. 155166 0937C, 0941C Kaumalumalu Drainage -way Tributaries 1, Zan *I 155166 0926E, 0927D South Kona South Kona Watercourses Nos 1,3,7,8,19,20 24, and 25. 155166 0939C, 0943C, 0944C, et al. Areas located between Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway, and areas above Mamalahoa Highway are all in "Zone X". In addition to the North Kona Flood Plain Management Study and the South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses, the coastlines of the Kona area were studied for wave action inundation which delineates the inundation limits of wave hazards which generally are in "Zone AE" and "Zone VE": ■ Zone AE, special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 -year flood with base flood elevations determined Zone VE, special flood hazard areas inundated by 100 -year flood, coastal flood with velocity hazard (wave action); base flood elevation determined". Flood hazard areas and limits can be found on the various panels of the current FIRMs or those revised in April 2004. The existence and severity of flood hazard areas in North and South Kona identified by FEMA on the FIRM were adopted as part of the Hawaii County Code for Flood Control purposes. According to the Flood Insurance Study (FIS) for Hawaii County, revised in April 2, 2004, which revises and updates a previous FIS for Hawaii County, the studies and analyses upon which the flood boundaries were determined was referenced to various reports and analyses prepared from 1977 to 1985. Known flood hazard areas and areas of projected development or proposed construction through 1991 were studied by detailed methods. Approximate analyses were used to study areas having a low development potential or minimal flooding possibilities. 3-10 Grey Infrastructure Report Flood hazard maps showing the various flood zones published by FEMA can be updated by Government -funded projects through detailed re-evaluation of flooding hazards based on physical changes, improved methodology or data. The re-evaluation process is costly and time consuming. FEMA generally bases its decision to conduct a re -study on a benefit -cost analysis. In the Kona region, the benefit -cost ratio may not justify a re -study at this time. ' While a new FIS may not be justifiable to update and revise the flood hazard boundaries because of the low cost -benefit ratio even with the rapid growth occurring in the area, the County can rely on the procedures established by FEMA for changing the effective FIRM's by a Letter of Map Change (LOMC). There are three LOMC categories: Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA), Letter of Map Revision on Fill (LOMR —F), and Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). 3.3.1 Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) FEMA established procedures by which a community or developer may compile appropriate data, perform necessary analysis and submit a request for a map revision or map change on a case-by-case basis. FEMA Map revision or map change is a Letter of Map Revision (LOMR). A proposed revision can be approved by a Letter of Map Revision from the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) officially revising the current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) map to show changes to floodplains, floodways, or flood elevations. ' Locations of existing flood zones in the Kona area updated with Letter of Map Revisions (LOMR) are listed in Table 3-4: Information on the above LOMR's are obtained from Flood Maps available on FEMA ' Map Service Center (MSC) on FEMA website, www.msc.fema.gov. 3.3.2 Conditional Letter of Map Revisions (CLOMR) A CLOMR from FEMA would indicate that a proposed map revision meets the minimum standards of the National Flood Insurance Program based on the condition that the proposed project which the revision is based is built as proposed Table 3-5 lists the updated CLOMRs. 1 F, 3-11 Grey Infrastructure Report I Table 3-4 U dated Letter of Map Revisions LOMR Item ID/Flood Insurance Rate Map Item Name/Case Number Effective Date 1551660713D1551660713D Flood Insurance Rate Map 05-16-1994" LOMR 01-09-882P-155166 08-07-2001 LOMA 02-09-976A-155166 06-21-2002 LOMR 02-09-145613-155166 04-24-2003 LOMR 03-09-1333P-155166 02-27-2004 LOMR 03-09-1531 P-155166 01-20-2004 LOMR 03-09-055413-155166 06-13-2005 1551660926E/0927D Flood Insurance Rate Map 06-02-1995' LOMR 00-09-12413-155166 09-19-2000 LOMA 05-09-1657A-155166 12-06-2005 1551660927D Flood Insurance Rate Map 06-02-1995' LOMR 00-09-124P-155166 09-19-2000 1551660937C Flood Insurance Rate Map 09-16-1988" LOMR 05-09-0072P-155166 02-28-2005 1551660939C Flood Insurance Rate Map 09-16-1988" LOMR 05-09-007213-155166 02-28-2005 *Denotes Effective Date of initial map. LOMR — Letter of Map Revision. A letter from FEMA officially revising the current NFIP map to show changes to floodplains. LOMA — A letter from FEMA stating that an existing structure or parcel of land that has not been elevated by fill (natural grade) would not be inundated by the base flood. Source: www.msc fema gov. Table 3-5 Updated Conditional Letters of Map Revisions CLOMR Item ID/Flood Insurance Rate Ma Case Number TMK Effective Date 1551660926E 04-09-0429R Alii Highway) CLOMR issued 6/30/04 1551660713D/926E 04-09-0307R 7-5-017.019 CLOMR issued 5/05/04 1551660939C 00-09-1072R CLOMR issued 6/11/01 1551660713D 00-09-1101 R CLOMR issued 6/12/01 1551660466C/478C 00-09-732C 7-2-004:005 CLOMR-F issued 7/28/00 LOMR issued 7/25/01 1551660713D 00-09-497R 7-5-003:003 CLOMR issued 6/06/00) (LOMR issued 8/07/01 - Case No 01-09-88213 1551660713D 97-09-133R 7-5-004:043 CLOMR issued 4/29/97 (FEMA review complete Determinationpending) 1551660713D 95-09-887R 7-5-04:06,07,13 CLOMR issued 3/12/96 15516607140 95-09-773R 7-6-09014 CLOMR pending submittal of data 11/14/09 1551660713D/713E/926D 95-09-382R 7-5-017:028 CLOMR issued 9/08/95 1551660926C/927C 95-09-148R 7-6-024:025 CLOMR issued 3/24/95 1551660713C 90-09-63R 7-5-04:035 CLOMR pending (08/07/91) Source: Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii Aygust 28 2006. 3-12 11 Infrastructure 3.4 Mauka Lands Management and Development Management of the lands mauka of the Mamalahoa Highway to preserve the conservation and agricultural land use areas is one of the non-structural flood protection ' recommendation offered by both the South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses, July 1977, and the North Kona Flood Plain Management Study, December 1984. The Hawaii Land Use Law of Chapter 205, Hawaii Revised Statutes, classifies all land in the State into four land use districts: Urban, Agricultural, Conservation, and Rural. The lands mauka of Mamalahoa Highway are designated Conservation and Agricultural ' According to the Hawaii County Zoning Code, the lands mauka of Mamalahoa Highway are zoned as follows: ■ A -10a (Agricultural, minimum building site of 10 acres) ■ A -1a (Agricultural, minimum building site of 1 acres) ■ A -20a (Agricultural, minimum building site of 20 acres) ' ■ A -3a (Agricultural, minimum building site of 3 acres) ■ A -5a (Agricultural, minimum building site of 5 acres) ■ A -7a (Agricultural, minimum building site of 7 acres) ' ■ Forest Reserve (FR) ■ Open (0) ' The Kona/Kohala Natural Resources Roundtable was created in response to the Office of State Planning's Draft Land Use District Boundary Review (1991 and 1993). The review recommended that specific agricultural areas in the Kona/Kohala districts be reclassified to Conservation due to their importance in protecting watersheds and natural resources. These areas were identified as "areas of concerns" in response to landowner's concerns about the recommended re -designation of their lands The Roundtable formulated several alternative recommendations and management tools for government and landowners to use in addressing the need to protect natural resources in the mauka areas (Kona/Kohala Natural Resources Roundtable Final ' Recommendations, June 1995): ■ Planning & Management Guidelines — eleven guidelines meant to assist land managers and decision -makers, both public and private, in designing and implementing projects proposed in the Mauka Kona area. ' ■ Transfer Development Rights — designation of transfer and receiving area(s) and transfers from non -growth to growth areas. ■ Natural Area Partnerships — management of natural resources on private lands dedicated in perpetuity to conservation, using funds from Natural Area Partnership Program and landowners. 3-13 Grey Infrastructure Report Term Easements/Less Than Fee — creation of an easement in favor of management rights such as watershed management. ■ Inventory Management and Monitoring Agreements — devise information gathering, planning and management activities that are supported by landowners which assure that their land ownership and land values are protected. Utilizing agreements can provide assurances to all vested parties that native ecosystems and rare populations are protected. ■ Watershed Management Surcharge — surcharge would be built around a fixed fee to be paid by all public and private users who consume water. Important Watershed Management Areas would be identified and proposed surcharge seen as a voluntary, incentive -based system. 3.5 Adequacy of Drainage Standards 3.5.1 Storm Drainage Standard, Department of Public Works, County of Hawaii, October 1970. The County of Hawaii, Storm Drainage Standards, October 1970, as revised, provide guidelines and criteria for developments in the design of storm drainage facilities. In recent years numerous heavy storms and rainfalls in Kona have resulted in flood damages and flood losses to private properties and public improvements. At the same time, the Kona area has been experiencing rapid growth and urbanization. With the availability of recent data on additional rainfall frequency and other stream flow or hydrological information re-evaluation of the drainage standards to update the guidelines and criteria for drainage and flood control is appropriate 3.5.2 Chapter 27, Flood Control - Hawaii County Code Chapter 27, Flood Control in the Hawaii County Code was adopted to minimize public and private losses due to flood conditions in specific areas by provisions designed to protect human life and health; minimize expenditure of public funds, and the need for rescue and efforts associated with flooding. This chapter was amended and revised in 1998. 3.5.3 Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control, Hawaii County Code Chapter 10, Erosion and Sedimentation Control in the Hawaii County Code is adopted to regulate and control drainage pattern in conjunction with grading, grubbing, and stockpiling operations to prevent erosion damage and to satisfactorily carry off surface runoff to avoid flooding hazard. This chapter is currently being revised. 3.6 Proposed Measures Land use changes and urbanization in the Kona area increase the area covered by impermeable surfaces such as pavement and buildings, which, in turn, reduces the infiltration of rainfall and increases the potential for runoff to occur. To reduce the potential for flooding by increased runoff, several flood control measures and projects have been implemented since 2004, including construction of the Keopu Channel and Kainaliu Diversion Flood Control System, and the dam reservoirs in Waiaha (Federal 3-14 I Grey Infrastructure Report ' Emergency Management Agency, April 2, 2004). With proper planning, appropriate mitigating measures, and updated County flood - control policies to regulate, control, and provide guidance for new developments and projects, adverse impacts in the Kona District can be minimized. In addition, the County is in the process of adopting new ordinances and regulations to address current Federal water quality issues relative to drainage facilities, such as the use of drywells with inserts, filters, screens, fabrics, and other devices to capture sediment and other contaminants. Below is a list of recommended non-structural and structural measures (U.S. Soil Conservation Service, 1977 and 1984 and Hawaii County Multi -Hazard Mitigation Plan, February 2005): Non-structural measures. ' 1 Updating current land use zoning to restrict development within identified floodplains or requiring proper structural design to prevent floodwater damage. Implementation of restrictive land use zoning within identified flood plains will ' also protect and promote public safety and welfare, and minimize loss of properties or financial losses. 2. Adopting flood plain management practice in conjunction with the NFIP to reduce flood losses by enforcing limits of building to outside flooding limits in FIRM or requiring developments to submit LOMA for FEMA approval. ' Structural Measures: ' 1. Enforcing appropriate setback requirements from floodways or flood -prone areas. 2. Improving drainage crossings and bridges across roadways. 3. Requiring all developments and new construction to compensate for increased ' runoff, and maintain development generated runoff to remain on-site. 4. Developing diversion or other suitable system to channel runoff into existing lava tubes or cavities. 3-15 Grey Infrastructure Report This page intentionally left blank. 3-96 1 11 1 II 1 1 C1 Grey Infrastructure Report 4 TRANSPORTATION Transportation addresses the efficient movement of people and goods into, out of and within the planning area. The roadway network is the primary system for all modes of transportation from pedestrians, bicycles and cars to, mass transit and trucks. Congestion in the roadway network results from demand exceeding the capacity of the roadway system — typically manifesting' in recurring congestion in specific areas. Solutions to congestion relate to reducing or altering transportation demand or increasing the capacity of roadway networks and addressing public safety. Previous transportation planning for the Kona region have typically addressed the capacity of the roadway network to accommodate projections of existing traffic demands. As such, these transportation plans typically recommended new roadways and links to address capacity and circulation issues. A more comprehensive approach would include a variety of approaches addressing both transportation demand and capacity. This chapter assesses the content, rationale for such recommendations. 4.1 Existing Roadway Network The existing transportation roadway network within the planning area is influenced by the same factors that shape the development of the individual towns. The existing roadway network is an eclectic combination of regional arterials and collector roads with smaller networks of collectors and local streets that have resulted from increasing development over decades. Topography and natural features are also a major influence over network locations within the planning area. Bounded by the ocean to the west and mountainous terrain to the east, the planning area linear in shape with regional roadways oriented in the north -south direction. These regional roadways not only service regional traffic movements but a large portion of the internal traffic as well. Travel to and from specific locations within the planning area more than likely requires the use of these regional transportation facilities ' Within the North and South Kona transportation network, the roadways can functionally be classified into arterials, major connectors, and minor connectors. Two principal arterials providing north -south access through the region is Queen ' Kaahumanu and Mamalahoa Highway (see Figure 4-1). These regional facilities carry not only regional traffic traversing the planning area, but traffic between the planning area and area beyond, as well as, internal traffic originating and ' terminating within the planning area. The mix of trip types on specific sections of the roadways result in over -capacity conditions of the facility. To relieve the traffic demands on the regional facilities as well as provide added circulation for I travel, connector roads have been developed to linki the regional facilities and to provide additional roadway capacity. 4-1 Kail Keau Legend — Major Roads Other Roads LIN 0 2 4 S Miles Figure 41 Existing Roadway Network Development Plan r 1 Grey Infrastructure Report Major connector roads providing mauka-makai connections include Kuakini Highway Palani, Road, Hina Lani Street, Kaiminani Drive, and Kamehameha III Road. North — south connector roads include Alii Drive. Mamalahoa Highway is generally oriented along the coastline and provides circulation around the island through several towns and communities. From Waimea, north of the planning area, Mamalahoa Highway proceeds southward as State Route 190 and continues as Route 180 in north Kona. At Honalo Junction, Mamalahoa Highway continues southward as Route 11 through South Kona. Although classified as a major collector road through Kailua-Kona, Mamalahoa Highway serves as one of the primary arterials in the region. Its alignment is generally composed of sharp curves and rolling terrain. This two- lane roadway is generally posted with a speed limit of 35 miles per hour (mph) through the planning area. Queen Kaahumanu Highway is predominantly a two-lane, two-way roadway ' generally oriented in the north -south direction and is designated as Route 19 through the planning area. Functionally classified as a minor arterial, Queen Kaahumanu Highway provides regional access to several resorts located north of ' Kailua-Kona and is generally flat with a relatively straight alignment. Through the planning area, Queen Kaahumanu Highway generally runs parallel and west of Mamalahoa Highway with its northern terminus is at Kawaihae, north of the ' planning area, and its southern terminus intersecting with Kuakini Highway within the planning area. ' Kuakini Highway is predominantly a two-lane, two-way State of Hawaii roadway generally oriented in the north -south direction. The roadway operates as a major north -south collector road within the planning area, originating near the former ' Kona Airport in the vicinity of Makala Boulevard and continues southward intersecting with Mamalahoa Highway. The roadway is generally flat and straight with limited curvature as it approaches Mamalahoa Highway towards the south. �7 Hina Lani Street operates as an east -west collector road that connects Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway. It is predominantly a two-lane, two-way roadway that traverses the Kaloko Industrial Park and residential subdivisions towards the east near Mamalahoa Highway. Hina Lani Street is generally curvilinear with steep grades to accommodate elevation differences between the two arterial roadways at its terminal points. Palani Road operates as a collector road that provides connections to primary north -south arterial roadways. Palani Road is predominantly a four -lane, two- way State of Hawaii roadway generally oriented in the east -west direction between Kuakini Highway and Queen Kaahumanu Highway. The roadway continues eastward as a two-lane, two-way roadway and terminates at Mamalahoa Highway. Palani Road has a generally straight alignment on a modest slope west of Queen Kaahumanu Highway East of the highway, Palani 4-3 Grey Infrastructure Report Road continues on a modest slope with a curvilinear alignment and intersects Mamalohoa Highway that is at a higher evelation. King Kamehameha III Road provides a link between Alii Drive/Alii Highway and Mamalahoa Highway, and is generally a four -lane, two-way roadway situated on a steep incline to accommodate elevation differences between the coastline and Mamalahoa Highway. The Keauhou Shopping Center is the major traffic generator in the immediate vicinity and includes specialty retail, supermarket, eating establishments, and other services. Alii Drive is a two-lane, two-way County of Hawaii roadway that is generally oriented along the coastline of Kailua-Kona and provides access to the coast as well as tourist -oriented shops, eateries, places of accommodation, and other uses. In addition to vehicular traffic, Alii Drive services many pedestrians throughout the day. The roadway is relatively flat throughout its curvilinear alignment with several sections of the roadway containing modest grades. The northern terminus is at the intersection of Kuakini Highway and Palani Road. From this intersection, Alii Drive curves westward and continues southward generally along the coastline and heads southeast to intersect with Kuakini Highway at its southern terminus. 4.2 Previous Plans There are several planning documents that identify the transportation system needs and address circulation and capacity constraints throughout the planning area. These documents include traffic forecasts based on development trends, and include recommendations to the transportation network to address future needs. The most intuitively obvious response to greater congestion is to expand the carrying capacity of the area's transportation system. This strategy can be implemented through diverse tactics such as road building or road widening. Although additional roads or the widening of existing roadways can improve circulation, in the short term, they may not be the most cost-effective solution in the long-term. 4.2.1 Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan (HLRLTP) 1998 The Hawaii Long Range Land Transportation Plan is a cooperative planning effort by the State Department of Transportation and the County of Hawaii. The plan identifies the major transportation improvements needed to support growth of the island of Hawaii until 2020. 4.2.2 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (1991) The Keahole to Kailua Development Plan (K to K Plan), adopted by the Hawaii County Council on April 3, 1991, represents an ongoing effort by the County of Hawaii to prepare for the future urbanization of the region to meet the growing needs of West Hawaii. The K to K Plan encompasses the area from Kona International Airport at Keahole (Kau Ahupuaa) to Kailua-Kona (Palani Road), and from the shoreline mauka towards Mamalahoa Highway. 4-4 1 11 C Grey Infrastructure Report The K to K Plan addresses land use, infrastructure, and provides cost estimates for infrastructure in order to address future development in the region. The plan includes a land use plan, infrastructure plan, and financing and implementation plan for the next 20 years, providing a framework for future development of the Keahole to Kailua area. 4.2.3 Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan (1997) Since the preparation of the K to K Plan, development progressed rapidly and the need for a more in-depth roadway analysis became apparent. Townscape Inc. was retained by the Hawaii County Planning Department to expand on roadway concepts presetned from the 1991 K to K Plan. A detailed roadway plan and implementation strategy for the major roadways within the K to K planning area was prepared Implementation was phased over three time periods, 2005, 2020, and 2050. The development of this detailed plan involved updating the status of various projects planned within the region and identifying roadway corridors that would be needed to accommodate future traffic. The Roadway Plan recommends improvements to Queen Kaahumanu Highway, ' Palani Road, Kealakehe Parkway, Makala Road, and Hina Lani Drive; the construction of North-South Roads, including Waena Drive and Kealakaa Street, the Mid -Level Road and University Drive. 1 1 L 4.2.4 Keahole to Kailua Roadway Master Plan (2001) This study revised the Keahole to Kailua Roadway Plan to accommodate developments planned or constructed since the 1997 publication. The study reviewed development plans affecting Mid -Level Road and Waena Drive. It also assessed the feasibility of alternative realignments for these roads and identified potential traffic impacts. The plan recommended the following: ■ Realign Mid -Level Road mauka of Kohanaiki Business Park to the Waena Drive alignment as it crosses Kaiminani Drive. ■ Terminate Waena Drive at its intersection with Kealakehe Parkway. ■ Increase the Mid -Level Road right-of-way requirements from 120 feet to 150 feet. The increase accounts for future widening of the road which would offset the elimination of Waena Drive. ■ Designate existing Mid -Level alignment as Main Street and increasing right-of-way from 60 feet to 80 feet to account for loss of Waena Drive. 4.2.5 Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan (2003) This regional transportation plan was initiated to address the peak hour traffic congestion on the region's arterial roadways during peak hours through parts of North and South Kona. According to the plan, urban sprawl, population growth, uncoordinated development, and resulting traffic congestion are severely affecting the quality of life and character of the Kona region. 4-5 Grey Infrastructure Report The plan identified needs for new roadways and/or expansion of existing roadways for commercial vehicles, bicycle, pedestrian, and transit systems. Three types of recommendations were presented: 1. Corridor Management programmatic recommendations. ■ County Council Resolution on Transportation Corridor Management • Zoning and Subdivision Regulations 2. Proposed short term projects and long range concepts that address transportation needs for the next 20 years. ■ Ke Ala O Keauhou and Mamalahoa Highway Bypass — Traffic Access Management ■ Hienaloli Road/Keanalehu Road and Kealakaa Street/Kealakehe Parkway — Extension Projects • Bikeways and Paths — Improvements Projects ■ Mass Transit — Improvement Projects ■ Fixed Rail Mass Transit ■ Future North-South Corridors 3. Projects and programs that require further study were identified. ® County Historic Preservation Policies ® Community Character Benchmarks ■ Green Open Space ■ Heritage Corridor ■ General Plan Update ■ Regional Development Plan 4.2.6 State Transportation Improvement Program/Capital Improvement Projects The Hawaii Statewide Transportation Improvement Program (STIP) provides a multi-year listing of State and County transportation projects and identifies those projects programmed for federal funding It is a multi -modal transportation improvement program that is developed utilizing existing transportation plans and policies, and current highway, transit and transportation programming processes. Table 4-1 lists projects on the current STIP (Statewide Transportation Improvement Program, FY 2006 — FY 2008, HDOT, September 8, 2006). 4-6 1 1 �1 n Ll E 1 d Grey Infrastructure Report Table 4-1 Transportation Improvement Projects Already Funded Project Status HS 20. Kealakehe Parkway Extension, Keanalehu Drive to Kealakaa Design Street HS 22. Mamalahoa Highway Safety Improwements in the Vicinity of Construction C.Q. Yee Hop Ranch HS 23. Mamalahoa Highway Safety Improvements in the Vicinity of Construction Puuwaawaa Ranch Road HS 25 Queen Kaahumanu Highway Widening Construction Kealakehe Parkway to Keahole Airport Access Road Phase II HS 26. Route PLH 10 (1) Honokohau Harbor Access Road (CFL): 3R Construction HC 2 Alii Drive Road Improvements Along Oneo Bay From Hualalai Planning and Design Road to Walua Road HC 5 Kuakini Highway Widening, Design Hualalai Road to Alii Highway HC 7. Palani-Kealakaa Intersection and Traffic Signal Improvements Construction Since several residential, employment, and activity centers are located to the north and to the south of Kailua-Kona, there is a relatively high proportion of "external -external' trips traversing through the town center. Although specific data is unavailable to determine the type of trips traveling through and within the planning area, the proportion of external -external trips appears to be in the order of 60% on the regional facilities located in the northern and southern portions of the planning area based on available traffic volume data. As these trips enter the town center, the proportion of external -external trips reduces as internal -internal trips increases. In the northern and southern fringe of the planning area, one can deduce that the balance of 40% may be external- internal, internal-external, or internal -internal trips. However, within the town center, and without specific detailed origination/destination travel information, it is even more difficult to determine the proportion of these trips. Of these, though, the largest trip type appears to be "internal -internal' trips since much of the services, goods, employment, activity centers, and other uses are located within the planning area. The available routes for these "internal -internal' trips are limited to several collector roads and would generally include use of primary arterials. The County of Hawaii Planning Department prepared the Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan, County Action Plan, dated August 14, 2006, hereinafter referred to as the County Action Plan, examined the traffic projections along the north south corridor within the planning area. The traffic projections were based on historical traffic volume data obtained by the State Department of Transportation for both the primary north -south arterials of Queen Kaahumanu Highway and Mamalahoa Highway through Kailua-Kona between Kona International Airport and Honaunau. The Year 2020 extrapolation of historical traffic volume show approximately a doubling of base Year 2000 traffic demands. 4-7 Grey Infrastructure Report 4.3 Congestion Rapid development and lack of connectivity has increased traffic congestion in North and South Kona. As development continues and smaller areas continue to grow, previously isolated areas or roadway networks should ideally be joined together to form interconnected transportation networks that can accommodate the travel demands within the region. Without such connectivity, traffic demands from these areas are directed to adjacent arterial roadways, mixing regional travel demands with local traffic, and resulting in capacity or over -capacity conditions on the regional transportation facilities. Nearly every driver searches for the quickest route, one that is shorter or less encumbered by obstacles, such as signalized intersections, turning conflicts, or other sources of travel route friction. The direct routes are, typically, the regional or limited -access facilities that provide for the quickest travel if they are not congested. As such, motorists converge on these routes from many different points of origin. During peak travel periods, these routes become overloaded and operate at over -capacity, resulting in severe traffic congestion. Based on baseline Year 2000 traffic demand data, the County Action Plan identifies several locations along regional transportation facilities in the planning area that currently operate at poor levels of service. In general, the following roadway segments operate at Level of Service (LOS) "D" or worse: Queen Kaahumanu Highway, Keahole to Palani Hawaii Belt Road, Palani to Kealakekua Palani Road, east of Henry Street and west of Queen Kaahumanu Highway The congested conditions along these sections of the highway system generally result from demand exceeding capacity during peak commuter periods. Congestion on these regional facilities can be addressed by increasing capacity to accommodate demand, or by reducing demand within roadway capacity. Alternatively, if it could be achieved by providing roadway connectors that can distribute demand to other existing. This effort would be complemented by land use policies and development standards consistent with promoting mixed-use developments to further reduce the reliance on regional transportation facilities. Connections between activity centers would also offer alternate opportunities for more routes and thereby, reduce dependence on the regional roadway system. In the Kona planning area, however, development of these connections are frequently dependent on development initiatives that may not be implemented in a timely manner or may only produce incomplete segments of a connecting roadway that may serve the associated development but provide little or no regional benefit. As a result, the regional facilities are continually burdened, servicing not only regional traffic demands, but a large portion of local traffic demands as well. Unless these connections are completed, the commensurate growth in population and vehicle use, will overwhelm any improvements in travel 4-8 1 I Grey Infrastructure Report time gained by increasing the capacity of regional facilities. Investment in such transportation improvements would realize a benefit for only a brief period of time. The motoring public would be frustrated if all of the policies for reducing congestion, such as expensive road widening projects, fail to produce any long- term improvements. The cycle continues as authorities or developer -driven initiatives improve highways and roadways to address congestion but those improvements create incentives to increase vehicle usage or change the location ' and form of both residential and non-residential growth. Over the long run, these actions tend to intensify traffic congestion. Other congested roadways in the planning areas are not regional in nature but represent isolated operational deficiencies at signalized intersections, road intersections, driveway or access locations, turning movement provisions, In general, however, transportation needs are typically identified in the planning ' process but has historically lag in implementation. As a result, the operational benefits of the improvements have not been fully realized Oftentimes these improvements, when completed serve to reduce congestion to a certain degree but soon after revert to pre -implementation conditions as traffic demands increase. In cases of rapid population growth and land development, the roadway improvements become even less effective as traffic demands further ' exacerbate over -capacity conditions of the roadways. Governmental growth -management regulations can focus on commercial ' development, residential development, or both, that could indirectly ease congestion. These include caps on the number of housing units or square feet of 4-9 pedestrian conflicts, and other operational factors. These deficiencies, in conjunction with strategies to reduce demand on the roadway network through land use policies and development standards, may be addressed through ' specific improvements to intersections sections of roadways 4.4 Transportation Needs 4.4.1 Shortcomings ' The primary transportation needs in the planning area should address capacity constraints along the regional facilities as well as specific roadway network deficiencies within the town center. Improvements may be achieved by ' implementing a combination of roadway capacity increases and travel demand reductions on the roadway network. ' A large portion of trips on the regional facilities within the planning area may be considered external -external type trips and could be addressed with added roadway capacity as identified in past planning documents. However, the external-internal, internal-external, and internal -internal trip types appear to represent the bulk of trips within the planning area. Creating alternate routes and increasing connectivity between activity centers that reduce reliance on regional ' transportation facilities may address associated traffic congestion In general, however, transportation needs are typically identified in the planning ' process but has historically lag in implementation. As a result, the operational benefits of the improvements have not been fully realized Oftentimes these improvements, when completed serve to reduce congestion to a certain degree but soon after revert to pre -implementation conditions as traffic demands increase. In cases of rapid population growth and land development, the roadway improvements become even less effective as traffic demands further ' exacerbate over -capacity conditions of the roadways. Governmental growth -management regulations can focus on commercial ' development, residential development, or both, that could indirectly ease congestion. These include caps on the number of housing units or square feet of 4-9 Grey Infrastructure Report commercial space that can be built, height limits on commercial buildings, down - zoning of vacant parcels to reduce density at which they can be developed among others. Such regulation may also address issues such as maintaining view corridors, or establishing a desirable aesthetic character of a town. 4.4.2 Solutions The most apparent solution to improving traffic conditions through the planning area appears to be the widening of Queen Kaahumanu Highway between Henry Street and the airport. This project is intended to provide added roadway capacity to accommodate current traffic demands. Initiatives to implement this project in phases are currently underway with the project expected to be completed in the near future. However, other initiatives should be considered in conjunction with the project and include strategies to reduce traffic demand. As mentioned previously, these strategies may include land use policies and restrictions, as well as roadway connectivity to reduce the reliance on the regional facilities as travel routes. In South Kona, the Mamalahoa Bypass Road appears to be a transportation project that can yield positive results immediately. Initiatives to complete the first phase of the project from Keauhou to Halekii Street is underway and expected to be completed in the near future, with the next phase of the bypass extending further south. This project is intended to relieve traffic demands on Mamalahoa Highway through the Honalo Junction and reduce queuing along the highway in the vicinity. The mid-level road appears to be a project that can achieve both added capacity to the north -south corridor as well as reduce traffic demands on the existing regional facilities. It would also provide added circulation opportunities as infill development progresses. , A series of east -west collector roads linking the regional north -south facilities should also be provided for added circulation and to further reduce the reliance of the regional facilities. These connector roads should be planned with t appropriate development and land use regulations to increase its effectiveness on traffic congestion. The County's Action Plan (August 14, 2006) identifies 12 individual strategies grouped into five emphasis areas to address traffic operational deficiencies in the region as well as development policies and practices, and serves as an excellent source for additional information pertaining to traffic operations. A summary of these strategies is as follows: Actions to Alleviate Congestion: Strategy 1. Increase the capacity of the north/south arterials to accommodate the peak through -traffic. The strategy to increase capacity along north/south arterials is an initiative that should greatly improve existing regional traffic congestion. However, without a roadway network system that promotes connectivity between major traffic 4-10 1 t 1 11 1 r 11 C Grey Infrastructure Report generating uses and activity centers, reserve capacity on the arterials would be absorbed quickly as traffic demands increase over time. Strategy 2. Improving connectivity with a road network that spreads the traffic rather than funneling all the traffic to the major arterials. Connectivity provides alternate travel routes and reduces the reliance on the major arterials. While Strategy 1 aims at increasing capacity of the north/south arterials, Strategy 2 aims at reducing the demands on the major roadways. Strategy 2 coupled with Strategy 1 provides a two -fold approach to improving traffic flow through the north/south corridors. Strategy 3. Use existing roadways more efficiently by improving traffic flow and turning movements. Improvements to existing roadways and intersections to allow safer travel and improved operations may be achieved by removing travel friction points along roadway alignments and intersections. These friction points include the lack of turning lanes where such maneuvers impede through traffic flow, roadway alignments that tend to slow traffic, and lack of capacity at unsignalized and signalized intersections to accommodate traffic demands Strategy 4. Increase multi -modal choices to reduce dependency on the automobile. Other travel modes, besides the automobile, that should be accommodated include transit service, pedestrian, and bicycle. Enhancing transit service includes a route structure that services regional and internal travel The current transit route structure accommodates long-haul working trips during peak commuter traffic periods and should be enhanced to service internal trips for periods throughout the day. Pedestrian facilities also should be enhanced to provide safer and convenient routes. Implementation of the State's Bike Plan throughout the region would also broaden travel mode choices. However, linking these travel modes with redundant connections would be key to encouraging multi -modal travel, hence, reducing vehicular travel demands on the roadways. Strategy 5. Reduce commuting needs by directing growth to existing compact urban areas; encouraging affordable housing within these core urban areas; and mixing land uses so that jobs and/or daily requirements are within walking distances. Multi -use developments provide for self -sustainability with reduced reliance on the automobile. Currently, affordable homes are constructed in areas that do not provide jobs in the immediate vicinity, resulting in long commute trips through the region. An example is the development of affordable housing in non -resort areas 4-11 Grey Infrastructure Report of where employment is available. As a result, long-haul commutes are necessary between housing and employment. Actions to Control the Pace of development In Relation to Infrastructure Capacity Strategy 6. Implement a concurrency system. A concurrency system requires a database of existing and planned infrastructure components to insure that such infrastructure is adequate to support proposed developments. The system needs to be updated regularly as infrastructure needs change, and requires the accounting of the reserve capacities of each individual infrastructure type. Should there be a lack of infrastructure capacity, proposed developments should be required to address for such need in lieu of relying on infrastructure improvements borne by others. Such a strategy requires changes to current development policies. Actions to Preserve Future Roadway Corridors Strategy 7. Implement an official map system to preserve future roadway corridors. An official map should include consolidated information and serve as one primary source to designate future roadway corridors. Future roadway alignments must be identified at a level detailed enough to avoid misrepresentation or misalignments resulting in awkward connections that impede the movement of efficient traffic flow. In critical areas, especially near or at connections to other facilities, or areas affecting private property, such information should be based on actual ground surveys. If such surveys are unavailable, a three-tier level of determinable accuracy represented by three ROW width descriptions, starting with a line for determined widths and progressively broader stripes for estimated ROWs as proposed in the County's Action Plan can assist in preserving future roadway corridors. Actions to Finance Improvements Strategy 8. Position priority projects to be "design -ready" or "construction -ready" to optimize funding opportunities. The County's initiative to finance the early stages of priority projects to advance them take advantage of available programmed funds when projects on the STIP are not ready to proceed. The initial financing would come from fair share contributions and bonds. Strategy 9. Program funding as necessary to complete key links rather than waiting for development. 4-12 7- I Grey Infrastructure Report The County's initiative to finance much needed improvements to complete necessary critical links within the roadway network would provide immediate benefit to motorists by providing connectivity, offering alternate travel routes, and reducing reliance on the major arterials. This benefit should be realized as soon as possible instead of waiting for the improvement to be initiated by developers. Actions to Advance the State of Knowledge and Monitor Progress Strategy 10. Improve transportation planning and analyses. The County's Action Plan identifies several data information sources that aid in transportation planning. Along with the State DOT, the County obtained a video log of the streets in the region. The video log provides information such as pavement condition, signage, lane width, striping, sidewalks, utility poles, manholes and grates, traffic signal systems, intersecting street information, and roadway centerline. The video log is a valuable planning tool when evaluating existing roads or planning new road improvements in the region. Strategy 11. Monitor and communicate progress. Integration and compilation of all reliable information sources would serve as a comprehensive planning aid in evaluating and designating existing and future roadways, as well as other infrastructure needs However, to remain useful, such information must be updated regularly as developments occur, as roadway improvements or new roads are constructed, or as infrastructure needs change. The County's Action Plan also identifies the use of a website to keep the public informed and to communicate information. ' These strategies may be reviewed in greater detail in the County's Action Plan. 4.4.3 Public Transit Needs Public transportation is an important component of the transportation system. As an alternative to automobile travel, public transit reduces roadway congestion, air and noise pollution, and energy consumption. In addition, public transit offers mobility to the elderly and physically impaired, and to people who are not able to or can not afford to drive. n Currently, the County operates the Hele-On bus system with a fleet of 28 -buses, each with a capacity of 33-45 passengers (County of Hawaii, 2005). Hele-On provides regularly scheduled, fixed -route service using a fleet of standard buses/mini buses. Within the Kona district, a shuttle operates between Kailua, Keauhou and Kealakekua. The County also offers a shared -ride taxi service that provides door to door service within Kailua-Kona. This program allows the public to purchase two - 4 -13 Grey Infrastructure Report dollar coupons for use in lieu of cash with participating taxi companies. The Hawaii County Economic Opportunity Council, a non-profit community action agency, supplements the County's bus services by providing bus services for those with low income, the elderly, disabled, and pre-school children who attend Head Start schools. Paratransit is the use of vans, small buses, taxis and other vehicles operated by service providers to supplement the bus service in the rural areas with on - demand door-to-door service (County of Hawaii, March 6, 2006). This service could serve as feeder routes to bus stops or park-and-ride facilities. The County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency conducted the Rural Paratransit Study for Puna and Kona (August 2005). The study proposes a feeder service be integrated with the existing Hele-On bus routes. 4.4.4 Pedestrian/Bikeway Needs Sidewalks are provided throughout Kona, although the predominantly older neighborhoods do not have adequate pedestrian facilities. Designated mauka- makai pedestrianways to the shoreline areas are for the most part non-existent. Currently, the only existing bikeway facilities in the North and South Kona districts include the Walua Road Scenic Route and bike paths along Old Airport Park, Palani Road (from Kaiwi Street to Queen Kaahumanu Highway) and Queen Kaahumanu Highway (from Kealakehe Parkway to Paoo Street). There is a need for identifying and developing pedestrian ways and bikeways to connect existing residential areas with activity centers, schools, recreational areas, and transit stops. Some of the sidewalk facilities are in need of improvement and new facilities are needed to further link existing and proposed activity areas, thereby, improving mobility for pedestrians. There is a need to identify and designate bikeways within North and South Kona to encourage usage and increase safety along specific streets and corridors. An integrated bikeway system is needed to link activity areas, schools, recreational areas, and proposed transit centers within the planning area. 4.5 Connectivity Within the planning area, developments include internal local networks that are oftentimes internally well-connected but offer very little connectivity with adjacent uses. Also observed are the limited number of collector roads within the planning area that link with arterial roadways or regional facilities. Portions of these collector roads are typically funded by adjacent development projects resulting in piece -meal implementation of the roadway, and are dependent upon the development of other projects along the roadway alignment to function as intended. The process has limited connectivity options until the roadway is completed in its entirety, and can take some time to complete, if completed at all. As a result, the major arterials are congested and serve all trip types, offering 4-14 1 1 11 4.5.1.1.3 Connector Street Frequency of intersections should also be approximately 10 intersections per mile, or 530 feet between intersections along Connector streets. Connections with abutting and adjacent residential uses are similar to collector streets. Connector streets are intended to link adjacent uses and be used for travel in lieu of regional facilities. 4.5.1.1.4 Cul -De -Sac Street Cul-de-sac streets may be permitted only where topography or other physical conditions prohibit the feasible use of other types of streets. If used, Cul-de-sac streets shall not exceed 150 feet in length from the nearest intersection with a street providing circulation and through traffic access of a particular residential district 4.5.1.1.5 Local Street Intersections provided as necessary to allow access and circulation of individual internal uses. 4-15 Grey Infrastructure Report limited choices of routes to travel, with poor connectivity and circulation between adjacent uses and activity centers. 4.5.1 Connectivity Concept and Standards Connectivity allows designated roads to be used by the appropriate trip type. These designated roadways should be incorporated in development standards that guide and regulate land development, and should be established within the overall roadway network. The designated road standards should incorporate the following types of facilities: 4.5.1.1 Residential Districts 4.5.1.1.1 Arterial Street Arterial streets are a limited access facility with minimum frequency of intersections along the roadway Access points to abutting and adjacent residential uses should be approximately 10 intersections per mile along the Arterial street, or approximately 530 feet between intersections. Arterial streets are intended to service regional travel intersecting with Collector, Connector, or Local streets. 4.5.1.1.2 Collector Street Collector streets offer minimum frequency of intersections but greater than arterial streets. Connections with abutting and adjacent residential uses should be adequately spaced at approximately 10 intersections per mile, or 530 feet between intersections Collector streets are intended to link and provide circulation with regional facilities intersecting with Arterial, Collector, Connector, Frontage, and Local streets. 1 1 11 4.5.1.1.3 Connector Street Frequency of intersections should also be approximately 10 intersections per mile, or 530 feet between intersections along Connector streets. Connections with abutting and adjacent residential uses are similar to collector streets. Connector streets are intended to link adjacent uses and be used for travel in lieu of regional facilities. 4.5.1.1.4 Cul -De -Sac Street Cul-de-sac streets may be permitted only where topography or other physical conditions prohibit the feasible use of other types of streets. If used, Cul-de-sac streets shall not exceed 150 feet in length from the nearest intersection with a street providing circulation and through traffic access of a particular residential district 4.5.1.1.5 Local Street Intersections provided as necessary to allow access and circulation of individual internal uses. 4-15 Grey Infrastructure Report 4.5.1.1.6 Pedestrian Ways Pedestrian ways development blocks with sides longer than 400 feet and should be oriented perpendicular to the long dimension of the block terminating at local or connector streets. 4.5.1.1.7 Sidewalks Sidewalks should be provided on every street identified above to promote walking opportunities. 4.5.1.2 Commercial Districts 4.5.1.2.1 Arterial Street Arterial streets with minimum frequency of intersections along the roadway. Access points to adjacent commercial and mixed -uses should be approximately 10 intersections per mile along the Arterial street, or approximately 530 feet between intersections. Arterial streets are intended to service regional travel intersecting with Collector, Connector, or Local streets. 4.5.1.2.2 Collector Street Collector streets should have a minimum frequency of intersections but more than arterial streets. Connections with abutting and adjacent commercial and mixed uses should be adequately spaced at approximately 10 intersections per mile, or 530 feet between intersections. Collector streets are intended to link and provide circulation with regional facilities intersecting with Arterial, Collector, Connector, Frontage, and Local streets 4.5.1.2.3 Connector Street The frequency of intersections along connector streets should also be approximately 10 intersections per mile, or 530 feet between intersections. There are more connections with abutting and adjacent commercial and mixed uses than along collector streets. Connector streets are intended to link adjacent uses and be used for travel in lieu of regional facilities. 4.5.1.2.4 Cul -De -Sac Street Cul-de-sac streets shoulf be prohibited in commercial or mixed-use districts. 4.5.1.2.5 Local Street Intersections should be provided as necessary to allow access and circulation of individual internal commercial and mixed -uses. 4.5.1.2.6 Pedestrian Ways Pedestrian ways providing for pedestrian movements across development blocks with sides longer than 400 feet and shall be oriented perpendicular to the long dimension of the block and terminating at local or connector streets. 4-16 IGrey Infrastructure Report 4.5.1.2.7 Sidewalks Sidewalks should be provided on every permitted street identified above. 4.6 Pedestrian/Bicycle Circulation 4.6.1 Bike Designations In discussing facilities for bicycles, it is important to distinguish the specific types of bikeway facilities being proposed for designated areas. The term "bikeway" is a term used for any road, street, path, or way which is used for bicycle travel, regardless of whether such facilities are designated for exclusive use of bicycles or are to be shared with other transportation modes (Bike Plan Hawaii, 2004). The various designations of bikeways are defined as follows- a 4-17 ® Bicycle Route. Any street or highway designated for the shared use of bicycles and motor vehicles or pedestrians or both. ® Bicycle Lane. A portion of a roadway designated by striping, signing and pavement markings for the preferential or exclusive use of bicycles ® Bicycle Path. A bikeway physically separated from motorized vehicular travel by an open space or barrier, and either within the highway right-of-way or within an independent right-of-way. 4.6.2 Existing Pedestrian/Bicycle Plans Existing bikeways and paths within the planning are included in Table 4-2. 4.6.2.1 Bike Plan Hawaii The State Department of Transportation's Bike Plan Hawaii (2004) is intended to serve as a guide for the implementation of bikeways in the State. The Bike Plan Hawaii recommends the distribution of new bikeway facilities along the general perimeter of the islands of Oahu, Hawaii, Maui, and Kauai, as well as throughout the various community locations. The Plan identifies Walua Road Scenic Route, and bike paths along Old Airport Park, Palani Road (from Kaiwi Street to Queen Kaahumanu Highway) and Queen Kaahumanu Highway (from Kealakehe Parkway to Paoo Street) as existing bikeway facilities within North and South Kona (see Figure 4-2). rBikeway facilities recommended by Bike Plan Hawaii for the planning area are identified in Table 4-3. The major pedestrian activity center is located in Downtown Kailua, where it's very tourist oriented along with hotels, offices, and shopping centers a 4-17 Grey Infrastructure Report Table 4-2 Existina Bike Facilities Bikeway Route Lane Path Trail Walua Road Scenic Path X Kalua Park Path Old Airport) X Kealakehe Parkway Path X Judd Trail X Ala Kahakai Trail X Mamalahoa Trail X Kuakini Highway Palani to Old Airport X Palani Road (Queen Kaahumanu to X Kuakini Queen Kaahumanu X Alii Drive Safety Lane X Source: Keahole to Honaunau Regional Circulation Plan, County of Hawaii, February 2003. and Bike Plan Hawaii, Hawaii Department of Transportation, 2004. 4-18 Grey Infrastructure Report I Table 4-3 Bike Plan Hawaii Propose Projects Project No. Facility Location Type Juris. Priority 51 Ke Ala O Keawe Signed Shared S III Mamalahoa Hwy — Puuhonua Rd Road Puuhonua road Signed 52 Middle Keei Rd — Honaunau Bay Shared C III Road 53 Painted Church Road Signed Shared C III Keala O Keawe — Middle Keei Rd Road Middle Keei Road Signed 54 Mamalahoa Hwy — Puuhonua Road Shared C III Road Napoopoo Road Signed 55 Mamalahoa Hwy — Middle Keei Rd Shared C III Road 56 Alii Drive Extension Path C III Lekeleke Ba — Kealakekua Ba 57a Old RR ROW — makai or Kuakini Highway Path C III Hualalai Rd — Kuakini Hwy Old RR ROW — mauka or Kuakini 57b Highway Path C III Hualalai Rd — Kuakini Hwy Kuakini Highway Signed 58a Mamalahoa Hwy —King Kamehameha III Shared S I Rd Road Kuakini Highway Signed 58b King Kamehameha III Rd — Lako St Shared S I Road 58c Kuakini Highway Lane C I Laki St - Hualalai Rd 59 Haawina Road Signed Shared C II Kuakini Hwy — Old Mamalahoa Hwy Road 60a Walua Road Path Extension — North Path C I Lako St — Alii Dr 60b Walua Road Path Extension — South Path C I End of Walua Rd — Old Mamalahoa Hwy Connections between subdivisions south of Kailua, e.g. Koloia to Kernka Place to Signed 62 Sea View Shared C/P II Komohana Kai Subdivision — Kona Sea Road View Subdivision Mamalahoa Highway Signed 63 Captain Cook Village Rd — Old Shared C III Mamalahoa Hwy Road Proposed Ke Ala o Keauhou (Kahului — 64 Keauhou Parkway) Lane/Path C IV Queen Kaahumanu H — Lako St Continue on next page 4-20 1 IGrey Infrastructure Report 1 1 fl 1 1 1 C 1 Table 4-3 (continued) Bike Plan Hawaii Propose Projects Project No. Facility Location Type Juris. Priority 65 Alii Drive Improvements Signed Shared C Palani Rd — Keauhou Rd Road 66 Lunapule Road Signed Shared C II Alii Dr- Walua Rd Road Hualalai Road Signed 67 Old Mamalahoa Hwy-Kuakini Hwy Shared C II Road 68 Queen Kaahumanu Extension Signed Shard S I Henry St — Kuakini Hwy Roa Signed 69 Old Mamalahoa Highway Shared C 11 Jct Palani Rd - Honalo Road/Pull- outs 70a Keanalehu Trail Path C III Palani Rd-Hualalai Rd 70b Keanalehu Drive Lane C IV Kealakehe Pathway— Palani Rd 70c Keanalehu Drive Lane C I Kealakehe Pkwa -Kealakehe Pathway Future Keohokalole Highway 71 Kealakehe Pkwy — Queen Kaahumanu Lane C IV Hwy Makala Street Signed 72 Kuakini Hwy (Old Kona Airport) — Queen Shared C II Kaahumanu Hwy Road Utility Easement Road 74 Wastewater Treatment Plant — Path C 11 Honokohau Harbor 75 Kealakaa Connector Lane C IV Kealakehe Pathway — Kealakaa St Kealakehe Parkway (makai extension) Signed 76a Queen Kaahumanu Hwy — Honokohau Shared C III Harbor Road 76b Kealakehe Parkway (makai extension) Lane S I Queen Kaahumanu H — Keanalehu Dr 76c Kealakehe Parkway Extension Lane C IV Keanalehu Dr — Kealakaa St 77 Old Government Road Path C III Mauka of Mamalahoa Hwy 78 Future Kealakaa Street Lane C IV Kealakehe P — Kealakehe Pkwy Hina Lani Drive Signed 79 Queen K Hwy — Old Mamalahoa Hwy Shared C III Road Old Airport Coastal Path 80 Honokohau Harbor — UH Research Lab Path C III OTEC 4-21 Grey Infrastructure Report Continues on next page Table 4-3 (continued) Bike Plan Hawaii Propose Projects Project No. Facility Location Type Juris. Priority Separate path adjacent and parallel to 81 a Queen Kaahumanu Highway Path S I Makala St — Keahole Airport Separate path adjacent and parallel to 81 b Queen Kaahumanu Highway Path S I I Keahole Airport — Akoni Pule Hwy 83 Utility Corridor at 1500' elevation Path C III Mauka of Queen Kaahumanu Hwy 85a Palani Road Signed Shared C II Queen Kaahumanu Hwy — Hina Lani Dr Road Source: Bike Plan Hawaii, Hawaii Department of Transportation, 2004 4.7 Relationship of residences to jobs In general, long average commuting journeys generate more traffic congestion than shorter ones. Long journeys often result from imbalances between job sites and the places people reside. Many more jobs than housing units tend to be concentrated in areas with a job surplus or housing shortage. As a result, many people in the planning area must commute relatively long distances. Even if the number of housing units in an area is exactly the same as that required to house everyone who works there, the cost of those housing units may not be appropriate for those workers. As an example, relatively low-wage workers employed in a regional shopping center may be unable to afford nearby housing if exclusionary zoning keeps the prices high. Hence, an effective jobs -housing balance can only be achieved by closely matching both the number of local housing units and the prices and styles of those units to the number and economic capabilities of locally employed workers. 4.8 Transportation Demand Management Strategies Transportation Demand Management (TDM) measures consist of a variety of measures to reduce vehicle trip generation, either through carpooling or use of alternative modes of transportation such as walking or bicycling. Providing and encouraging alternative modes of transportation for employees to commute to jobs in Kailua-Kona (hotels), would decrease demand for parking, and associated traffic volumes would be reduced. A Kailua-Kona Transportation Management Association could be established for this purpose. It could be managed by KBID or some other entity to help employers to develop on-site Transportation Demand Management (TDM) -programs encouraging employees to commute by carpool, vanpool, bus, bicycle or walking. The new Association would encourage and assist employers in establishing TDM programs that may include: 4-22 1 IGrey Infrastructure Report 1 u ■ On-site transportation coordinators; ■ Providing bus pass and information programs; ■ Incentives such as free or subsidized bus passes for those who commute by bus and which can be also for personal use; ■ Organized car/vanpools; ■ Preferential work shift assignments for commuter program participants; ■ Bicycle parking and clothing changing amenities; ■ Telecommuting programs for applicable jobs; and ■ Cash commuter subsidy option for employees otherwise eligible for free parking. 4.9 Parking 4.9.1 Centralized Parking Designated public parking areas provide centralized locations and serve as an interface between vehicular and pedestrian modes of travel. Generally, motorists park in these public parking areas and continue their trip as pedestrians, with return trips as pedestrians, then again as motorists. These parking areas are even more effective in areas with limited parking or high levels of vehicular traffic congestion, and minimizes the circulation of motorists along streets in the vicinity searching for parking in areas that provide little parking. Public parking within the planning area is limited with just a few areas located in Kailua. These parking areas are generally utilized and filled throughout the day. The largest and most utilized public parking area is located at the southeast corner of the intersection of Alii Drive and Hualalai Street A smaller parking area is located off of Kuakini Highway just south of the intersection with Palani Road. 4.9.2 Park -and -Ride Facilities There are no park-and-ride lots in operation in North and South Kona. The County of Hawaii Mass Transit Agency has received funding to design and construct park and ride facilities. Two facilities are planed in Kona: in Kainaliu to serve those driving from South Kona, and near the Old Airport to serve those in Kailua-Kona who commute to the Kukio and South Kohala resorts. 4-23 t Grey Infrastructure Report I This page left blank intentionally. 4-24 1 J r 1 Grey Infrastructure Report 5 PARKS 5.1 Existing Conditions Recreational facilities can be defined in two categories: Facility based and Resource based. Facility based parks are primarily administered by the County and provide for organized, spectator, or informal play recreational activities that are not dependent upon a natural resource. Resource-based parks provide public access to and enjoyment of an outstanding natural or cultural resource. The Federal and State governments play a dominant role in establishing resource-based parks (GP, 2005) Due to an expanding population and growing number of visitors, heavy demands will be placed on the recreational resources of the County. Ideally, all residents should have convenient access to the most popular recreational facilities such as playgrounds, gymnasiums, and multi-purpose community centers. Some districts of the County have benefited more than others in terms of the number of facilities -based parks and beach parks relative to population Kona is one of the areas that have the least amount of County facilities -based parks and beach parks in relation to population. State beach parks in North Kona, however, provide valuable resource- based opportunities in the region. (GP, 2005) "Recreational Functional Plan" The recreational program of the County is presently targeted toward diversification of facility -based activities. Active team sports for children and adults are continually being maintained. Recreational programs have been targeted for all ages with special emphasis to promote activities for youth. (GP, 2005) Each recreational park provides activities year round ranging from sports, physical fitness, arts and crafts, to performing arts for all ages. During the summer, each district park offers the County Summer Fun program for grades K through 5. Parks that offer programs most often lack programs for pre-school children as well as adequate staffing to maintain the parks and programs. See Figure 5-1 and Table 5-1 for a list of County, State and Federal Parks in the Kona District and the services available. 5-1 Kailua PIaYTfflM Kailua La'aloa Beach Par) Keauhou Legend • County Park • State Park • Federal Park Major Roads Other Roads 0 2 4 8 Miles Figure 5-1 Parks Kona Community Development Plan Kealakekua Honaunau Boat Ran Pu'uhonua O Hookena Beach Milolii 9b. Pk. swim. Poo Park 1 IGrey Infrastructure Report i d t 1 Table 5-1 Existing Conditions of Parks Within the County of Hawaii Kona District Facility Based Parks Kona Imin Center Holualoa • Center belongs to the administration division and operated by the district clerk • In past operated as a full recreational center: pool tables, ping pong tables, kilns • Today Recreational center used for meetings, weddings, social gatherings, and recreational purposes. Harold H. Hi ashihara Park • Community Park. award winning children's playground, 1 tennis court, 6 basketball courts, volleyball, 2 pavilions that can be rented for picnics, small baseball field (little league/seniors) Konawaena School • Konawaena Swimming pool, Operated by the County of Hawaii Aquatics division. Pool operation poor • Gymnasium, baseball and football fields • 4 tennis courts, 8 -lane track Hale Halawai • Sports activities (9-14 years). Bowling, archery, fishing • Performing arts (13-18 yrs) Open Mic • Arts and Crafts (13-18 yers)- Silk Screening • Physical Fitness Classes (13-18 years) • Summer Fun teen program (13-16 years)* • Community interest activities (all ages)* Photo class, yoga, drawing, Kung Fu/Tai Chi, karate, ukulele, hula, march of dimes walk Yano Memorial Hall (Captain Cook • Sports Activity- Rec Room activities, Special programs, Billiards all ages and levels, Billiards tournament (ages 9-14), Bocce ball, basketball (ages 9-14) • Special events Bike Otec (open) • Summer fun (grades K-5) • Arts and Crafts: Spinning wheel art, beginning drawing, collage, stencil designs, watercolors. Kailua Park • 0 7 acres • Basketball and Tennis courts Hill Crest Subdivision Park • Too small with inadequate parking HOLUALOA SCHOOL • School yard used for organized sports • Serves as a community center for meetings, social gathering, and recreational purposes HONAUNAU AND HOOKENA SCHOOLS • Available for community use • Honaunau. small playfield used by groups as far as Mdoli'I • Hookena: lighted basketball and volleyball courts and small playfields Kealakehe High School • High school facilities are open to public during non -school hours • Gym, 2 playfields, 4 tennis courts, and outdoor basketball courts • Pla elds: Baseball, football, soccer, & track continues on next page 5-3 Grey Infrastructure Report I 5-4 Table 5-1 Existing Conditions of Parks Within the County of Hawaii Kona District Arthur C. Greenwell District Park • 2.7 acres • Tennis & basketball courts • Newly developed playground and playfield Kona Scenic Neighborhood Park • Baseball and football field • Outdoor courts • Restroom facilities Kekuaokalani Park Complex -at Old Kona Airport KONA COMMUNITY AQUATIC CENTER • Newest swimming pool in state* 50 meters with bulkhead • Water aerobics • Competitive swimming • Water polo • Recreational swimming Kekuaokalani Gym -Park • 34 acres • State of the art gym • Baseball diamond sanctioned for NCAA play Class A hardball • 4 full size softball diamonds • football and soccer field • 4 tennis courts • 2 playgrounds (toddler and children) • 4 outdoor basketball courts • Sports Activities: Pickleball, badminton, tennis, basketball • Physical Fitness (ages 16+)• 100 mile club • Arts and Crafts: Egg decorating (ages 5-8 and 9-14) • Summer Fun Program (K -5h grade) • Community interest activities: Little league (9-14 years), AYSO (6-18 years), Hawaii Invitational Basketball clinic (ages 16+), SHOPO Softball tourney, Men's softball (ages 16+), Women's softball (ages 16+), Makule Basketball (35+ years), Kona Adult Baseball (ages 16+), Kona Adult flag football (ages 16+), Kona Fast Soccer (ages 16+ Maintenance Requirements • Facilities are generally manned by custodians 4 hours a day. • Larger parks have their own custodians • There are two roving crews with a north and south run • On weekends different crews, but not enough employees to get job done. • None of the maintenance is privatized • Jeffery Alani 327-3552 continues on next page 5-4 IGrey Infrastructure Report 1 1 u fl L.; 11 5-5 Table 5-1 Existing Conditions of Parks Within the County of Hawaii Kona District Expansion Plans • State recently gave 88 acres to parks and recreation located adjacent to Kekuaokalani park (perhaps state Old Kona Airport State Recreational Area) • County is in process of updating to ADA standards and connecting site to sewer lines • Traditionally a passive park. County will keep the walking and dogging paths • Park will have more ball fields. • Perhaps move canoe races away from pier and into this area, to race along shore. • Will most likely take 3-4 years before anything begins. • Lack of money to fund projects as the community has done many recreational projects. • Existing ball fields was a project done by the army and local contractors Resource Based Parks Magic Sands Beach Park La`aloa • Lifeguards • Swimming, Boogie Boarding when low tide • Dangerous when high tide • Good for snorkeling, scuba diving due to ocean access, large fish, and underwater caves • Facilities. Restrooms, showers, picnic area, BBQ grills, phones Miloiii Beach Park • 12 acres • Rocky shoreline • Facilities for camping, picnicking, fishing and swimming • No potable water or electricity Kahaluu Beach Park • 5.4 acres • Near to hotels, therefore receiving intensive use from visitors and residents • Great Snorkeling, tidepoolmg, boogie boarding, surfing • Facilities: Restrooms, showers, picnic tables, phones, rental concession, lifeguards, small parking lot Hookena Beach Park • 3 4 acres • Sandy Beach • Outstanding scenic qualities • No potable water or electricity Pahoehoe Beach Park • No sand, lifeguards, or parking • Swimming is poor due to rocks • Snorkeling good for advanced/experienced swimmers • Lawn and picnic area • Facilities Restrooms, Showers, benches. Na o0 oo Beach Park • Rocky shoreline • Great for snorkeling • Historic sites • Nearby trail leads to Hiki`au Heiau • Facilities. Restrooms, picnic tables, pavilion, BBQ grills, parking lot continues on next page 5-5 Grey Infrastructure Report Table 5-1 ExIstina Conditions of Parks Within the County of Hawaii Kona District Kona Scenic Subdivision Park • A neighborhood Park • Baseball and football fields • Outdoor courts • Facilities* Restroom • Parking facility is being proposed. STATE OF HAWAII Old Kona Airport State Recreational Areas • 84 acres • No lifeguard services. Pavilion available for rental • Beach Park: Picnicking, surfing, tide oolin , shore & spear fishing Kekaha Kai State Park • 1,700 acre park and wildlife sanctuary • Sandy beach & dune offering swimming & beach related activities • 4 5 mile hike on historic coastal trail, Ala Kahakai. Leads to Kua Bay with beach related activities • Midway through Ala Kahakai hike, hike to summit of Pu'u Ku'ili, a 342 -foot high cone • Facilities Picnic Tables, port -potties, and NO drinking water Kealakekua Bay State Historical Park ® Views of Hikiau Heiau • Panoramic view of Kealakekua Bay • Lifeguard services during weekends at Na o'o o'o Beach Keolonahihi Park • Hiking Kealakekua Bay State Underwater Park • 315 acres • Opportunities for snorkeling, scuba diving, and glass bottom boat viewing to observe marine life in underwater habitat. Ala Kahakai National Park • Currently closed to public due to the magnitude and sensitivity of resources. • 175 -mile trail corridor full of cultural and historical significance • Traverses through 100s of ancient Hawaiian settlement sites and over 200 ahupua'a land divisions. • Cultural Resources include: Heiaus, royal centers, Kahua (house site foundations), loko 'ia (fishponds), Ko'a (fishing shrines), Ki'ii pohaku (petroglyphs) holua (stone slide), and wahi pana (sacred places). • Natural Resources include anchialine ponds, pall (precipices), nearshore reefs, estuarine ecosystems, coastal vegetation, migratory birds, native sea turtle habitat, and several threatened and endangered endemicspecies of plants and animals. Kaloko-Honokohau National Historical Park • 1160 acre park with cultural and historical significance • Site of ancient Hawaiian settlement: 4 ahupua'a, fishponds, kahua, ki'I pohaku, holua, and heiau. • Recreational Opportunities: Boating, Fishing, Hiking, Picnic, Water Sports, Wildlife Viewing • Facilities: Restrooms continues on next page 5-6 IGrey Infrastructure Report a 1 1 1 Table 5-1 Existing Conditions of Parks Within the County of Hawaii Kona District NATIONAL PARK SERVICES Puuhonua O Honaunau National Historic Park • 182 acre park 9 Includes the pu`uhonua and a complex of archeological sites includeing: temple platforms, royal fishponds, sledding tracks, and some coastal village sites • Hale o Keawe temple and several thatched structures have been reconstructed Y Recreational opportunities- Fishing, Hiking, Picnic, Museum/visitor Center, Water Sports, Wildlife Viewing Puukohola Heiau National Historic Site 5.2 After School Programs Table 5-2 lists the general activities that utilize DOE facilities after-school hours: Table 5-2 General Activities occurring within DOE Facilities Toddler Elementary Teen Programs Adult Programs Elderly Programs Program Programs State A+ Afterschool School Sports Community Senior Classes PATCH schools Parks and Tutoring (indep. Club sports Adult sports West Hawaii Recreation Within schools) Leagues Senior Center AYSO, baseball, HYSA/AYSO Community County football, basketball activities Recreational Activities PAL Baseball County park Holualoa Senior activities Center County Parks and County Parks Elderly Meals on Recreational activities Wheels Programs ` Summer Fun Retired Senior Volunteer Program Senior Employment Program 5.3 Funding Hawaii County Rule Article 6: Credit Against User Fees for Private Improvements to Parks and Recreational Facilities. Section 15-55 states, "Budgetary constraints limits the County in making improvements which the department of parks and recreation wishes to make to its parks and recreational facilities. The Council wishes to provide a means by which private citizens and civic groups may be encouraged to make such improvements with the approval of the department of parks and recreation. Kona parks funding comes from the General fund. Kona not seeing results of proportional funding for parks as the Kona district generates 70 percent of tax base. 5-7 Grey Infrastructure Report 5.4 Public Access to Shoreline and Mountains The County of Hawaii General Plan seeks to preserve and protect natural resources and historical areas. The plan also looks to supporting more opportunities that engage the public in recreational and educational activities in a way that ensures natural and historic resources are not damaged. Section 6.3 Policies for Historic Sites (d) Public access to significant sites and objects shall be acquired, where appropriate. Section 8.3 Policies for Natural Resources and Shoreline (r) Ensure public access is provided to the shoreline, public trails and hunting areas, including free public parking where appropriate. (s) Establish a system of pedestrian The 1995 General Plan states in Section 12.4 Standards, "The County's Public Access to the Shoreline (chapter 23, Hawaii County Code) requires the dedication of land for public rights-of-way as part of subdivision approval or the issuance of a building permit for the construction of a multiple -family residential development, under certain circumstances. 5.5 Needs According to Section 8-6 of the Hawaii County Ordinance, Population density requirements: In the public interest, convenience, health, welfare and safety, there shall be a minimum ratio of five acres of land for park and playground purposes for each one thousand persons in every district. As stated in section 12.4, standards of Recreation, in the 1995 County of Hawaii General Plan, the minimum size of a district park should be a minimum of 10 to 30 acres, while the minimum size of a regional park is 50 acres. Community parks are typically between 4 and 8 acres, and a neighborhood park can be up to 4 acres. 5-8 1 1 fl Grey Infrastructure Report 6 EMERGENCY SERVICES 6.1 Police 6.1.1 Existing Conditions The main police station is located in Kealakehe, which oversees the entire district (see Figure 6-1). There are two substations, one in Captain Cook and the other in Keauhou. The substation in Captain Cook supports 4 of the 11 beats. There is 24/7 (24 hours, seven days a week) coverage with a total of three shifts per day. Each shift has a total of ten officers, including supervisors. Two officers are assigned to beats in the Captain Cook area There are no foot patrol or mounted (horse) units that cover beats. There are a number of 4 -wheel drive patrol vehicles. Officers are responsible for the roadways and highways within their beats. According to the 2003 — 2004 Annual Report, approximately 60 officers manned the Kona District. Response time varies depending on the severity of calls for service. Table 6-1 shows the types of offenses and complaints known to police. 6.1.2 Proposed improvements The Department is looking at creating a new district to encompass the South Kona area with 24-hour coverage and is currently in the process of establishing a sub -station in Kailua Town. ' 6.1.3 Issues and Recommendations: As North and South Kona develop, the Police Department will service the area accordingly. The issue the entire Department is facing is that of filling officer vacancies. Once the department is fully staff level, only then can the Community Policing positions be filled to better serve the ideals and philosophy of the program. In the development of the new district and in selection of the sub -station in Kailua town, mandate is to locate the facility in a high visible site. 6-1 Kailua Keauhou Yl Kealakekua Legend T •i - Hospital # Fire Station (volunteer) Z- # Fire • 4 MajorPolice Station Roads Other Roads • ,�� Figure 6-1 Emergency Services �/• • • �- - •• - _ moi;;, ,�. `. 1 IGrey Infrastructure Report 1 1 F 1 ' 6.2 Fire 6.2.1 Existing Conditions There is a 24-hour fire facility located in Kailua-Kona with fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS)/Rescue capabilities (see Figure 6-1). Other 24-hour fire/EMS operations are located at Keauhou and Captain Cook, respectively. 6-3 Table 6-1 Offenses and Complaints Known to Police Classification of Offenses Hawaii County Kona Part I Offenses Murder/non-negligent manslaughter 6 2 Rae - -- Robbery 49 17 Aggravated Assault 77 20 Burglary 165 43 Larceny 1,451 340 Auto Theft 5,005 1,523 Other Assaults 601 222 Part I Totals 2,245 609 Part II Offenses 9,599 2,776 Arson 48 10 For a /counterfit 1,334 324 Fraud 1,589 431 Embezzlement 6 3 Receive stolen property 24 15 Vandalism 1,692 402 Weapons 75 10 Prostitution -- - Sex Offense 302 82 Narcotic Drug Laws 1,280 338 Gambling 2 1 offenses vs. Family --- Driving under influence 1,062 424 Liquor laws 189 41 Drunkeness* --- Disorderly conduct 201 58 Vagrancy ---- All Other offenses 8,560 2,626 Truancy* - - Curfew 24 14 Runaways 768 259 Part II Totals 17,156,26,755 5,038 Total Parts I and II 1 7,814 * Not a criminal offense as of 1969 Source, Hawaii County Police Department Records, 2003 ' 6.2 Fire 6.2.1 Existing Conditions There is a 24-hour fire facility located in Kailua-Kona with fire/Emergency Medical Services (EMS)/Rescue capabilities (see Figure 6-1). Other 24-hour fire/EMS operations are located at Keauhou and Captain Cook, respectively. 6-3 Grey Infrastructure Report There are five volunteer fire stations located in Kona Village Resort, Four Season Resort (limbo), between Kailua-Kona and Kona Airport, Milolii Village and Kona Paradise Subdivision, respectively. Approximately 75 percent of the calls received are for EMS while fire accounts for approximately 3 percent. Special services, false alarms, and non -emergency nature calls account of the remaining 22 percent of the calls. Island wide, the average response time is 11 minutes, but there is no data specifically for the Kona area. If a response location is within a 5 -mile radius of station, then the response time can be within a few minutes. Response time to more distant locations such as Four Seasons or Kona Village are much longer. In general, he availability of hydrants provides adequate fire protection for most developed areas in Kona. The County Planning and Building Departments have been very stringent in assuring that fire protection requirements are complied with in new developments. Some older developments/subdivisions, however,k have insufficient hydrants or none at all. In areas relying on catchment systems for domestic water, the fire department deploys fire response vehicles with a thousand -gallon tanks. Depending upon the location and severity, the fire department will send out more assets for water supply. The fire department also has helicopter support. In areas without infrastructure or poor vehicular access, fire stations serving rural areas may deploy off-road "brush trucks" that hold up to 250 gallons of water. In addition, helicopters with water buckets may be deployed. 6.2.2 Proposed Improvements One new station is proposed , in the Makalei Development It will have Fire fighting capabilities and a Hazardous Material Response Unit. Hawaiian Homelands is also planning to construct a reservoir in the Kohala area (closer to Waimea) to support firefighting capabilities. 6.3 Medical Kona Community Hospital is a full service hospital located in Kealakehe, approximately 15 miles from the project site. The hospital's service area covers from Kohala to Hawaiian Ocean View Estates in Kau. Hospital services includes: ■ Acute inpatient medical/surgical ■ Obstetrics ■ Skilled nursing ■ Intensive care ■ Outpatient surgery. ■ Outpatient and ancillary services include: - 24-hour emergency room 6-4 IGrey Infrastructure Report Kona Community Hospital does not provide the following services and must send out to other hospitals: ® Emergency response critical ® Kidney Dialysis (Hilo) ® Cardiac services (Maui) ® Some orthopedic services (more critical cases transferred to Queens) 1 1 1 6-5 - Laboratory -Radiology - Pharmacy - Occupational, physical, respiratory and speech therapy - Dietary services - Kimo Therapy - Radiation Therapy ■ Psychiatric Services ® 94 -beds (49 acute, 11 psychiatric and 34 long-term). Kona Community Hospital does not provide the following services and must send out to other hospitals: ® Emergency response critical ® Kidney Dialysis (Hilo) ® Cardiac services (Maui) ® Some orthopedic services (more critical cases transferred to Queens) 1 1 1 6-5 Grey Infrastructure Report I This page left blank intentionally. 1 1 1 Grey Infrastructure Report 7 SCHOOLS 7.1 Existing Conditions 7.1.1 Public School System The public school system in Kona is comprised of the Konawaena and Kealakehe Complexes. Kealakehe Complex Track The Kealakehe Complex track for students entering elementary schools is as follows: Elementary Schools ' Kealakehe Kealakehe Holualoa I> Intermediate Kahakai School 1 fl 1 n Kealakehe High School Konawaena Complex Tract The Konawaena Complex track for students entering elementary schools is as follows: Elementary Schools Konawaena Honaunau I Hookena Konawaena Konawaena High Middle School �� School Table 7-1 lists schools in each of the complexes along with their past, current and projected future enrollment. The 2005 General Plan acknowledges the possibility of transferring students at Hookena and Honauanau to the Konawaena complex due to extremely limited program offerings and small student enrollment. In addition to the public schools, the Hawaii Public School System also includes Hawaiian Language Immersion Schools and Public Charter Schools. Hawaiian Language Immersion Schools immerse children in the Hawaiian language by using it as the primary language in the classroom. Kanu o ka Aina New Century Public Charter School (NCPCS) and Ke Kula o Ehunukaimalino are the only Hawaiian Language Immersion School in West Hawaii. West Hawaii Explorations Academy Charter Public School, Innovations Public Charter School (PCS) and are charter schools located in West Hawaii 7-1 Kailua Keauhou Legend j School C Library Major Roads Other Roads 0 2 4 8 Miles Figure 7-1 Schools and Libraries Kona Community Development Plan Kealakekua M1101ii M2PS\.aJJ08 u 41 0 IGrey Infrastructure Report !I L 1 1 1 J Table 7-1 Projected and Current Enrollment of the DOE West Hawaii Complex Schools School Name Enrollment 1998-1999 Enrollment 2002-2003 Current Enrollment 2005-2006 Projected Enrollment SY06-07 Kealakehe Complex Kealakehe High School 779 1,437 1,325 1,543 Kealakehe Intermediate 951 1,014 838 914 Kealakehe Elementary 1,021 965 860 955 Holualoa Elementary 438 446 423 458 Kahakai Elementary 702 591 575 620 Innovations PCS N/A 157 119 120 Kanu o ka'aina NCPCS N/A 95 109 103 West Hawaii Explorations PCS N/A 116 133 120 Sub -total 3,891 4,821 4,382 4,833 Konawaena Complex Konawaena High 1,505 869 800 915 Konawaena Middle 229 226 384 438 Konawaena Elementary 683 653 539 554 Honaunau Elementary 391 226 109 123 Hookena Elementary 321 281 103 127 Ke Kula o Ehunuikaimalino N/A 101 133 1 185 Sub -total 3,129 2,356 17,177 2,068 2,342 TOTAL 7,020 6,450 17,175 7.1.2 Private Schools Kamehameha Schools provides early childhood education programs on West Hawaii as well as Extension Education for ages. Early Childhood education schools in Kona are located in Kailua-Kona, Kona, and Honaunau. ' The private schools within Kona are relatively small in size with the exception of Hualalai Academy and Kona Christian Academy. Slightly over ninety percent of school age youth attend public schools. Other private schools are Kona Adventist School, ' Makua Lani Christian School and Hawaii Montessori School. 7.2 Expansion Plans ' Currently, Kealakehe High School and Holualoa Elementary are near capacity.\ while Kealakehe Elementary is close to capacity. On the other hand, Kealakehe Intermediate and schools in South Kona have ample capacity. The West Hawaii Complex ' Superintendent believes that the Kona population is transitioning as the cost of living increases, with more families leaving the region. Most of the on-going development in North Kona is for high-end residences along coast, so the area is not seeing housing ' development that creates demand on public schools. In the long term, the Superintendent feels that development will stabilize and the Kona region will have more cosmopolitan communities. More schools will be needed in North Kona, especially if ' Hawaiian Homelands develops housing. By contrast, South Kona school enrollments 7-3 L Grey Infrastructure Report Table 7-1, Private Schools in West Hawaii School Name Current Enrollment Maximum Capacity Plans for Expansion Kona Adventist School 31 Depends on Not available for public knowledge. Captain Cook K-8 no. of teachers Makua Lani Christian School 90 Approx 120 Not on this campus: New campus on Holualoa G6-12 Kona planned. Area still uncertain Hawaii Montessori School Approx. 85 At capacity Creating space for elementary by Kailua-Kona (Toddler -EI) adding walls. Looking for land to build a new campus to increase infant and upper elementary programs. Hualalai Academy Less than 240 360 Expected building in future Kailua-Kona (K-12) (Confidential). Slight growth in enrollment Kona Christian Academy Approx. 150 150 Not much change in enrollment due to Kailua-Kona (K-8) state law (turn into Palani). Turning lane prevents any expansion. Would like to. Kona Pacific School Approx. 85 105 In 3 years: 2 more buildings will go up. Kealakekua (K-7) Total. 681 There is a definite growth in student enrollment continue to decrease as the population has been relatively stable for and school age children have passed through the system Plans for a new increment of four classrooms at Kealakehe Intermediate will begin summer 2006. In the long term, if there is to be new schools, DOE projects that it would most likely be located in North Kona, beginning with an elementary schools and, in time a new middle school in Waikoloa. The area also applied for a significant self-help building project. 7-4 1 1 Grey Infrastructure Report 8 SOLID WASTE Hawaii County does not provide waste collection services. Private companies haul approximately 50% of the waste generated in areas that have relatively dense residential development to county landfills (Harding ESE, December 31, 2002). The remaining 50%, or possibly greater is self -hauled. Most self -hauled waste is taken to the County's transfer stations, which are provided for disposal of waste from single- family residences. The five transfer stations in North and South Kona are located in Kailua, Keauhou, Keei, Wailea, and Milolii are transfer stations. ' Puuanahulu Landfill in West Hawaii is a modern, state-of-the-art facility in West Hawaii As of 2002, Puuanahulu has more than 12,000,000 cubic yards of permitted air space, which would accommodate the current waste stream from West Hawaii for about 40 ' years (Harding ESE, December 31, 2002). Puuanahulu landfill is operated by county personnel with management assistance from Waste Management of Hawaii, Inc. 1 1 1 1 1 According to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan (ISWMP) (Harding ESE, December 31, 2002), agricultural waste does not enter the county system because it is recycled at the sources. Otherwise the Hawaii County Solid Waste Division disposes of all solid waste that is not diverted by recyclers. The entire population contributes to the solid waste stream from their activities at home and at work The waste, except for the portion that is diverted for recycling, reaches the landfills either through the county transfer stations or is hauled directly to the landfills by commercial enterprises or individuals. By county ordinance, only "single family household waste" may be deposited at transfer stations by "individuals not acting as, or on behalf of, a business, public agency, religious entity or non-profit organization." The County Solid Waste Division maintains transfer stations and transports the accumulated waste from the transfer stations to the landfills. Approximately 37% of the solid waste entering Puuanahulu Landfill is from county transfer stations, approximately 62% is from commercial haulers and approximately 6% from self -haulers. Table 8-1 shows how much waste is going to Puuanahulu Landfill from each of the transfer stations in Kona. The county does not have staff dedicated to recycling and operates its recycling and public education efforts through contracts with outside organizations and businesses. The county diverted approximately 13% of its waste during Fiscal Year 1998-1999 compared to a rate of 19% for the State of Hawaii. The ISWMP recommends several alternatives to improve solid waste management system. All eleven of the alternatives include landfill disposal of residual waste disposal of residual wastes because there are no practical methods of recycling or otherwise diverting all waste from the landfills 8-1 Grey Infrastructure Report I Table 8-1 Quantities of Solid Waste from Transfer Stations For Year 2000 Transfer Station Annual Tonna a Percent of Total Kailua/Kealakehe 7,535.19 46 Keauhou 4,741.25 29 Keei 2,022.37 12 Waiea 1 1,844.51 11 Milolii 22879 2 Total 16,372.11 Source: Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii, Harding ESE, December 39 2002. The Bottle Bill began on January 1, 2005. For the first year, Hawaii County had a redemption rate of about 60%. . I According the 2005 Mayor's Report, landfill diversion increased from 15.7% to 20% from July 2004 — June 2005. July 2005 — October 2005, landfill diversion was 26%. 1 1 1 8-2 1 r. 1 1 G r C 1 1 Grey Infrastructure Report 9 REFERENCES 1. County of Hawaii, Department of Planning. Kona Regional Plan. 1982 2. County of Hawaii, Department of Planning. County of Hawaii General Plan. February 2005. 3. County of Hawaii, Department of Public Works, Fax — Updated Conditional Letters of Map Revisions, August 28, 2006. 4. Juvik and Juvik. Atlas of Hawaii, Third Edition. University of Hawaii Press, Honolulu, 1998. 5 Prepared for County of Hawaii Department of Planning, Prepared by R.M. Towill Corporation. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan, April 1991 6. Prepared for County of Hawaii Department of Planning, Prepared by Townscape and Traffic Management Consultant. Keahole to Kailua Development Plan Revised Roadway Plan Implementation Strategy. February 1997 7. Prepared for County of Hawaii Department of Planning, Prepared by R.M. Towill Corporation. Master Plan for Kailua-Kona. April 1994. 8. Prepared for County of Hawaii Department of Planning, Prepared by Wil Chee — Planning. Kailua Village Design Plan. July 1988. 9. County of Hawaii Planning Department. Hawaii County General Plan. February 2005. 10. County of Hawaii Mayor's Office, 2005 Year in Review, 2006 Looking Forward Projects and Issues 11. Prepared for State of Hawaii Planning Office, prepared by Harland Bartholomew and Associates Highlights from A Plan for Kona. March 1960. 12. Prepared for State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources, prepared by Fukunaga & Associates. Statewide Capital Improvements Program Flood Control Projects, Report R98. April 1994. 13. Harding ESE. Update to the Integrated Solid Waste Management Plan for the County of Hawaii. December 31, 2002. 14. Kona/Kohala Roundtable. Kona/Kohala Natural Resource Area Workshop Summary Report — Final Recommendations, June 1995. 9-1 Grey Infrastructure Report 15. Kona/Kohala Roundtable. Kona/Kohala Natural Resource Area Workshop Summary Report, November 1993. 16. County of Hawaii Police Department, 2003 — 2004 Annual Report. 17. Prepared for Department of Environmental Management County of Hawaii, Prepared by SSFM International. North Kona Improvement District Project Draft Sewer Master Plan Report. May 2006. 18. Personal Communication with Mr. Watson Okubo, Department of Health, May 31, 2006. 19. Stanely S. Shimabukuro and Associates, Inc. Master Plan Report for North Kona Flood Control Project (Holualoa Drainage System) Ordinance No. 586. December 1974. 20. State of Hawaii Department of Land and Natural Resources. Flood Control and Flood Water Conservation in Hawaii, Volume 11 (Revised) General Flood Control Plan for Hawaii, Circular C93. September 1983. 21. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. North Kona Flood Plain Management Study. December 1984. 22. U.S. Department of Agriculture, Soil Conservation Service. South Kona Flood Hazard Analyses. July 1977. FIGURES — DATA SOURCES All Figures ■ Kona boundaries, Judicial Districts: State of Hawaii Planning Office, 1983 ■ Tax Map Key. State of Hawaii Planning Office, http://hawaii.aovldbedt/gis/ ■ Major and Other Roads: State of Hawaii, Office of Elections, January 2002; Rectified by County of Hawaii Planning Department, December 2003. Updated on February 13, 2004. Figure 2-1: WastewaterZervice ■ Wastewater Service Area: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Wastewater Treatment Plant: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Pump Station: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Gravity Line: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Lateral. County of Hawaii Planning Department Figure 2-2: Critical Wastewater Disposal Area (CWDA) ■ CWDA: State of Hawaii, Department of Health, Environmental Management, Wastewater Division (Island of Hawaii). February 2004. Ppb ' Grey Infrastructure Report ' Figures 3-1 and 3-2 Flood & Drainage for North Kona and South Kona ■ Zone: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Lastest LOMR: County of Hawaii Planning Department ' ■ Streams: State of Hawaii Planning Office, http://hawaii.gov/dbedL/ ices/ Figure 3-3 Flood Occurrences ' ■ Flood Occurrence: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Streams: State of Hawaii Planning Office, http://hawaii.gov/dbedVgis/ ' Figure 4-1 Existing Roadway Network ■ Major and Other Roads: State of Hawaii, Office of Elections, January 2002; Rectified by County of Hawaii Planning Department, December 2003. Updated on February 13, 2004. Figure 4-2 Existing and Proposed Bikeways ' ■ Bikeways: County of Hawaii Planning Department Figure 5-1 Parks ■ County Park- County of Hawaii Planning Department ' ■ State Park: County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Federal Park: County of Hawaii Planning Department ' Figure 6-1 Emergency Services ■ Hospital. County of Hawaii Planning Department ■ Fire Station: County of Hawaii Planning Department ' ■ Police Station: County of Hawaii Planning Department Figure 7-1 Schools and Libraries ' School. County of Hawaii Planning Department Library. County of Hawaii Planning Department 1 9-3 KONA N�W Community Development Plan